Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's Big Sellout

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:15 PM
Original message
Obama's Big Sellout
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 08:17 PM by spiritual_gunfighter
Obama's Big Sellout
The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway

MATT TAIBBI

Posted Dec 09, 2009 2:35 PM


Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans." Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

Then he got elected.

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.

How could Obama let this happen? Is he just a rookie in the political big leagues, hoodwinked by Beltway old-timers? Or is the vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests we've been seeing on TV this fall who Obama really is?

Whatever the president's real motives are, the extensive series of loophole-rich financial "reforms" that the Democrats are currently pushing may ultimately do more harm than good. In fact, some parts of the new reforms border on insanity, threatening to vastly amplify Wall Street's political power by institutionalizing the taxpayer's role as a welfare provider for the financial-services industry. At one point in the debate, Obama's top economic advisers demanded the power to award future bailouts without even going to Congress for approval — and without providing taxpayers a single dime in equity on the deals.

How did we get here? It started just moments after the election — and almost nobody noticed.


'Just look at the timeline of the Citigroup deal," says one leading Democratic consultant. "Just look at it. It's fucking amazing. Amazing! And nobody said a thing about it."

Barack Obama was still just the president-elect when it happened, but the revolting and inexcusable $306 billion bailout that Citigroup received was the first major act of his presidency. In order to grasp the full horror of what took place, however, one needs to go back a few weeks before the actual bailout — to November 5th, 2008, the day after Obama's election.

That was the day the jubilant Obama campaign announced its transition team. Though many of the names were familiar — former Bill Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, long-time Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett — the list was most notable for who was not on it, especially on the economic side. Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who had served as one of Obama's chief advisers during the campaign, didn't make the cut. Neither did Karen Kornbluh, who had served as Obama's policy director and was instrumental in crafting the Democratic Party's platform. Both had emphasized populist themes during the campaign: Kornbluh was known for pushing Democrats to focus on the plight of the poor and middle class, while Goolsbee was an aggressive critic of Wall Street, declaring that AIG executives should receive "a Nobel Prize — for evil."


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Unrec'ed so fast that the person obviously didnt read the article
Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. How idiotic.
'Just look at the timeline of the Citigroup deal," says one leading Democratic consultant. "Just look at it. It's fucking amazing. Amazing! And nobody said a thing about it."

Barack Obama was still just the president-elect when it happened, but the revolting and inexcusable $306 billion bailout that Citigroup received was the first major act of his presidency. In order to grasp the full horror of what took place, however, one needs to go back a few weeks before the actual bailout — to November 5th, 2008, the day after Obama's election.


Citigroup was allocated TARP money on October 28, before the election.

They are now racing to pay it back because of the pay/bonus clause passed by the Democratic Congress earlier this year.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Don't confuse them with facts...
...they have a ship of fools that is sinking fast.

Thanks Pro...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
66. if there were any facts in Prosense's post..
I must have missed them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #66
136. Here here's a whole bunch of facts that Tiabbi got wrong since
Edited on Fri Dec-11-09 05:32 PM by Phx_Dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. MATT TAIBBI
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 08:25 PM by tabatha
once wrote an appalling article about Wes Clark.
Since then I have ignored him (Taibbi).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Believe me I am never surprised
by anyone on DU coming to the defense of the President on any policy no matter how completely fucked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Where in my remark did I mention Obama?
I was commenting upon Taibbi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Sorry I thought you might have read the article
I forgot that people on DU comment on articles without reading them all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. I said in my initial comment that since the Clark article
I ignored Taibbi - I think anyone (except you) would understand that "ignore" means "don't read".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. which is why i was wondering why you commented on this thread n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Matt Taibbi was the subject of the thread.
I commented on Matt Taibbi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
35. you typed with a straight face today denying you've ever bashed obama.
but you prove it with every single post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
82. Why do you insist on bashing the American people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Me too.
He's a fact-free red-meat mediawhore with devotees among the 24/7 Obama Outrage Club.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. And you still didnt read the article
but at least I didnt claim it as my own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
101. .
:spray: :rofl:

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
92. He also hates and ridicules those who question the collapse of Building 7.
I can understand mocking some of the 9-11 Truthers because their methods can be pretty obnoxious. But he mocks those who even ask questions. No matter how reasonable the questions are. Just like Bill Maher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. I still think he is one of the best journalists out there today, though.
He's just not perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #92
124. Hey, nobody's perfect
And, I suspect, if Taibbi wasn't such a dick, he'd be a much less effective journalist.

(But yes, he does piss me off with his bullshit dismissals of common-sense questions)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #124
143. Yep. I agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Thanks Prosense. It is amazing so long as it is anti Obama I
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 08:45 PM by Kdillard
Guess the facts be damned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
64. Facts be damned?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
103. The thing that's amazing to watch with these Prosense posts
Is how the apologists desperately grab for any possible excuse, no matter how poorly-researched and slanted it may be.

