Obama's Performance (so far) - Page 9 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 03-11-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us...rmarks.html?hp

from the ny times this afternoon, obama on the earmark question. it's basically the same argument that i cited above.
this bit of reality will no doubt have no effect on the right.

I don't have a problem with imperfection or failing to meet high standards. I have a problem with the pretense or the "snake oil" sales pitch he made when he ran. I knew many of his promises were b.s., but he wanted us to believe his rhetoric about "change" and a new day, or whatever he was saying to get into the national panties. Admit it, you got talked into sex with a smooth talker and now it is the morning after.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

that's nice, ace. but none of it stops you from being like a repetition machine when it comes to conservative talking points of the moment.

How do you know I don't create the talking points? Ever notice that many of the points made by talking heads are made here first?

roachboy · 03-11-2009, 12:54 PM

ace what the hell are you talking about? you're imputing to me your own delusions concerning what a "typical obama supporter" as constructed by the balthering classes on the right would prefer to think.

i'm not particularly a supporter of obama--i think he pays too much attention to fools like you, wastes too much energy trying to take the nitwit worldview you inhabit seriously. i would prefer that obama were quite a lot more aggressive in marginalizing conservatives and would have a clearer, stronger plan for what he's going to do moving forward.

but you believe whatever nonsense floats your boat, whatever helps you preserve the seal on that jar you live in that enables you to pretend that there's no economic crisis, that neoliberalism makes sense, and that your "arguments" are coherent. maybe find more interesting conservative talking heads to repeat messages from. that'd help.

Willravel · 03-11-2009, 12:58 PM

No need for name calling.

I find it absolutely hilarious that Obama jammed a bunch of lower taxes in his plan because he thought it would appease the right. I like Obama, but he's naive.

aceventura3 · 03-11-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace what the hell are you talking about? you're imputing to me your own delusions concerning what a "typical obama supporter" as constructed by the balthering classes on the right would prefer to think.

What is a "typical Obama supporter"?

When I used the word "you", I was not referring to you, but "us" collectively, I just had difficulty with the thought that "I" am a part of the "us", getting screwed. I apologize for the confusion. But my point is that we had a man saying everything the nation wanted to hear to get elected and now there is reality to deal with.

roachboy · 03-11-2009, 03:07 PM

i understand the gist of your problem, ace.
it's abundantly clear.
what you do not seem to understand are the myriad reasons for not bothering with most of them--they aren't serious as critiques--they're based on some arbitrary standard for action that no president has lived up to, least of all republicans. what conservatives arrogate to themselves--probably out of habit given the extent to which conservative language has been dominant over the past decades--is the ability to set those standards. but that doesn't come from anywhere, isn't based on anything--it's a best a collective verbal tic.

so far, i think obama's been pretty consistent in doing what he said he would do--as consistent as any reasonable person might expect--a bit more so even in some areas. not all.

on the earmark thing that the right is trying to make hay about: the claim that the budget was negociated last fall is not really open to debate. if that's the case, then it hardly makes sense to thrash about concerning it's content, now does it?

maybe for conservatives it does, but that has more to do with the sorry position the last 8 years of conservative power has left them in than it does with anything about the obama administration.

but i'll say that i would prefer fewer earmarks, mostly because even as i understand them to be a way in which congress does horsetrading in order to broker deals that enable stuff to get done, they seem an end-around insofar as an actual democratic process is concerned, shallow though it may be. so next year, we'll all see.

in the immediate run, the debacle left behind by neoliberalism is a far greater concern to me. i can't imagine why it isn't to you.

filtherton · 03-11-2009, 03:29 PM

I think maybe the earmark critics are under the impression that the president personally writes legislation, or that the president has line item veto power.

asaris · 03-11-2009, 04:23 PM

I don't understand the complaints about earmarks. First, to the best of my recollection, Obama never promised to get rid of earmarks. And second, he shouldn't get rid of them. They're simply how Congress makes sure the money it's spending is being spent how it wants. Sure, there are sometimes silly things that the money gets spent on, but getting rid of earmarks altogether just throws the baby out with the bathwater. Moreover, most of what sounds silly is often not. Consider volcano monitoring, a vital technology proven to save lives -- this is what the Republican party chooses to criticize, just because they think it might sound silly.

robot_parade · 03-11-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

I don't understand the complaints about earmarks. First, to the best of my recollection, Obama never promised to get rid of earmarks. And second, he shouldn't get rid of them. They're simply how Congress makes sure the money it's spending is being spent how it wants. Sure, there are sometimes silly things that the money gets spent on, but getting rid of earmarks altogether just throws the baby out with the bathwater. Moreover, most of what sounds silly is often not. Consider volcano monitoring, a vital technology proven to save lives -- this is what the Republican party chooses to criticize, just because they think it might sound silly.

I think what Obama's goal is with earmarks is similar to some of his other goals - to make government more transparent. IIRC, he has pushed for congresscritters to put all of the earmarks they request up on The Internets for public review and comment.

I think earmarks are possibly a useful tool, but have unfortunately been abused in the past. I think it's great that congresspeople can single out individual projects and needs in their districts, and put some federal dollars towards them. In the ideal case, this makes government more responsive to local needs, instead of vast, one size fits all 'programs'. At worst, it lets congresspeople play politics and line the pockets of their donors.

With proper regulation and controls, I think earmarks could be a great thing. Say if each and every congressperson got $x (maybe based on the # of people in their district) to spend on discretionary projects, with 100% transparency, and perhaps other controls. They should be able to say 'we need a library in our district, here's $1mil for it...but shouldn't be able to select which contractor gets to build the library.