You never bothered to check her claim against the article, did you? Guess the facts be damned. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Video of Obama pledging his allegiance on the Senate floor to the TARP bill, Oct. 1 2008:
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 08:52 PM by brentspeak
As the most visible Democrat in the nation, by far, he was essentially the Senate's head Democratic cheerleader for the bill:

http://metavid.org/wiki/Stream:Senate_proceeding_10-01-08_00/2:38:38/2:53:07
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. And it was the complete opposite for the auto companies, Obama immediately...
called for the CEO's to come before Congress and testify, no such call for the Wall St CEO's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
55. That's not Obama, that's Saturday NIght Live, haw haw haw.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. Obama supported TARP and lobbied for it.
He made many key phone calls to members of the CBC, who initially had opposed TARP in keeping in good faith with their constituency. Obama told some of them that failure to pass TARP could interfere with his election chances, and promised it would be cleaned up when he took office. Many of Obama's economic advisers and appointees had key roles in crafting the bailouts. For these reasons, he was very much a party to the theft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. They'd rather slobber over "Obama's Big Sellout" than
deal with the facts..but, it won't matter, they can yell and scream the lies as much as their keyboards will let them but we have Obama out there doing the real work while they sit on their ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #30
68. so, tell us what "real work" you're up to whilst keyboarding here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #68
104. Hey, give her a break
typing while holding pompons is REALLY HARD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
63. ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #63
75. Typical revisionism. I remember those days all too well.
I kept my mouth shut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
87. Read the damn article, so you won't look both blind AND stupid. Citigroup deal announed 11/23/08
-edit-
So on November 23rd, 2008, a deal is announced in which the government will bail out Rubin's messes at Citigroup with a massive buffet of taxpayer-funded cash and guarantees. It is a terrible deal for the government, almost universally panned by all serious economists, an outrage to anyone who pays taxes. Under the deal, the bank gets $20 billion in cash, on top of the $25 billion it had already received just weeks before as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But that's just the appetizer. The government also agrees to charge taxpayers for up to $277 billion in losses on troubled Citi assets, many of them those toxic CDOs that Rubin had pushed Citi to invest in. No Citi executives are replaced, and few restrictions are placed on their compensation. It's the sweetheart deal of the century, putting generations of working-stiff taxpayers on the hook to pay off Bob Rubin's fuck-up-rich tenure at Citi. "If you had any doubts at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street," former labor secretary Robert Reich declares when the bailout is announced, "your doubts should be laid to rest."

-edit-

Well documented event. Seriously. Read the article, and you might better grasp what's going on around you - with Obama's bankster economic team, bogus financial reform, stupid teabaggers, and the ride we've been taken on.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hileeopnyn8d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #87
91. Who was President
on 11/23/08? How can anyone call that Obama's first "act" as President?

In February of 2009, the government took a 36% equity stake in Citigroup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #91
110. Which part of "Read the damn article" did you not understand?
?? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hileeopnyn8d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. I read the damn article
Edited on Fri Dec-11-09 12:59 PM by hileeopnyn8d
I was commenting on one fucking post, not the article. Which is why I responded to THAT post, that is how this message board thing works, correct?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Which part of "Understand the damn article" did you not understand?
Also, it wasn't my post, unless you think chimpymustgo is a sockpuppet of mine.

0-for-3. Awesome posting FAIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #87
99. They arent going to read the article
they are going to stick their fingers in their ears and scream until it all goes away, while Rome burns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
102. Hmm... reading the article a bit too much for ya?
So on November 23rd, 2008, a deal is announced in which the government will bail out Rubin's messes at Citigroup with a massive buffet of taxpayer-funded cash and guarantees. It is a terrible deal for the government, almost universally panned by all serious economists, an outrage to anyone who pays taxes. Under the deal, the bank gets $20 billion in cash, on top of the $25 billion it had already received just weeks before as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But that's just the appetizer. The government also agrees to charge taxpayers for up to $277 billion in losses on troubled Citi assets, many of them those toxic CDOs that Rubin had pushed Citi to invest in. No Citi executives are replaced, and few restrictions are placed on their compensation. It's the sweetheart deal of the century, putting generations of working-stiff taxpayers on the hook to pay off Bob Rubin's fuck-up-rich tenure at Citi. "If you had any doubts at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street," former labor secretary Robert Reich declares when the bailout is announced, "your doubts should be laid to rest."


Really, Taibbi spells it out for you. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hileeopnyn8d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #102
120. and what part of
not the President do you not understand? He wasn't President, you can repost that a million times and it doesn't change the fact that he was not the President in November 2008.

Did he support TARP? Yes. Try making that point instead of the weak one you keep trumpeting. He also put *some* restrictions in place and took a 36% stake in the company. You can argue that it wasn't enough, but it was damn sure more than what was in place on Nov. 23, 2008 under the last president.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. See, here's where a rudimentary grasp of English would help you out
From the article you allegedly read:

Barack Obama was still just the president-elect when it happened, but the revolting and inexcusable $306 billion bailout that Citigroup received was the first major act of his presidency. In order to grasp the full horror of what took place, however, one needs to go back a few weeks before the actual bailout — to November 5th, 2008, the day after Obama's election.


Taibbi obviously knows when Obama became president, and he obviously knows his readers know this as well. He's making a point. A point that most adults with basic reading comprehension can understand.

You shoulda stuck with not reading the article. Things would have turned out less embarrassing for you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #102
128. Prosense's post happened like 3 minutes after I posted this article
So much for reading the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. I swear, she's just got a bunch of notepad windows open with cut-and-paste templates
She sees "Taibbi"!!! and grabs her "Obfuscate Obama's Finance Scam" boilerplate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cry baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #128
135. It's possible that prosense had already read the article, isn't it? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
111. Nov. 24, 2008
What happened on the Oct. 28, 2008 that you reference?

Here's what happened on Nov. 24, 2008, while Obama was president-elect, as Taibbi wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122747680752551447.html

The federal government agreed Sunday night to rescue Citigroup Inc. by helping to absorb potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in losses on toxic assets on its balance sheet and injecting fresh capital into the troubled financial giant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R - I ask the same question Taibbi does:
"Is he just a rookie in the political big leagues, hoodwinked by Beltway old-timers? Or is the vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests we've been seeing on TV this fall who Obama really is?"

An eye-opening report!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. You are Taibbi's mini-me at DU, alright.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. That is a great compliment - Taibbi is one of the few fearless...
...investigative reporters left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It is a great compliment
you should definitely take it as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. I'm so jealous!
Good for you polichick ... you're doing it right. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. See Reply #3 to see what a fine "investigative" reporter your hero is
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
53. I guess someone has to fill OMC's crocs
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 10:28 PM by Moochy
and fill DU with one emoticon posts.

Oh fuck I forgot this place actually *is* ClarkUSA's private stomping grounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
65. Can I please be Taibbi's mini-me too?
Please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
78. even more eye opening:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #78
100. Thanks for links. Bookmarking for further reading. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #78
122. I guess "Bait & Switch" is an apt expression re this prez. Thanks for the links! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
109. I'm going to go with Option B.
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. Does Anyone Have His E-mail Address?
Thank you in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. Imagine: The first act of his presidency was overturning the finalized Citicorp bail out.
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 08:53 PM by denem
Black Thursday on Wall Street. Wonderful, just what was needed, another enormous panic.

People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved. Dreams of my father.

cf. Sudden, unexpected cancellation of finalized agreement. Cewl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KrR Donating Member (237 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
20. The reason people get so mad is becuase
you call it a 'big sellout'. Maybe he is doing what he thinks is right... and you don't agree which is fine. Herbert Hoover also didn't want to rescue the banks, everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Blame Matt Taibbi for the title of the article
I suggest you read it in it's entirety, then maybe you wont have a semantics problem with the title.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Hoover did try to rescue the banks.
Ever hear of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation?

It's always interesting to see how little people know about economic history. Too Big To Fail is not a new concept. It's the exact same scare tactic the Hoover administration used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
23. I see Matt has taken to spewing right wing talking points
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 09:04 PM by SpartanDem
specifically about the resolution authority in the reform bill. Matt's bullshit sounds like it could from Boehner himself.

GOP Falsely Claims Reg Reform Bill Creates A ‘Permanent Bailout Fund’ Paid For By Taxpayers

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/10/gop-reg-reform-lies/

Better maybe yet Matt should watch video of Rep Luis Gutierrez from yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01o-GMHOJVs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. Actually, Taibbi is dead right.
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 09:25 PM by girl gone mad
Paul Volcker and senior Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron both testified to Congress last month that the government is trying to make bailouts for the giant banks permanent. Congressman Brad Sherman (D) said the same thing in his testimony:

"In my opinion, Geithner’s proposal is “TARP on steroids.” Section 1204 of the proposal (the proposal being the "Resolution Authority for Large, Interconnected Financial Companies Act of 2009") allows the executive branch to use taxpayer money to make loans to, or invest in, the largest financial institutions to avoid a systemic risk to the economy.

Geithner’s proposal reminds me of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion Wall Street bailout adopted last year, but the TARP was limited to two years, and to a maximum of $700 billion. Section 1204 is unlimited in dollar amount and is a permanent grant of power to the executive branch. TARP contained some limits on executive compensation and an array of special oversight authorities. Section 1204 contains absolutely no limits on executive compensation and no special oversight.

When I asked Geithner whether he would accept a $1 trillion limit on the new bailout authority (if the executive branch wanted to spend more, it would have to come back to Congress), he rejected a $1 trillion limit, insisting that the executive branch be able to respond without coming back to Congress."


Geithner is attempting to set up a "TARP on steroids" slush fund that will act as a permanent bailout for the 2big2fails and would function without any oversight from congress. Taibbi is no dummy. He has very good connections on Wall Street and in Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. That's not what is on the House floor
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 09:53 PM by SpartanDem
Dissolution Authority
The bill provides for orderly dissolution of failing firms, ending “Too Big to Fail”:

The legislation provides for robust authority that will enable regulators to dissolve large, highly complex financial companies in an orderly and controlled manner, ensuring that shareholders and unsecured creditors, not taxpayers, bear the losses.

No firm will be “too big to fail” – when a firm enters the dissolution process, management responsible for the failure will be dismissed, parties that should bear losses – particularly shareholders and unsecured creditors – will do so, and the firm will cease as a going concern.

The FDIC will be able to unwind a failing firm so that existing contracts can be dealt with and secured creditors’ claims can be addressed. However, unlike traditional bankruptcy, which does not account for complex interrelationships of such large firms and may endanger financial stability, this process will help prevent contagion and disruption to the entire system and the overall economy.

Dissolution costs will be repaid first from the assets of the failed firm at the expense of shareholders and creditors, and any shortfall will be repaid by assessments on all large financial firms. In this instance the bill follows the “polluter pays” model where the financial industry pays for its mistakes—not taxpayers.

There are no bailouts for failing institutions. If financial assistance is necessary for orderly dissolution, industry will pay for it:
o
A Systemic Dissolution Fund can be used to help wind down failing financial institutions, but not to preserve them. The Fund will be pre-funded by assessments on financial companies with more than $50 billion in assets and by hedge funds with more than $10 billion in assets. This authority sunsets on December 31, 2013, unless extended by Congress



http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/FinancialRegulatoryReform/HR4173_summaries_by_title/Title_I_FISA_120309.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
57. Taibbi described it accurately.
But the real kicker came when Frank's committee took up what is known as "resolution authority" — government-speak for "Who the hell is in charge the next time somebody at AIG or Lehman Brothers decides to vaporize the economy?" What the committee initially introduced bore a striking resemblance to a proposal written by Geithner earlier in the summer. A masterpiece of legislative chicanery, the measure would have given the White House permanent and unlimited authority to execute future bailouts of megaconglomerates like Citigroup and Bear Stearns.