Aladdin Sane · 03-12-2009, 08:53 AM

President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill Wednesday that includes thousands of pet projects inserted by lawmakers, even as he unveiled new rules to restrict such so-called earmarks.

At the same time, after Democrats criticized former President George W. Bush's signing statements, Mr. Obama issued one of his own, declaring five provisions in the spending bill to be unconstitutional and nonbinding, including one aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.
Here's Obama during the campaign talking about the unconstitutionality of signing statements:

YouTube - Obama on Presidential Signing Statements

filtherton · 03-12-2009, 09:25 AM

I have to say I'm enjoying the convoluted ways in which certain people are attempting to bring fanatical Obama supporters to task.

I was going to respond to Mr. Sane, but then I realized that I'm probably not an Obama "disciple" even though I voted for him. I then wondered if such disciples actually exist, given the overly simplistic naivete attributed to them. Then, assuming that they do exist, I wondered whether they constitute a significant enough portion of the American populace to warrant the desperate attempts by folks like Mr. Sane to hold them accountable for every discrepancy between Obama the president from Obama the candidate.

Clearly, many of the folks like Mr. Sane (I don't know specifically about him/her) don't actually have problems with the things Obama is doing, because they didn't seem to speak up while the last president was doing them.

And it can't be that a president breaking campaign promises is that interesting: is anyone really surprised when it happens?

So what is the deal with this psychological need to take mythical Obama disciples to task?

I guess in other words: Who fucking cares?

Aladdin Sane · 03-12-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I have to say I'm enjoying the convoluted ways in which certain people are attempting to bring fanatical Obama supporters to task.

I was going to respond to Mr. Sane, but then I realized that I'm probably not an Obama "disciple" even though I voted for him. I then wondered if such disciples actually exist, given the overly simplistic naivete attributed to them. Then, assuming that they do exist, I wondered whether they constitute a significant enough portion of the American populace to warrant the desperate attempts by folks like Mr. Sane to hold them accountable for every discrepancy between Obama the president from Obama the candidate.

Clearly, many of the folks like Mr. Sane (I don't know specifically about him/her) don't actually have problems with the things Obama is doing, because they didn't seem to speak up while the last president was doing them.

And it can't be that a president breaking campaign promises is that interesting: is anyone really surprised when it happens?

So what is the deal with this psychological need to take mythical Obama disciples to task?

I guess in other words: Who fucking cares?

My suggestion: don't visit this thread if you don't care. Or stick to the subject when you decide to post, which is how is Obama doing so far.

I'll remove the offending comment since it seems to have gotten you so far off task.

filtherton · 03-12-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

My suggestion: don't visit this thread if you don't care. Or stick to the subject when you decide to post, which is how is Obama doing so far.

I was just providing my input to the discussion. If you don't like it when people respond to the things you post, well, then, you know.

And in any case, your post is actually more about implicitly playing up the significance of Obama fanatics for the purpose of calling them out than it is about how Obama is doing. The content of our posts are practically identical in their proximity to how Obama is doing.

Quote:

I'll remove the offending comment since it seems to have gotten you so far off task.

Too late. The damage is done

. Besides, your post provides context for my post. The thread just won't flow right without it.

Aladdin Sane · 03-12-2009, 09:57 AM

You are right. Good bye.

aceventura3 · 03-12-2009, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i understand the gist of your problem, ace.
it's abundantly clear.
what you do not seem to understand are the myriad reasons for not bothering with most of them--they aren't serious as critiques--they're based on some arbitrary standard for action that no president has lived up to, least of all republicans. what conservatives arrogate to themselves--probably out of habit given the extent to which conservative language has been dominant over the past decades--is the ability to set those standards. but that doesn't come from anywhere, isn't based on anything--it's a best a collective verbal tic.

so far, i think obama's been pretty consistent in doing what he said he would do--as consistent as any reasonable person might expect--a bit more so even in some areas. not all.

Actually I have a very realistic view of the presidency. I know Presidents are flawed. Bush had his, Clinton had his, etc., what I am having fun with is the unrealistic expectations some had for Obama given his campaign rhetoric. I stated early on that there would be very little difference between the US under Obama compared to Bush. As much as Obama criticized Bush I am certain most of his supporters expected more. But, for example, as much as Rumsfeld was criticized, Gietner deserves an equal amount. Both men are in critical roles, and neither had a "winnable" strategy. Bush stayed with his guy too long (given he would not change), and Obama is staying with his and it will be for too long (and perhaps he never should have be given the job)

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

I don't understand the complaints about earmarks.

The first problem was that he initially blamed Bush for the earmarks in the bill. That was b.s. And I guess the question is, when do you get tired of b.s.?

mixedmedia · 03-12-2009, 02:40 PM

Do you really suppose Obama supporters were primarily motivated by his stance against earmarking?

Why do Democrats have to be portrayed as zealots for voting for the frigging Democratic candidate for president?

Let me put forth a challenge here:

Can someone name five issues that Obama supporters were motivated by that don't include earmarking?

I'll even make it easier and put out the first one.

WAR. (That's a pretty important one for me personally.)

Let's see how difficult it is to come up with just four more important issues that contrast dramatically with the Bush presidency that may have motivated people to be enthusiastic about the Obama presidency.

Actually, I unwittingly gave away another important, motivational issue: THE BUSH PRESIDENCY. The enthusiasm about Obama was directly proportional to the repugnance people were feeling for the previous administration. I think it's a law of physics or something.

ring · 03-12-2009, 03:29 PM

The pendulum swing, Ms. Mixed.