Democrats pushed the move as politically uncontroversial, claiming that the bill will force Wall Street to pay for any future bailouts and "doesn't use taxpayer money." In reality, that was complete bullshit. The way the bill was written, the FDIC would basically borrow money from the Treasury — i.e., from ordinary taxpayers — to bail out any of the nation's two dozen or so largest financial companies that the president deems in need of government assistance. After the bailout is executed, the president would then levy a tax on financial firms with assets of more than $10 billion to repay the Treasury within 60 months — unless, that is, the president decides he doesn't want to! "They can wait indefinitely to repay," says Rep. Brad Sherman of California, who dubbed the early version of the bill "TARP on steroids."


Every word above is true.

"Even as amended, however, resolution authority still has the potential to be truly revolutionary legislation. The Senate version still grants the president unlimited power over equity-free bailouts, and the amended House bill still institutionalizes a system of taxpayer support for the 20 to 25 biggest banks in the country. It would essentially grant economic immortality to those top few megafirms, who will continually gobble up greater and greater slices of market share as money becomes cheaper and cheaper for them to borrow (after all, who wouldn't lend to a company permanently backstopped by the federal government?). It would also formalize the government's role in the global economy and turn the presidential-appointment process into an important part of every big firm's business strategy. "If this passes, the very first thing these companies are going to do in the future is ask themselves, 'How do we make sure that one of our executives becomes assistant Treasury secretary?'" says Sherman."

Sherman and Taibbi know of what they speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xiamiam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. matt taibbi is one of the few journalists in the forefront of this fiasco
generally..he has been spot on since he began to sift through the layers of crap..i applaud him and you should as well..he is a patriot..out in the trenches..giving us more truth than 95 % of so called media and journalists..pitiful to not appreciate what he is doing

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. Why should I appreciate him spewing the same crap as the GOP
He should be doing this refuting their bs instead blabbing their talking points.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, in spite of the words of the other side of the aisle, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. This is legislation that is vital to making our financial institutions better capitalized, our consumers safe from predatory practices, and our economy stronger so that we can emerge from the recession that was caused by the very financial institutions that we are now fighting tooth and nail to defeat this legislation.

I was proud to work with the chairman to include my amendment. And I understand that my parents came to this country and they didn't speak English, and so the first 5 years before they sent me to school I spoke another language other than English. But I've had the bill thoroughly examined by those who do speak the English language and have only spoken the English language all of their lives, and they cannot find the bailout fund in the bill.

Now, I've worked with the chairman, I wrote the dissolution fund, I wrote the fund and I put it in the bill. It's my amendment. Now, the ex-ante fund means that firms that could ultimately be dissolved by this fund would have to pay at least.

But what my friends on the other side said, they said, and they finally used it, Mr. Chairman, in all of the committee hearings, they didn't call us socialists. They waited to get to the House floor before they used the dreaded word of socialism. And what did they say? They said, the socialists, that means us, the Democrats, created a bill in which, and this is Mr. Bachus, and he can go and check his words, he said, they created a bill and they made all the institutions pay into it.
And he said, that's socialism. And then when one of them fails and doesn't do something right, all of those people that paid into the funds have to pay for the wrongs of that person.

Well, I guess Geico is socialist. State Farm is socialist. Allstate is socialist. Indeed, any insurance fund is socialist, because when I drive my car and never have an accident, I pay into the insurance fund so that maybe when some Member on the other side of the aisle gets into an accident, I pay with my funds for his mistakes. That's insurance. Now, what they won't tell you is that, unlike everybody in this room who has to go out and take out an insurance policy to drive a car, they want Wall
Street and Goldman Sachs to be able to drive our economy into the ground without paying a cent of insurance in case they act recklessly.

And all we're saying, as Democrats, is it's simple: if you want to do business in America, and you threaten the economic stability of our country, then you've got to pay into an insurance fund. But let me tell you, it's not the kind of insurance fund that you get into an accident and you take your car and they fix and they give it kind of back to you new. No, no. In our insurance fund, you know what happens? We chop up your car into pieces and sell it, and then we pay back the fund with the pieces.
That's our fund. Read the bill. It's a funeral fund.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=9077647
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. Wimpy, ersatz reform..
Anyone with a brain in their head and some knowledge of big finance can see it for what it is.

From economics professor http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/financial-reform-or-rearranging-chairs-on-the-titanic.html">L. Randall Wray:

“Financial Reform, or, Rearranging Chairs on the Titanic”

Title III of the Act would attempt to get derivatives trade onto formal exchanges. However, as Mike Konczal demonstrates, there are enough loopholes in the draft to drive Goldman Sachs right through it. In truth, it won’t make that much difference whether derivatives are exposed to the standardization and daylight that exchanges could bring. Note that a large portion of commodities futures are run through formal exchanges without dampening the speculation that is driving yet another commodities boom that will go bust next year. Yes, there are loopholes that allow commodities traders sitting in front of computers in the US to escape exchange rules by pretending they are offshore, and it is likely that the majority of futures contracts trades go unreported. But it is virtually certain that the same will be true of derivatives markets even if HR 4173 passes. In short, the problem is not really opaque and unregulated derivatives trading, but rather the fact that we allow protected and regulated institutions to gamble with house money. They put down a dollar of their own funds and place bets of $30 or more that interest rates or prices will move in a favorable direction. Congress has proposed nothing that will change this — and putting derivatives onto exchanges will make little difference.

The House is also proposing to grant to the Fed the ability to create and spend money to rescue any financial institution it deems to be “too big to fail”, including investment houses, insurance companies, hedge funds and any other private pools money whose collapse might endanger the financial system. (See William Greider’s recent post). We all remember former Treasury Secretary Paulson’s gambit in which he held a gun to his head and demanded that Congress give him three-quarters of a trillion dollars to spend any which way he chose, with no oversight and no accountability. Congress wisely told him to go shoot himself. Now Congress is proposing to give such powers to Chairman Bernanke. Why? Has Gentle Ben exhibited any predilection to indicate that his instincts are better than St. Paulson’s? I don’t think so. This is just a proposal to institutionalize the favors that a Predator State (Jamie Galbraith’s felicitous term) can grant to cronies.

Finally, in spite of great hope that the ratings agencies that blessed all the toxic waste with triple A ratings might be subject to some sort of retribution, Congress proposes to let them continue as if nothing happened. To recap, the Big 3 ratings agencies — which have a virtual monopoly of the business — prostituted themselves in a “pay-to-play” scheme in which they would give to garbage securities any rating sellers desired, so long as the assessed fees were sufficiently high. At a very minimum one would have thought that reforms would align incentives, with buyers of rated securities paying for assessment of risk. But, no, Congress worries that such a massive change to the industry might reduce business for the monopolies. Hence, there will be no significant changes required of ratings agencies, who are encouraged to continue pimping their ratings.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #60
96. You said it all
wimpy ersatz reform, indeed. Taibbi quotes a Democratic lawmaker in the article that basically said that the new laws will probably be worse than before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #60
126. It may be fake, but it certainly isn't wimpy
These non-reform reforms will solidify the Wall Street gravy train while guaranteeing that the people have no say in future bailouts from the almost-certain collapse(s) that this legislation will create.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #126
140. Yes, you're correct.
It's wimpy for a reason. Congress can pretend they tried to do something, the 2Big2Fails get special protections (and, believe me, the ones big enough to afford a wing of lawyers have already mapped out their way around every last restriction), the Fed gets more powers and the little people get screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #46
105. Sorry, I must have missed the part where the GOP "spewed" against the Citigroup bailout
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
24. Put Matt on the list of people we used to like but no longer like. LOL!
This place cracks me up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. The amount of people thrown under the bus
because of this administration is legion and yes it is hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I love Obama, but we cannot turn on every person who complains about anything!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I wouldnt call what Taibbi is doing, complaining
I would call it reporting and shedding some much needed light on what is going on in the Obama White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. At this point the bus has only the driver, the team and the cheerleaders.
The home stands are emptying fast. But the opposing team is very happy. Hell, they're so happy they may forfeit future games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
76. Haha, I love your use of "is legion" there. Cute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. I've been reading Taibbi for 10 years and the man has a lot of credibility with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Did you read the Wes Clark article?
Do you know what Taibbi's history is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Basing your opinion of Taibbi
on an article about Wesley Clark, a guy who became an Democrat because it was politically expedient to do so (which I admit I didnt read but now I will), seems like a lame reason not to read an article which elucidates better than anything I have read about Obama's economic policy. But of course it is your choice do what you wish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Wesley Clark has probably done far more than you ever will
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 10:10 PM by tabatha
in getting Democrats into office. In fact he helped Eric Massa get elected. Massa is very outspoken about the Afghanistan surge, unlike Joe Sestak. Wesley Clark is a long-time environmentalist. Wesley Clark was drafted by supporters to run; he did not decide to do so himself. His son is a Democrat.

But because you have ESP, or because you like to make judgments without facts (like rightwingers), have decided that "Wesley Clark, a guy who became an Democrat because it was politically expedient to do so".

Guess what, that makes me even less inclined to read the Taibbi article. At least I based my opinion of him on facts - i.e. reading his Clark article. (Do you know that many people from Europe, after reading that article, wrote and complained.)

You based your opinion of Wesley Clark on your own fanciful thinking.

And, what's more, you did not even understand that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #47
125. some light reading
Edited on Fri Dec-11-09 01:53 PM by spiritual_gunfighter
Was Wesley Clark a Republican?
January 14, 2004
He registered as an independent, says he voted for Nixon and Reagan, then for Clinton and Gore, later praised Bush but now criticizes him.
Summary
A New Hampshire voter e-mails us to ask: “I'm considering voting for Clark and am still researching him and his background . . . I'm concerned about different snippets that I hear about his Republican background. Have you done any articles on this - or plan to?”
Now we have. And here it is.

Clark has never been registered as a Republican. During his Army service he registered to vote as an independent (as do many career military officers) in his home state of Arkansas . Clark says he voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan out of concern for national security during the Vietnam and Cold War years. But he says later he found Republicans to be “shrill” and “isolationist.” And so he says he voted for fellow Arkansas resident Bill Clinton and most recently for Al Gore, both Democrats. Clark changed his voter registration to Democrat only after retiring from the Army in 2000 and declaring himself a candidate for the party’s nomination late in September, 2003. Clark also spoke approvingly of President Bush on two occasions in 2001 and 2002 that were captured on videotape. You can see these for your self by clicking on the “video” box at the right.

Analysis
Clark ’s opponents keep attacking him for his late conversion to the Democratic party. Kerry’s New Hampshire chair Jeanne Shaheen, a former governor of the state, is quoted this week as saying "this candidate is not a Democrat.” And Lieberman said Jan. 4 on ABC's This Week "I mean, this is a man who wasn't a Democrat four months ago and who voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush."
Here are the facts:

Registered as an Independent

There’s no dispute about Clark ’s voter registration: he was an independent. This by itself means little, however, as nearly 96% of all Arkansas voters express no party preference when registering. Party preference is “optional” on Arkansas ’ voter registration form, and only 2.6% of the state’s residents were registered as Democrats at the end of 2001, according to the most recent statistics published by the Arkansas Secretary of State. Only 1.4% registered as Republicans.

Voted for Nixon and Reagan

Clark says he voted for Richard Nixon during the Vietnam era, and later for Ronald Reagan as the Cold War was coming to an end. “I voted for Reagan and I voted for Nixon because they were for national security,” Clark said at a campaign appearance in Derry, NH on Dec. 20.