Mr..Obama I believe is doing the best performance, (in the theatre sense),
he possibly could.

I wouldn't be able to stand before the nation at this point without visible knee-knocking.

roachboy · 03-12-2009, 03:39 PM

ace, darling, you just go right ahead and make up whatever you like that keeps your boat afloat.

i voted for obama because of his opposition to the iraq debacle.
i voted for him because of his support for health care system overhaul.
i voted for him because i figured that another republican administration after 8 years of the bush people would indicate that the united states had lost it's collective mind and could not be trusted to act in anyone's best interest any more. this became more a factor as neoliberal-land started to come undone in a serious way.

and while i don't support everything he's done, and do not imagine that i will support everything he'll do---i find it a good thing that he's intelligent and curious about the world. and articulate. and the general outline of his policies so far have been a welcome dose of sanity after years of conservative ineptitude.

mixedmedia · 03-12-2009, 06:10 PM

Roachboy's post reminds me that I was also wanting to add that most of the people who voted for Obama, didn't have illusions about what he would be able to accomplish. This idea that we're all Pollyannas one spending bill away from total disillusionment is bullshit. More distraction. Distraction that serves to diminish the REAL reasons people voted for Obama. I know that many of us here in the TFP politics forum expressed these same thoughts long before the election. Obama is a politician and in politics someone always loses...and it's only sharply demarcated down party lines at election time. In fact, in the last few years I've become more of the mind that partisan politics is about theater - drama that keeps voters motivated - while the real power lies with those skilled in networking, sales and marketing. Oh my, just like big business.

I have been disappointed by choices made by the Obama administration thus far and I am positive I will be disappointed by their choices in the future. Thus is politics. And all this nitpicking and finger-pointing is childish. You want to ask folks about the disappointment of campaign promises? Try the pro-lifers. Right now I'm going to go back to watching Project Runway and finish my beer. Guess that makes me a good American. A good American that can rest easier tonight knowing there's not a war-mongering dunderhead in the White House.

silent_jay · 03-13-2009, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Huge problem #1: We will never, ever, get rid of "universal health care," no matter how shitty it is (and it will be) once it's put in place. The damage will be enacted upon all future generations.

I rather enjoy my universal health care, into the hospital to get something looked at, back out with my prescription in an hour, thank fuck I'm not American as it would have cost me my left nut to get anything done. You think it will be shitty, you don't know it is for a fact as you've most likely never used it.

I love how people mind fuck themselves into believing something is horrible, without actually knowing what they're on about.

dippin · 03-14-2009, 01:44 AM

I am not defending earmarks in any way. But the republican fetish over earmarks is relatively easy to understand.

How can you run as the party of "small government" when most of the population, rightly or wrongly, loves big government programs?
Now, in concept most of the population claim to like small government. But when they are actually asked about programs and spending items, most of them actually support a bigger government. The biggest item in the US budget is the military, and cutting spending on defense is incredibly unpopular. So where would a small government party cut spending? Well, they could cut it in entitlements, but the fact is that social security remains highly popular. Healthcare? Most support more govt. spending, not less.

So what does that leave a party of small government that wants to remain politically competitive?

Now, I am not making a value judgment about whether or not these programs are good or big govt is good. But the point remains that most people who say they are for small government are actually against cutting spending on the biggest items on the budget. So for a party to campaign on a small govt. they have to either expect defeat and campaign on cutting social security benefits and defense spending, or they have to try to blow small unpopular programs out of proportion.

Rekna · 03-14-2009, 10:32 AM

Find me a quote where Obama said he would eliminate earmarks?

Here is a video that includes what Obama said during the debates. Conservative media claim Obama broke earmarks pledge he never made - Daily Kos TV (beta)

He never once said he would eliminate them.

flstf · 03-14-2009, 01:04 PM

I guess I am confused. After watching the debates it seemed like McCain and Obama were going at it for quite some time over who would be toughest at eliminating earmarks. I got the impression that both men would never sign a bill with earmarks again. In my defense I bet the majority of people watching the debates got the same impression.

Now I see that what he really said was “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” I guess I thought that meant he would go over it line by line and veto any bill unless the earmarks tacked on were eliminated. I guess his line by line analysis of the latest spending bill means he either agrees with all the 8500 earmarks or has decided to not pick a fight with congress at this time. It should be noted that Republicans account for something like 40 to 45% of the earmarks added to this spending bill.

Rekna · 03-14-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I guess I am confused. After watching the debates it seemed like McCain and Obama were going at it for quite some time over who would be toughest at eliminating earmarks. I got the impression that both men would never sign a bill with earmarks again. In my defense I bet the majority of people watching the debates got the same impression.

Now I see that what he really said was “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” I guess I thought that meant he would go over it line by line and veto any bill unless the earmarks tacked on were eliminated. I guess his line by line analysis of the latest spending bill means he either agrees with all the 8500 earmarks or has decided to not pick a fight with congress at this time. It should be noted that Republicans account for something like 40 to 45% of the earmarks added to this spending bill.

Do you think the reason you have that impression might be because the right wing media has been pushing this as fact even though it appears that it isn't fact at all?

Sun Tzu · 03-14-2009, 06:36 PM

taken out of context?

dippin · 03-14-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

taken out of context?

well, considering that the discussion above is about campaign promises, and this video is about a bill he signed as president, then yes, this is precisely the definition of "taken out of context."

In fact, in the speeches included in this montage, he says that the earmark process has been "abused' and needs to be "reformed." So he clearly does not promise to eliminate earmarks.