According to a transcript of that appearance, Clark said that when he came back from military service in Vietnam he was unhappy to find soldiers being scorned:

Clark: I fought so that people could demonstrate in the streets and have the freedom to voice their disagreement with the government. But unfortunately, those disagreements often focused on not the government (policies) . . . but on the people that were carrying them out. I was just doing my duty as a soldier. I didn't make the policy in Vietnam, but I did raise my right hand and take an oath to obey the orders of the commander-in-chief.

He spoke of his support for Reagan in an earlier appearance:

Clark: I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan . . . . That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War . . . . And those of us in the armed forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.

Those remarks were at a Republican dinner in Arkansas May 11, 2001 (about which we will say more later).

Clark also has been quoted as saying he voted for George Bush, the current President's father, in 1988, and Clark has not denied this.




http://www.factcheck.org/was_wesley_clark_a_republican.html


I personally have no great issue with Clark, I agree he has done some good things since this report. But part of the reason I have no opinion of him is because I remember this episode quite vividly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. I believe that Taibbi may have written about Clark on multiple occasions.
What article bothered you?

Here is what I know about Taibbi and his history. He cut his bones in the expatriate Moscow-based newspaper "the exile". He has consistently been an critic of the neo-liberal economic movement (also known as "the third way"). He has indicated support for Dennis Kucinich and Obama in the past. He has been vocal in his criticisms of McCain, Palin, Bush, and Clinton. I don't see what the problem is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. There were a lot of people in Europe who wrote and
complained about the crappy article about Clark. It was that bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. What article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Here are some of the responses:
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 10:17 PM by tabatha
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040112/exchange

We were stunned to read Matt Taibbi's "Clark's True Colors." This article has nothing to do with Wes Clark's candidacy or, for that matter, with investigative reporting. Taibbi alleges to have infiltrated a volunteer meeting disguised as an injured adult-film director just to get a rise out of a group of hard-working volunteers. He clearly lacks professional ethics--and talent.

Throughout the article, Taibbi confuses our names, our words and even our identities. He refers to us as campaign staffers, but at the time we were volunteers and had never presented ourselves otherwise. The quotes attributed to us were either fabricated or taken wildly out of context. Most absurd is Taibbi's story about General Clark showing us a picture of himself in a tight T-shirt, which Taibbi claimed Clark called his "drool shot." Military hero, peace negotiator, leader--those titles describe Wes Clark. Wannabe teen idol certainly does not.

Taibbi's motive is most likely his vendetta against General Clark for leading the Kosovo campaign. In spring 1999, Taibbi wrote an article for his now-defunct tabloid in Russia, eXile, in which he subtly denied the infamous massacre of Kosovar Albanians at Racak. Human Rights Watch investigated and verified the massacre, which is a prominent allegation in the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic.

Taibbi also wrote an analysis of the Kosovo campaign, cunningly titled "101 Reasons Why NATO's War Sucks," for eXile in April 1999. Reason 72: "The Serbs are one of the tallest, most beautiful European tribes. Somalis, too, are tall and elegant, as are the Tutsi, who actually call themselves 'The Tall People.' Why are the most beautiful tribes being wiped out by the squat and ugly?" Taibbi's attempt at humor falls very flat.

A hatchet job like this is not worthy of The Nation. It should have been shopped around to the tabloids, or better, chucked into the trash where it belongs.

DAVID RUBIN, DAVID YOKEN

There are tons more on that page - I can get to it by gooling, but if I use the link above, it asks for a log in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. LOL!
"Hatchet job" was the term most often used by readers to describe Matt Taibbi's "Clark's True Colors" . We received hundreds of letters (some seemingly part of an organized campaign) denouncing the article. A few found it "witty" or "simply hilarious." --The Editors


I find this very humorous in light of what the article said and how GD:P got split from GD in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Did you read any of the letters?
and the quote I added?

SOME seemingly part of an organized campaign - so what - but how about the letters from overseas?

"Taibbi's motive is most likely his vendetta against General Clark for leading the Kosovo campaign. In spring 1999, Taibbi wrote an article for his now-defunct tabloid in Russia, eXile, in which he subtly denied the infamous massacre of Kosovar Albanians at Racak. Human Rights Watch investigated and verified the massacre, which is a prominent allegation in the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic. "

This is what I find most disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. They want a login, so no. But that letter makes the mistake of calling the exile Taibbi's paper...
when editorial control of the paper has been held by Mark Ames for nearly all of its history. While I am familiar with their opposition to the Kosovo war, I am going to need a link if I am expected to believe that "subtly denied" the massacre. For that matter, what does a subtle denial mean as compared to a plain denail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. matt taibbi thinks he's all that and
of course those who hate Obama lap up his lies with freakin' glee.

He obviously didn't have a handle on all the facts with General Clark and now for whatever reason he's going after Obama and not worried that he doesn't have the facts to back that up.

My money's on Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #61
72. Sorry... what, exactly, is Taibbi lying about?
Edited on Fri Dec-11-09 02:28 AM by jgraz
Got any examples? Or has "lie" for you come to mean "any fact that challenges my warm-and-fuzzies"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #72
106. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *
Soooo not surprised. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #61
84. You argue with the facts in this article?
What exactly do you take issue with in the article? Can you give me some examples? I will be waiting with bated breath I am sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #84
130. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #45
83. I dont see what the problem is either
and maybe I was hard on Wesley Clark in the upthead, I have no problem with him other than the way he "decided" to become a Democrat. I can almost guarantee that the people who have a problem with this article didnt read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailingParachute Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
39. I think Matt Taibbi and Joe Bageant are aliens intent on ruining America
Well, judging by the knee-jerk responses to their respective articles that is the conclusion one would draw if one used the some of the "insight" here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
44. This wouldn't be so worrisome
if it were only the Wall Street sellout. But it happens to be not only the Wall Street sellout but the MIC sellout, the health care sellout, the Bush justice department sellout and the list goes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #44
85. That occurred to me too - creepy stuff...
And the question remains, what is Obama's role in it all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #85
108. Obama's role?
Apparently, it's to do what he's told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #108
114. I can't decide if that's it, or if he shares the corporate mindset. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
56. Impressed this still is on the positive recommend side in the fan club forum

Maybe, just maybe, people are waking up a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Those are the people that probably actually read it.
All of it. And weren't shocked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #56
73. 45 unrecs so far.
A lotta people afraid of the truth tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #73
88. How do you know to total unrecs?
All I see is the current total. How do you know how many unrecs there are? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #88
97. I have magic powers
Either that, or I looked at the Top Tens pages where the thread is listed under Just Recs. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #97
107. Ooooh.
Thanks - I've never visited the Top Tens page before.

It's like my Grandfather used to say, "You learn something new every day...unless you're a dumbass."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ramsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
58. Exactly, Matt!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
62. For those who disagree with Taibbi...
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 11:50 PM by bvar22
Please watch the following video from the campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZG8Zq8V54k

Where is THAT Obama today?

How many lies, distortions, misrepresentations, broken promises could YOU count in this 7 minutes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #62
74. Let me hazard a guess: ZERO
Zero. They can count exactly zero broken promises, because they don't actually HEAR what Obama's saying or SEE what he's doing. They just know that he's dreamy and looks awesome in swim trunks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldstein1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #62
80. I stopped counting
I don't know. Where did that man go?

But you have to admit it. Comparing Obama THEN and Obama NOW, there certainly has been a change to believe in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #62
98. Ayeee. "They have not funded my campaign. You have."
Obama, the anti-corporate populist. What a speech.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #98
112. Selling brand Obama as a liberal "populist"....
...was one of the most successful marketing scams of the century.

It was matched only by the selling of NAFTA as something that would help the Working Class.

A rookie Senator from Chicago shows up in Iowa with $100 Million Dollars and an up and running political machine?.....should have raised some questions.
The marketing of Brand Obama actually began at the Democratic Convention 2003.

I gotta admit, Obama sure can deliver an inspiring speech.

...but lately the fire has gone out.
I think that all the lies and "American Exceptionalism" rhetoric is causing him some cognitive dissonance.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #112
127. I suffered my share of it-
Edited on Fri Dec-11-09 02:15 PM by chill_wind
cognitive dissonance. The whole FISA-FIX way back in the early days **made my eyes and ears bleed**, bvar22.

Then the Reverend thing. Then the bailout arm-twistng. (See Sirota - Laura Tyson) Still, a President McLoony with a Palin sidekick was scary unthinkable to me. I went on donating, phone banking, canvassing in the final days, telling myself politicians take positions to win things, but good leaders can modify and change their minds. Maybe he would. We had a WH and a majority of Congress. Maybe he would. Maybe he would. Then he started building his cabinet. Then the Warren thing. Then the early DOJ court decisions and the Archives speech-- Moving Forward. Leon no-witch hunts Panetta. I could go on, but that was a sampling of a whole lot of dissonance for me-- for a whole long time. Self-inflicted, perhaps a lot of it, but I had liked Edwards and he was long gone. And I was tired, I'd decided, of the two-family dynasty. Ah the irony.

But I'm in the apparent good company of better, brighter minds than mine with larger voices and audiences, speaking out every day now (and getting villified) and it seems too, they often heard a somewhat different Obama on many occasions. I'll only beat myself up so much for a lot of my naivety, but man this does say a mouthful:

A rookie Senator from Chicago shows up in Iowa with $100 Million Dollars and an up and running political machine?.....should have raised some questions. The marketing WAS good. Very good. After 04, even that seemed like something to cheer about.

I'm just tired, these days, sooooo tired. But the one thing I'm long cured of now is any more of my own participation in the willing suspension of disbelief. To that end, yours especially, and quite a few other very observant DUers' posts over time since have helped me with that a lot. 2010 looms and 2012 comes soon after. Never underestimate your ability to make a lot of people here think.

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #62
123. He was either one hell of a liar then, or he's being held hostage now. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
67. Taibbi is an enemy of the people. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Azathoth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
69. Yet another hysterical Taibbi piece in which he breathlessly reports in conspiratorial tones
what anyone who watches the evening news already knows. We get it, Matt. We know that the Rubin/Summers crowd are the administration's economic policymakers.

We don't need your unnamed "Democratic sources" -- i.e., college interns sitting next to you in a local bar -- to clue us into the top-secret secret that you can tie almost every major Wall Street player, including the ones now working for the government, to one of the big banking and investment firms.

I had to stop when I got to this one:

There are four main ways to be connected to Bob Rubin: Goldman Sachs, the Clinton administration, Citigroup and, finally, <...> the Brookings Institution.


That's a pretty wide net there, Matt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. LOL....but this place loved him during the campaign! Go figure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Azathoth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. Taibbi always annoyed me
Edited on Fri Dec-11-09 01:16 AM by Azathoth
He always struck me as the kind of guy who would walk up to you on the street, tell you in a solemn tone that the sky is, in fact, blue, and then stand back with a self-satisfied I-just-brought-fire-to-benighted-masses smirk on his face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #71
86. What facts did you take issue with in the article?
Can you give examples of what was not true? Please give me examples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #86
89. I hope you're not planning to hold your breath while you wait for an answer. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. I exhaled right after I wrote it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #86
133. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
quantass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
77. The facts are the facts...K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldstein1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
79. I'm going to go with
"vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyByNight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
81. Looks like the '08 financial meltdown was perfect...
...for use of a new "shock doctrine". There still hasn't been significant reform or (re-)regulation enacted now more than a year after the credit freeze/financial meltdown. (What's currently winding its way through Congress has already had major holes drilled into it.) True to form, the connected, Wall St.-Washington Axis made out like bandits - literally - while the rest of us suffer. Again. And again.