Now, what he does say again and again during the video is that the stimulus bill does not contain earmarks. And according to the specific definition of earmarks, it really doesnt. Now, this is of course disingenuous, as it relies on a technicality. It is a bit of politicking on his part, but I am not partisan enough to throw my hands in the air about politicking from the president at the same time the republicans do quite a bit of politicking themselves over this issue. In fact, it is no worse than trying to pass off speeches as president as part of campaign promises.

Rekna · 03-14-2009, 08:01 PM

Yeah he didn't promise anywhere in that video to never have earmarks. Besides the president can't decide if a bill has earmarks or not short of vetoing every single bill that congress passes.

Sun Tzu · 03-15-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Yeah he didn't promise anywhere in that video to never have earmarks. Besides the president can't decide if a bill has earmarks or not short of vetoing every single bill that congress passes.

I didnt hear or read that he made a promise, however he does state "We passed a recovery plan free of earmarks".

Whatever, politicians should start saying what they mean, and mean what they say. Does breaking promises weigh any more or less over straight forward bullshiting?

Rekna · 03-15-2009, 11:55 AM

They did pass a recovery plan without earmarks....

Sun Tzu · 03-15-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

They did pass a recovery plan without earmarks....

This all seems like a twisted version of the Emperor's New Clothes.

aceventura3 · 03-16-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

WAR. (That's a pretty important one for me personally.)

The Iraq war is coming to a conclusion under its natural time frame and has little to do with Obama. Obama is expanding the war effort in Afghanistan. In Afgahnistan the Obama administration recently made a determination that "enemy combatants" don't have a right to habeous corpus no different than what Bush did with the people detained at Gitmo. Oh, and Gitmo is still open.

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I am not defending earmarks in any way. But the republican fetish over earmarks is relatively easy to understand.

The earmarks thing was simply the item of the day. Today, it is the AIG thing. Obama is demanding they rescind the bonuses paid. Why did he support giving them the "bailout" without the controls to "protect the tax payers" that he said was in place? Was he duped by AIG? Was he lying when he said controls were in place? Did he even read the bailout legislation he supported for AIG? Is he just turning the issue in to a "political" issue to divert attention from his failure with the Treasury Dept?

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Find me a quote where Obama said he would eliminate earmarks?

Let's not pretend Obama was silent on this issue. No matter how we parse his language, the only reason Obama talked about earmarks at all was because of McCain. Obama knew he needed to take some of that issue away from McCain so that his spending proposals would not seem as radical as they actually were. Obama talking about earmarks was purely political, pure showmanship, pure b.s., and we on the right knew it, Congress knew it, his special interests base knew it, and the rest simply did not care. Those in the "did not care" category, please be honest about it.

dippin · 03-16-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why did he support giving them the "bailout" without the controls to "protect the tax payers" that he said was in place? Was he duped by AIG? Was he lying when he said controls were in place?

I don't think you quite get the issue there. The problem with AIG is that the executives have threatened to sue if they don't get the bonuses they were granted before the bailout took place. I.e. they are arguing that the controls in place dont apply to them. We might agree or not on whether the whole bonus issue is even relevant, but there is no change in tune there.

aceventura3 · 03-16-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I don't think you quite get the issue there. The problem with AIG is that the executives have threatened to sue if they don't get the bonuses they were granted before the bailout took place. I.e. they are arguing that the controls in place dont apply to them. We might agree or not on whether the whole bonus issue is even relevant, but there is no change in tune there.

There were no controls in place. The Federal government, initially "gave" (loaned/invested/whatever) AIG $85 billion for them to avoid bankruptcy. The government became the major shareholder and AIG continued its operations and its contractual obligations continued. Bankruptcy would have caused all obligations to be evaluated including any obligation to pay bonuses.

{added} And I find this interesting as people get bent over about $100 million in bonuses, what about the billions sent to other institutions including overseas?

Quote:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Where, oh where, did AIG's bailout billions go? That question may reverberate even louder through the halls of government in the week ahead now that a partial list of beneficiaries has been published.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that about $50 billion of more than $173 billion that the U.S. government has poured into American International Group Inc since last fall has been paid to at least two dozen U.S. and foreign financial institutions.

The newspaper reported that some of the banks paid by AIG since the insurer started getting taxpayer funds were: Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Deutsche Bank AG, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale, Calyon, Barclays Plc, Rabobank, Danske, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Banco Santander, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, Bank of America, and Lloyds Banking Group.

Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs declined to comment when contacted by Reuters. Bank of America, Calyon, and Wells Fargo, which has absorbed Wachovia, could not be reached for comment.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has refused to publicize a list of AIG's derivative counterparties and what they have been paid since the bailout, riling the U.S. Senate Banking Committee.

Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn testified before that committee on Thursday that revealing names risked jeopardizing AIG's continuing business. Kohn said there were millions of counterparties around the globe, including pension funds and U.S. households.

He said the intention was not to protect AIG or its counterparties, but to prevent the spread of AIG's infection.

The Wall Street Journal, citing a confidential document and people familiar with the matter, reported that Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank each got about $6 billion in payments between the middle of September and December last year.

Once the world's largest insurer, AIG has been described by the United States as being too extensively intertwined with the global financial system to be allowed to fail.

The Federal Reserve first rode to AIG's rescue in September with an $85 billion credit line after losses from toxic investments, many of which were mortgage related, and collateral demands from banks, left AIG staring down bankruptcy.

Late last year, the rescue packaged was increased to $150 billion. The bailout was overhauled again a week ago to offer the insurer an additional $30 billion in equity.

AIG was first bailed out shortly after investment bank Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail and brokerage Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America Corp.

Bankruptcy for AIG would have led to complications and losses for financial institutions around the world doing business with the company and policy holders that AIG insured against losses.

Representative Paul Kanjorski told Reuters on Thursday that he had been informed that a large number of AIG's counterparties were European.

"That's why we could not allow AIG to fail as we allowed Lehman to fail, because that would have precipitated the failure of the European banking system," said Kanjorski, a Democrat from Pennsylvania who chairs the House Insurance Subcommittee.

TOXIC ASSETS/TOXIC WASTE

As part of its business, AIG insured counterparties on mortgage-backed securities and other assets. The collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market, which triggered a global financial crisis, left the insurer and some of its policy holders facing possible ruin as the value of assets declined.

U.S. regulators failed to recognize how much risk AIG was piling on in credit-default swaps, and by the time they understood, they had no choice but to pour in billions of public dollars, Kohn and other officials told the Senate panel.

Senators were outraged by the lack of details about where the bailout money has gone.

"That we find ourselves in this situation at all is ... quite frankly, sickening," said Senator Christopher Dodd, the Democrat who chairs the committee. "The lack of transparency and accountability in this process has been rather stunning."

Eric Dinallo, superintendent of New York State's Insurance Department, railed on Friday against AIG's failed business model, likening its insuring credit-default swaps as gambling with somebody else's money.

"It's like taking insurance on your neighbor's house and even maybe contributing to blowing it up," he said at a panel sponsored by New York University's Stern School of Business.

U.S. lawmakers have said they are running out of patience with regulators' refusal to identify AIG's counterparties.

On Thursday, Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the banking committee, said: "The Fed and Treasury can be secretive for a while but not forever."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ns_1236517245/

To me this illustrates a fundamental problem with government trying to micro-manage the private sector. They simply don't know what they are doing. So, after the first $85 billion, they throw more and more money at the problem, and now there is still another $30 billion infusion on the table and still no accounting for the money or controls, when will it end?

powerclown · 03-16-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Obama is expanding the war effort in Afghanistan.

NO BLOOD FOR...HEROIN?

silent_jay · 03-16-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The Iraq war is coming to a conclusion.......

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, now I remember. Oh how wrong shrub was.

Quote:

Oh, and Gitmo is still open.

For now, I believe I read in one of those there fancy newspapers it was closing, and the time line was a year from the date he signed the Executive Order, now that was on Jan. 22 2009, have we hit January 22 2010 already? Where the fuck did that year go and what the fuck was I on to miss it? Pretty optimistic though that you seem to think it should only take a month and a half to close it.

Now notice the date ace, notice the date

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Obama signs order to close Guantánamo Bay
Thursday 22 January 2009
Prison that symbolises George Bush's 'war on terror' will be shut down, accompanied by ban on torture and review of military trials

Barack Obama has signed an executive order to shut down the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay – the most potent symbol of excess in George Bush's "war on terror".

The new US president signed two other executive orders to review the use of military trials for terror suspects and ban the harshest interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.

The three executive orders – on the second day of the new administration – showed that Obama was determined to move swiftly to implement some of his key campaign pledges. Administration staff applauded at the signing ceremony in the Oval Office.

"The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly," Obama said. "We are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

A draft copy of the order said: "In view of significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facility would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice."

An estimated 245 men are being held at Guantánamo, a US naval base in Cuba. Most have been locked up for years without being charged with a crime. Obama's plans to review military trials of terror suspects and end harsh interrogations were being assembled even before he won the election in November.

The UN's torture investigator, Manfred Nowak, welcomed the move and said freed inmates should be allowed to sue the US if they had been mistreated. "Justice also means to look into the past," Nowak told the Associated Press. Nowak has previously said he has reliable accounts of torture at Guantánamo. Lawyers for two inmates, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Mohammed Jawad, have said their clients were tortured.

In Saudi Arabia, families of the country's 13 remaining Guantánamo detainees rejoiced at the news.

"That was a humane decision. We're very optimistic," said Ali al-Sayari, whose son Abdullah, 28, has been there for eight years. The family has not heard from or about him for the past two years.

"Obama is correcting the mistakes of his predecessor," said Ali al-Shamrani, whose nephew Mohammed al-Shamrani has been in Guantánamo for eight years.

Obama's nominee to be the director of national intelligence is set to tell Congress there will be no torture, harsh interrogations or wiretaps without warrants under his command.

In remarks prepared for his confirmation hearing, retired Admiral Dennis Blair said he believed "torture is not moral, legal or effective".

The signing of the executive orders came as Hillary Clinton, on her first day as secretary of state, pledged to pursue robust diplomacy and effective development to advance America's interests. About 1,000 state department employees gave Clinton a rousing welcome as she spoke at the main entrance to the building. She had been confirmed overwhelmingly in the job by the Senate.

"I will do all that I can working with you to make it abundantly clear that robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America's future," Clinton said. "I believe with all my heart that this is a new era for America."

Waiting for Clinton in her office was a letter of welcome and advice from her immediate predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, who was criticised by staff for not doing enough to increase funding for diplomats.

Obama is expected to name George Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic leader, as his Middle East envoy. Mitchell, 75, who helped broker the Good Friday peace accords in Northern Ireland, led an international commission under former president Bill Clinton that investigated the causes of the second intifada in 2000.

In his first full day on the job, the president yesterday telephoned several Middle Eastern leaders including president Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, in an indication that he will devote serious attention to the Middle East early on in his administration – in sharp contrast to Bush.

Quote:

Obama is expanding the war effort in Afghanistan.

I should fuckin hope he does something, The US went in their balls hanging out, then quickly got them burnt when shrubs ADD kicked in and he wanted to get the man who tried to kill his daddy and was trying to build a (cough, cough) bomb.. Too bad sending more troops to Afghanistan didn't happen years ago, but dubya and rummy had a hard on for Iraq, so they went to the clusterfuck there instead of Usama. Bush sure did talk tough though, "We want him dead or alive" to "I just don't think about him all that much", of course he didn't, he was too busy having visions of Saddam dancing in his head.

roachboy · 03-16-2009, 01:20 PM

it's kinda funny the extent to which folk like ace have to shave so much of reality off in order to make room for their obsolete conservative viewpoints to make sense.

aig--in the hall of mirrors on the right, this is something that was engineered during the obama administration. empirically, of course, it wasn't--but hey, why let facts get in the way? the bailout of a.i.g. was entirely reactive, done with extreme speed during the endgame of an administration that was ideologically opposed to regulation and so was ideologically opposed to the type of competences required and the type of planning required to be coherent once the need came--but this is of course obama's fault.

on and on this drivel goes from the right.

o and i oppose what obama's doing in afghanistan. but that, too, is yet another bush administration mess that the right would love to pretend somehow is obama's fault.

silent_jay · 03-16-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

o and i oppose what obama's doing in afghanistan. but that, too, is yet another bush administration mess that the right would love to pretend somehow is obama's fault.

I agree with that, I oppose what Canada is doing there as well, but being as I live in a military town and have lots of military friends who are or who have gone over there I keep my objections to the mission quiet, and make sure all they hear about is my support for them, but if they ask my opinion of the mission their on, I don't hesitate to tell them what I think of it.

Derwood · 03-16-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Those in the "did not care" category, please be honest about it.

I don't care

aceventura3 · 03-16-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, now I remember. Oh how wrong shrub was.

Riddle: When is a "mission" a war? Answer: Only in the mind of a liberal

Quote:

For now, I believe I read in one of those there fancy newspapers it was closing, and the time line was a year from the date he signed the Executive Order, now that was on Jan. 22 2009, have we hit January 22 2010 already? Where the fuck did that year go and what the fuck was I on to miss it? Pretty optimistic though that you seem to think it should only take a month and a half to close it.

Now notice the date ace, notice the date

Obama could close it now. Even Bush was planning on closing it. It is not like Obama did not have time to study the issues before taking office. He is buying time. He is looking for a way to either keep it open or transfer the prisoners.

Quote:

I should fuckin hope he does something, The US went in their balls hanging out, then quickly got them burnt when shrubs ADD kicked in and he wanted to get the man who tried to kill his daddy and was trying to build a (cough, cough) bomb.. Too bad sending more troops to Afghanistan didn't happen years ago, but dubya and rummy had a hard on for Iraq, so they went to the clusterfuck there instead of Usama. Bush sure did talk tough though, "We want him dead or alive" to "I just don't think about him all that much", of course he didn't, he was too busy having visions of Saddam dancing in his head.

Afghanistan is truly not the place to engage in any type of ground war. History has shown that time and time again. More troops is a waste. What is needed is small special ops teams and strategic surgical type operations. A "surge" approach will fail. Afghanistan is not Iraq.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it's kinda funny the extent to which folk like ace have to shave so much of reality off in order to make room for their obsolete conservative viewpoints to make sense.

How much effort does it take to not understand that my position is that we should let companies like AIG fail. We should not throw good money after bad. People in the private sector know more about what they do than regulators. Bankruptcy law is an orderly approach to handling corporate failures. Government bailouts give incentive to risky behavior. The false promise of "regulation" causes people to assume more risk than they should.

Please, let me know how much effort it takes? I think even the average 5th grader can clearly understand my views.

---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

Quote:

o and i oppose what obama's doing in afghanistan. but that, too, is yet another bush administration mess that the right would love to pretend somehow is obama's fault.

Sorry, I am sure I missed the post where you outlined what you would have done after 9/11, perhaps you can fill me in. I agree Bush made some mistakes and tactical errors, and I clearly understand those who opposed the military approach we used with Iraq, but I don't understand what you or people who hold your view would have done.

dippin · 03-16-2009, 02:57 PM

people confuse morality tales with economics. Letting aig and the banks "fail" might feel good, but would be a disaster that would still be paid by the tax payers. It would completely freeze credit markets even more, disrupt the economy and with all certainty push us into a great depression. And the tax payers would either pay it all by losing all their savings, or pay it all through the fdic, or both.

It is very easy to say "let it fail" when one does not comprehend the consequences well enough. We are talking about the vast majority of the banking industry collapsing and taking any industry that needs credit in any way with them.

Now, I don't agree with what Obama is doing, because that is indirectly helping the shareholders instead of the clients. But the solution to that, which is to temporarily nationalize these institutions and resell them, is considered even worse by conservatives.

Tully Mars · 03-16-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

I don't care

Not all earmarks are bad. Hell the GOP added damn near 50% of them then started bitching about them, WTF. Well I would say WTF but this is nothing but typical GOP horse shit. We spend money and it's good. The dems spend money and it's bad. Or no it's evil, EVIL I tell you! They're going to destroy the country with their spending. Tax and spend Dems they are! For the past eight years the GOP spent like drunken sailors in a whore house. Only instead of paying for it they put it on the visa. The economy today is a result of several factors but the borrow and spend methods of the neocons is certainly in part to blame. Bush and his Neocon buddies couldn't spend fast enough. Bush vetoed how many spending bills? They poured money in to Iraq and other mind numbing stupid ideas. Blow up a bridge in Iraq? Better send a couple billion to KBR to rebuild it. Mean while bridges here in the states are falling down on their own, no bombs necessary. Why? Because bridge maintenance costs money and it wouldn't make any sense to spend money on stuff like our own infrastructure.

Now after their policies failed the GOP needs a few new talking points and earmarks is high on that list. They're just betting a large % of the US voting population to be dumb enough not to notice they're adding earmarks too. Sadly they'll likely win that bet.

One of the other sad parts is , as I said, not all earmarks are bad. People bitch and moan because the federal government want to spend money on things like honey bee research. What a dumb idea... until you realize bees are disappearing and they just happen to pollinate crops... crops that feed us. Yeah let's not spend money on that stupid research. Maybe we could spend a few billion on Iraqi bee research.

03-11-2009, 12:54 PM	#322 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace what the hell are you talking about? you're imputing to me your own delusions concerning what a "typical obama supporter" as constructed by the balthering classes on the right would prefer to think. i'm not particularly a supporter of obama--i think he pays too much attention to fools like you, wastes too much energy trying to take the nitwit worldview you inhabit seriously. i would prefer that obama were quite a lot more aggressive in marginalizing conservatives and would have a clearer, stronger plan for what he's going to do moving forward. but you believe whatever nonsense floats your boat, whatever helps you preserve the seal on that jar you live in that enables you to pretend that there's no economic crisis, that neoliberalism makes sense, and that your "arguments" are coherent. maybe find more interesting conservative talking heads to repeat messages from. that'd help. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-11-2009, 03:07 PM	#325 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i understand the gist of your problem, ace. it's abundantly clear. what you do not seem to understand are the myriad reasons for not bothering with most of them--they aren't serious as critiques--they're based on some arbitrary standard for action that no president has lived up to, least of all republicans. what conservatives arrogate to themselves--probably out of habit given the extent to which conservative language has been dominant over the past decades--is the ability to set those standards. but that doesn't come from anywhere, isn't based on anything--it's a best a collective verbal tic. so far, i think obama's been pretty consistent in doing what he said he would do--as consistent as any reasonable person might expect--a bit more so even in some areas. not all. on the earmark thing that the right is trying to make hay about: the claim that the budget was negociated last fall is not really open to debate. if that's the case, then it hardly makes sense to thrash about concerning it's content, now does it? maybe for conservatives it does, but that has more to do with the sorry position the last 8 years of conservative power has left them in than it does with anything about the obama administration. but i'll say that i would prefer fewer earmarks, mostly because even as i understand them to be a way in which congress does horsetrading in order to broker deals that enable stuff to get done, they seem an end-around insofar as an actual democratic process is concerned, shallow though it may be. so next year, we'll all see. in the immediate run, the debacle left behind by neoliberalism is a far greater concern to me. i can't imagine why it isn't to you. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-11-2009, 04:23 PM	#327 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I don't understand the complaints about earmarks. First, to the best of my recollection, Obama never promised to get rid of earmarks. And second, he shouldn't get rid of them. They're simply how Congress makes sure the money it's spending is being spent how it wants. Sure, there are sometimes silly things that the money gets spent on, but getting rid of earmarks altogether just throws the baby out with the bathwater. Moreover, most of what sounds silly is often not. Consider volcano monitoring, a vital technology proven to save lives -- this is what the Republican party chooses to criticize, just because they think it might sound silly. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

03-12-2009, 09:57 AM	#333 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	You are right. Good bye. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

03-12-2009, 02:40 PM	#335 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Do you really suppose Obama supporters were primarily motivated by his stance against earmarking? Why do Democrats have to be portrayed as zealots for voting for the frigging Democratic candidate for president? Let me put forth a challenge here: Can someone name five issues that Obama supporters were motivated by that don't include earmarking? I'll even make it easier and put out the first one. WAR. (That's a pretty important one for me personally.) Let's see how difficult it is to come up with just four more important issues that contrast dramatically with the Bush presidency that may have motivated people to be enthusiastic about the Obama presidency. Actually, I unwittingly gave away another important, motivational issue: THE BUSH PRESIDENCY. The enthusiasm about Obama was directly proportional to the repugnance people were feeling for the previous administration. I think it's a law of physics or something. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

03-11-2009, 12:58 PM	#323 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	No need for name calling. I find it absolutely hilarious that Obama jammed a bunch of lower taxes in his plan because he thought it would appease the right. I like Obama, but he's naive.

03-11-2009, 03:29 PM	#326 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think maybe the earmark critics are under the impression that the president personally writes legislation, or that the president has line item veto power.

03-12-2009, 09:25 AM	#330 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I have to say I'm enjoying the convoluted ways in which certain people are attempting to bring fanatical Obama supporters to task. I was going to respond to Mr. Sane, but then I realized that I'm probably not an Obama "disciple" even though I voted for him. I then wondered if such disciples actually exist, given the overly simplistic naivete attributed to them. Then, assuming that they do exist, I wondered whether they constitute a significant enough portion of the American populace to warrant the desperate attempts by folks like Mr. Sane to hold them accountable for every discrepancy between Obama the president from Obama the candidate. Clearly, many of the folks like Mr. Sane (I don't know specifically about him/her) don't actually have problems with the things Obama is doing, because they didn't seem to speak up while the last president was doing them. And it can't be that a president breaking campaign promises is that interesting: is anyone really surprised when it happens? So what is the deal with this psychological need to take mythical Obama disciples to task? I guess in other words: Who fucking cares?

03-12-2009, 03:29 PM	#336 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	The pendulum swing, Ms. Mixed. Mr..Obama I believe is doing the best performance, (in the theatre sense), he possibly could. I wouldn't be able to stand before the nation at this point without visible knee-knocking.

03-12-2009, 03:39 PM	#337 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace, darling, you just go right ahead and make up whatever you like that keeps your boat afloat. i voted for obama because of his opposition to the iraq debacle. i voted for him because of his support for health care system overhaul. i voted for him because i figured that another republican administration after 8 years of the bush people would indicate that the united states had lost it's collective mind and could not be trusted to act in anyone's best interest any more. this became more a factor as neoliberal-land started to come undone in a serious way. and while i don't support everything he's done, and do not imagine that i will support everything he'll do---i find it a good thing that he's intelligent and curious about the world. and articulate. and the general outline of his policies so far have been a welcome dose of sanity after years of conservative ineptitude. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-12-2009, 06:10 PM	#338 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Roachboy's post reminds me that I was also wanting to add that most of the people who voted for Obama, didn't have illusions about what he would be able to accomplish. This idea that we're all Pollyannas one spending bill away from total disillusionment is bullshit. More distraction. Distraction that serves to diminish the REAL reasons people voted for Obama. I know that many of us here in the TFP politics forum expressed these same thoughts long before the election. Obama is a politician and in politics someone always loses...and it's only sharply demarcated down party lines at election time. In fact, in the last few years I've become more of the mind that partisan politics is about theater - drama that keeps voters motivated - while the real power lies with those skilled in networking, sales and marketing. Oh my, just like big business. I have been disappointed by choices made by the Obama administration thus far and I am positive I will be disappointed by their choices in the future. Thus is politics. And all this nitpicking and finger-pointing is childish. You want to ask folks about the disappointment of campaign promises? Try the pro-lifers. Right now I'm going to go back to watching Project Runway and finish my beer. Guess that makes me a good American. A good American that can rest easier tonight knowing there's not a war-mongering dunderhead in the White House. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 03-12-2009 at 06:13 PM..

03-14-2009, 01:44 AM	#340 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I am not defending earmarks in any way. But the republican fetish over earmarks is relatively easy to understand. How can you run as the party of "small government" when most of the population, rightly or wrongly, loves big government programs? Now, in concept most of the population claim to like small government. But when they are actually asked about programs and spending items, most of them actually support a bigger government. The biggest item in the US budget is the military, and cutting spending on defense is incredibly unpopular. So where would a small government party cut spending? Well, they could cut it in entitlements, but the fact is that social security remains highly popular. Healthcare? Most support more govt. spending, not less. So what does that leave a party of small government that wants to remain politically competitive? Now, I am not making a value judgment about whether or not these programs are good or big govt is good. But the point remains that most people who say they are for small government are actually against cutting spending on the biggest items on the budget. So for a party to campaign on a small govt. they have to either expect defeat and campaign on cutting social security benefits and defense spending, or they have to try to blow small unpopular programs out of proportion.

03-14-2009, 10:32 AM	#341 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Find me a quote where Obama said he would eliminate earmarks? Here is a video that includes what Obama said during the debates. Conservative media claim Obama broke earmarks pledge he never made - Daily Kos TV (beta) He never once said he would eliminate them.

03-14-2009, 01:04 PM	#342 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I guess I am confused. After watching the debates it seemed like McCain and Obama were going at it for quite some time over who would be toughest at eliminating earmarks. I got the impression that both men would never sign a bill with earmarks again. In my defense I bet the majority of people watching the debates got the same impression. Now I see that what he really said was “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” I guess I thought that meant he would go over it line by line and veto any bill unless the earmarks tacked on were eliminated. I guess his line by line analysis of the latest spending bill means he either agrees with all the 8500 earmarks or has decided to not pick a fight with congress at this time. It should be noted that Republicans account for something like 40 to 45% of the earmarks added to this spending bill.

03-14-2009, 06:36 PM	#344 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	taken out of context? __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

03-14-2009, 08:01 PM	#346 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Yeah he didn't promise anywhere in that video to never have earmarks. Besides the president can't decide if a bill has earmarks or not short of vetoing every single bill that congress passes.

03-15-2009, 11:55 AM	#348 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	They did pass a recovery plan without earmarks....

03-16-2009, 01:20 PM	#355 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's kinda funny the extent to which folk like ace have to shave so much of reality off in order to make room for their obsolete conservative viewpoints to make sense. aig--in the hall of mirrors on the right, this is something that was engineered during the obama administration. empirically, of course, it wasn't--but hey, why let facts get in the way? the bailout of a.i.g. was entirely reactive, done with extreme speed during the endgame of an administration that was ideologically opposed to regulation and so was ideologically opposed to the type of competences required and the type of planning required to be coherent once the need came--but this is of course obama's fault. on and on this drivel goes from the right. o and i oppose what obama's doing in afghanistan. but that, too, is yet another bush administration mess that the right would love to pretend somehow is obama's fault. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-16-2009, 02:57 PM	#359 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	people confuse morality tales with economics. Letting aig and the banks "fail" might feel good, but would be a disaster that would still be paid by the tax payers. It would completely freeze credit markets even more, disrupt the economy and with all certainty push us into a great depression. And the tax payers would either pay it all by losing all their savings, or pay it all through the fdic, or both. It is very easy to say "let it fail" when one does not comprehend the consequences well enough. We are talking about the vast majority of the banking industry collapsing and taking any industry that needs credit in any way with them. Now, I don't agree with what Obama is doing, because that is indirectly helping the shareholders instead of the clients. But the solution to that, which is to temporarily nationalize these institutions and resell them, is considered even worse by conservatives.