With people like Summers, Geithner, Emanuel, etc., advising Obama, I sincerely doubt meaningful reform will be enacted. More accurately, we'll probably get HCR-like vacillation coming from Obama.

Wrapped up quite nicely, "The point is that an economic team made up exclusively of callous millionaire-assholes has absolutely zero interest in reforming the gamed system that made them rich in the first place." So far, the new administration looks like a potentially toxic combo of Clinton-era financial deregulation (with some scraps thrown our way) and LBJ-era MIC obsequiousness.

The more things change...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #81
113. Use Occam's Razor:
Obama is a willing player.
This really is NOT about Obama getting "bad advice".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
93. kick
spiritual_gunfighter, I'm so sorry for posting this again. It is very irritating when people do that. It was late last night when I posted the dupe and I didn't see you already had it up. I did look, but I should have done a search on the greatest page. It's too late for me to edit mine, so I'll just help to kick yours.

It is a very disturbing article. Hopefully, having it on DU twice just means that more people will see it and read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. exactly right
with articles like this maybe it is a good thing to post it twice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xiamiam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #95
119. k..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllexxisF1 Donating Member (559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
117. Banksters run this country.
Banksters and Wall Street run our Government plain and simple.

The only way to break this cycle is to have them pass public financing of elections. This is what we Progressives should be rallying behind right now and do not stop until they do.

Shelve everything, stop everything, reform nothing until we get it.

That is and should be our line in the sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
131. The fact check has already started on Taibbi's article:

"Matt Taibbi has done it again -- written a nightmare of a story for Rolling Stone on Obama's economic sell-out of his campaign. 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. Here we go: "

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2009&base_name=oh_matt_taibbi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
132. Bloomberg.com: Obama's Bailout Bunch (Supplemental reading)
From last November.


So, by my tally, almost half the people on Obama's economic advisory board have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both. Do you think any of that came up in the vetting?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aNCFKvAMUQ6w
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
134. The willful ignorance on this thread is stunning.
Why would anyone want to cloak themselves in such stupidity? :wtf:

The truth hurts and people on GD-P need to learn to accept it.

I'm grateful for Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stone-maybe it's time for a subscription to Rolling Stone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #134
138. Political power is founded on the willful ignorance of the masses ...
And the Democrats and Obama exploit it EXACTLY and as KNOWINGLY as BushCo and the Republicans did.

If the situation does not change and damn quick - and by that I mean we're OUT of Afghanistan and we start getting people jobs and quality of life instead of throwing our money to the Bankers - this last eclection will be the LAST one I shall ever vote a Democratic ticket again.

I'd rather vote for NO ONE than be exploited like this.
Let the greedy bastard Republicans and upper class exploit the hell out of this country if that;s my only choice - fine. Maybe things have to get a LOT worse before people get off their Lazy-Boys , stop taking their Ambiens and Zolofts and actually DO something pro-active.

Maybe it has to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
137. Matt Tabbai - Spealing Truth to Power!
If we could only get the teabaggers (right AND left) to listen :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
139. Recommend. For me, it all goes back to Swilton's comments in post #44. It's ALL the OTHER
sellouts that have slowly but steadily eroded my confidence in President Obama.

The Kool-Aid is wearing off. Could someone please refill my glass?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Torn_Scorned_Ignored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
141. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
142. "The Errors of Matt Taibbi"
Cross Post..


Jackeens (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-11-09 04:26 PM
Original message

"'The Errors of Matt Taibbi'"

Matt Taibbi has done it again -- written a nightmare of a story for Rolling Stone on Obama's economic sell-out of his campaign. 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. Here we go:

* Jamie Rubin. James P. Rubin is a former Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration and not Bob Rubin's son. He informally helped Hillary Clinton transition into her role as Secretary of State. James S. Rubin is Bob Rubin's son, and had a similarly unofficial role in the economic transition. Neither were on staff, on the advisory boards, or on an agency review team.

* Austan Goolsbee "didn't make the cut." Goolsbee remains one of Obama's key economic advisers and has the president's ear from his posts on the National Economic Council and the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He skipped transition work and went to work immediately in those posts.

It's the sweetheart deal of the century, putting generations of working-stiff taxpayers on the hook to pay off Bob Rubin's fuck-up-rich tenure at Citi." Actually, the U.S. structural deficit and resultant national debt is mainly a hangover from the Bush Administration, with economic remedies to the financial crisis and the recession making a relatively small piece of the pie. Obama will be rolling back most of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, but Taibbi deigns not to mention that.

More: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month...

<More>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x51550

matt taibbi is a chickenshit liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #142
144. Do you read Tim Fernholz?
Edited on Fri Dec-11-09 09:40 PM by spiritual_gunfighter
Anything that might put Obama in a negative light is going to be savaged by him. This is no surprise. An Obama article written by Tim Fernholz would be like something you wrote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-12-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. FDL- setting the record straight re:Jamie Rubin in the piece


there was some question about Jamie Rubin being son of Robert, and whether Matt Taibbi was right on that. he is — here is the NYT article noting his role with the transition, and that he is son of Bob.

This is confusing because there are two Jamie Rubins. The other also worked in the Clinton administration, but as a State Dept spokesperson. The Times got confused by this, too (see the correction in that article)

Here is the LittleSis page for Jamie, note the references at the left.



http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/18369
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-12-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. I got confused by that as well I must admit
when Taibbi refers to Jamie Rubin I thought he was referring to the Clinton admin guy. Thanks for the clarification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-12-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #142
147. read this and learn something
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC