“The stimulus certainly impacts job creation, it stifles private job creation. Bernstein is a hack with no economics training whatsoever, he is incapable of even reading this data let alone analyzing it. The 'saved or created' phraseology has long since been discredited, technically any job not lost anywhere in America could be deemed 'saved', hardly a high standard. Private sector job creation, the only thing that will get us out of this, is not even keeping up with population growth (>100K/month of employable adults), so $1 trillion later this job market is getting worse not better.”
TN60 on Jun 11, 2010 at 15:41:08
“My son, who is a professor but not tenured yet, certainly thanks Obama for saving his job. All those at his University had to have two days off a month without pay, but it beats the HE..LL out of having no job. He goes to Bangkok twice a year in between semesters for 5 years,now ) as a visting professor at a University there to make ends meet and have a little nest egg saved. He gets no breaks but he has his job,
So, my family thanks Obama and Joe Biden and hates the Republicans like the plague for what they have done to this once great country and its people. One of these days, people are going to wake up and realize what a good and caring President we have and give thanks for all his and Joe Biden's hard work on all the crises that were handed them on Day One. Joe Biden is one smart cookie when it comes to foreign policy and loyality.”
wtf2009 on Jun 11, 2010 at 14:37:15
“"Private sector job creation, the only thing that will get us out of this, is not even keeping up with population growth"
What on earth are you talking about. No one has every talked about creating jobs to keep up with population growth! All anyone has talked about was stopping the job loss and then having positive job growth.
Let's also understand that when George W Bush left office we had negative job growth. The US lost jobs, more than were created.
So combine job loss from the Bush years with a recession from the Bush years and you have a giant catastrophe. We avoided a depression because the Government spent money. The only entity at the time that could spend money. That alone kept the economy afloat.
And FYI if government spending stifle job creation, then why are all those big corporations lining up for government contracts. Why does Haliburton and KBR, just love those government contracts.
Hack meet thyself.”
Jupitersky on Jun 11, 2010 at 14:33:33
“How does the stimulus stifle private job creation?
How is the job market getting worse if we're adding jobs not losing half a million a month?
Did you not read the evidence to support the claims associated to the saved or created "phraseology?" The link is directly tied to 680K jobs.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion but the facts speak for themselves. Your opinion isn't based on them.”
“Many people vote for him because they are bribed, many vote for him out of fear of reprisal if they are found out. Past elections have been marked by peoples' votes being posted publically, followed by those people experiencing violence or outright disappearing. The human rights records of Chavez's reign all cite these infractions, Stone would have been served well to have investigated them instead of gauging Chavez's 'charisma.'”
Snowball on May 28, 2010 at 22:18:01
“There is no evidence of your assertions. I suggest if you want to look for human rights violations, you start with the coup regime in Honduras.That's where opposition figures and journalists are being murdered, not Venezuela.
“I think you're right, while BHO is connectied to Giannoulias, I believe that he and Rahm pushed for Lisa Madigan to run for this seat and she declined. Broadway Bank's failures were well known long before this week, they knew it would be an issue.”
“The current Canadian healthcare system wasn't passed until 1966, and was not fully implemented (especially in rural Canada) until the early 1970's. So it is unlikely that she experienced the Canadian health care system as it exists today. It was probably more like what it is in rural Alaska now.”
asmac7202 on Mar 9, 2010 at 23:01:03
“Wher do you get these ideas? You are wrong.”
marika48 on Mar 8, 2010 at 14:28:07
“sarah palin born 1964,
Canadian Health care reform, well under way in the 1950's
In 1957, the federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to fund 50% of the cost of such programs for any provincial government that adopted them. The HIDS Act outlined five conditions: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. These remain the pillars of the Canada Health Act.
By 1961, all ten provinces had agreed to start HIDS Act programs.”
MJHammonds on Mar 8, 2010 at 14:25:27
“She's only 46- that would have been the right time period for her to have seen today's system.”
Girl28 on Mar 8, 2010 at 14:24:11
“Wow, when did I get 4 more fans!!!! Yay!!!”
Girl28 on Mar 8, 2010 at 14:23:30
“Huh? I didn't see a timeframe mentioned, did you? Why would she go to Canada if not to take advantage of their government run healthcare?”
“There is no Tea Party candidate expected in this election. Lowden's positions are sufficiently conservative that it would seem unlikely that a Tea Party candidate could gain any traction at all.
Sure it's an early poll, but since it referenced the recent BHO visit to NV it had to be done now vs. October. Take it with a huge grain of salt, but at the same time the 'undecided's are very low for an election 8 months away....”
“A similar report from the House Ways & Means Committee on the costs of Medicare was produced when it was passed, it only missed the true costs by a factor of nearly 10x. CBO didn't exist in 1965, and I don't think they're off by 10x on this, but their analysis here is equally weak. Two of their largest drivers of savings are "savings on administrative costs" and "increased competition among insurers." You see that happening?
“Nice try on the bait and switch, but your quotes about 'largest driver of savings' is inaccurate. That's not even the section of the bill that is addressing the lower cost policies, and the CBO did not say that these were the 'largest driver'.
Why don't you actually try to read and understand the link you provided?
Also, your contention sounds like 'estimates have been wrong before'. Sorry, that generality does not hold muster. The CBO analysis is very thorough, and has proven to be the gold standard. It is not 'weak'.”
“That report includes the value of subsidies as a cost control rather than a shift in the payer (from the individual to individual + subsidy). That doesn't control costs, it only gives the illusion of cost containment. Klein knows this, but it doesn't jibe with his desired outcome so he portrays it as a cost control.
Think logically - what element of this would cause costs to decrease? And don't say 'fraud, waste & abuse' b/c that's not part of this calculation, that's a separate case.”
LauraD on Feb 25, 2010 at 15:35:09
“You are asking someone else to think logically, yet you seem to have forgotten to take your own advice.
You don't seem to understand how this whole insurance thing works.
The more people who are signed up for insurance, the lower the costs per person. That's the element that causes costs to decrease on the insurance side of things.
You also don't seem to understand what is meant by "health care costs." You seem to be arguing from the point that health care costs means only insurance. That is not even remotely accurate.
When people have quality insurance that covers preventative care and promotes healthier living, then their lifetime cost of medical care decreases, and thus the total cost of health care also decreases.
In conclusion - the simple act of covering everyone lowers costs over time. Fact.”
“Are you kidding? Obama said they would go down, then cited a "14 to 20 percent" number that is reflected nowhere in the CBO report. You can argue that they're going higher for better coverage, or that subsidies will mitigate the increase, but stating that they're going down is simply incorrect. Your attempts to hand BHO the 'win' on this point is just partisan pseudo-journalism of the worst kind.
Even the fact checks have turned into blatant advocacy on this site, it's a joke.”
McFlipFlop on Feb 25, 2010 at 14:24:28
“The CBO report does state that the costs go down. Here is a reasoned explanation for you:
“Banks offered those subprime loans because a) they were forced to in order to comply with minority and underserved community lending quotas, and b) because once the agencies (Fan,Fred) would buy them up to securitize them, the banks wouldn't have to carry that risk on their books. Enablers in DC created this pathway, otherwise the banks would have never risked their balance sheets on these mortgages.
You call my argument BS, but you don't have any idea how a bank or these markets work. You should stop commenting and read the comments of those who do this for a living (like me) instead.”
“Bielat didn't write the article, Stein did. Did Stein ask him what his solutions were? Just b/c they're not printed here doesn't mean he doesn't have any.
That said, Frank will crush him. Which is too bad, nobody had more to do with the financial crisis than Frank with his protection and promotion of malfeasance at Fannie and Freddie.”
bsherman on Feb 21, 2010 at 18:23:22
“Saying Fannie and Freddie caused the financial meltdown is a repub talking point that bears little resemblence to the facts. It was banks that offered sub-prime loans, it was banks that commoditized loans to hide risk. Fannie and Freddie aren't blameless but you point is pure B>S>”
“Taibbi has no capabilities as a financial professional or a journalist to comment on these issues. Every column he writes further exposes his ignorance. That is not to say that the people he references are innocent, it is to say that he's incapable of passing judgment due to his lack of education and experience. He should leave it to those of us who have studied this stuff for a living (BA in economics, MBA, CFA).
BTW, I was accepted to that joke college he went to at age 15, without even applying. They just sent me the acceptance in the mail, which I promptly threw out. I'm really getting tired of amateurs like him inserting themselves into the national debate on serious issues, they should leave it for the more intelligent commentators.”
Timak on Feb 19, 2010 at 05:35:33
“I have a degree in Economics and worked for a company that produced financial trading software.
What would you like to disagree with in the article?”
HansB on Feb 19, 2010 at 05:33:06
“Taibbi has what matters: the capability to call the emporer naked when that is what he is. Too many journalists, including financial experts, approach the Wall Street people like financial wizards and so their writing becomes deferential, skipping over the embarrassing parts and the complicated formulas. Taibbi approaches them like scam artists, and that affects his writing and perhaps also his research. He's no more subjective than your average WSJ journalist, he just sheds light on the thing from a radically different angle. At the very least, that's illuminating.
His articles often lead to a polemic which Taibbi (in my eyes) generally wins by tearing the criticisms apart, point by point.”
PeterGrfx on Feb 19, 2010 at 02:51:48
“Your criticism would have more validity if you actually contested anything Taibbi actually said, rather than just challenging his credentials. Education or no, what specifically was inaccurate about anything he wrote?
And now I must question your judgment. Tell me who you think people should listen to.”
ErnestineBass on Feb 19, 2010 at 01:58:53
“Blah, blah, blah...get back to us if and/or when your brain thaws out.”
artgurrl on Feb 19, 2010 at 01:20:54
“And, so far you haven't proven yourself smarter than Taibbi at all. Just more like Fox, blabbering about nothing.”
“"Loughlin has little statewide recognition." Why would that matter, it's a House seat, only voters in that district would decide it. And a recent poll showed that 6 out of 10 in that CD were willing to look at other candidates. Probably because of PK's numerous personal and professional failings...”
Quinny on Feb 12, 2010 at 00:17:25
“All Kennedy ever had was his name. The unemployment rate in RI is 13% officially,
but its probably higher than that. The state is broke and its infrastructure is crumbling.
And all we ever heard from Patrick was that he was going back into rehab.
He has become a liability to the state, not an asset. The Dems loved him
though because he could raise A LOT of cash for the party.”
“Frank Rich is the drama critic for the NYT, why are we wasting our time dissecting his uninformed opinions? And he cites an economic estimate from Johnathan Chait of TNR, he's just a reporter, with no economic training or expertise whatsoever, so it's equally slanted and meaningless. Nothing to see here, move along....
There are legitimate progressive arguments to bring to the table here, but sycophants like Rich and Chait are not capable of articulating them, so stop debasing this site by publishing them here.”
tralbry on Jan 31, 2010 at 06:36:26
“Rich has been writing abouit politics for years. What do you think the requirements for a pundit are? Would Michele Malkin pass your litmus test? Would George Will? What exactly ARE the requirements?
P.S. I don't expect an answer. I know you were trying to disingenuously deflect.”
standish on Jan 31, 2010 at 02:08:01
“Frank RIch is NOT the drama critic for the New York Times (would that he were -- Ben Brantley has produced one of the most undistinguished bodies of critical work that paper has yet produced). Frank Rich hasn't been a drama critic since the mid-1990s. For 15 years he has been one of the saner, more intelligent and liberal political columnists writing in this country, and if he is voicing reservations about Obama we should all be listening.”
Hapakanaka on Jan 31, 2010 at 01:57:15
“And you are...?”
dandypuddin on Jan 31, 2010 at 01:53:07
“"he's just a reporter"
I kind of miss reporters. Thanks, but I think I can make up my own mind what to read.”
“The majority opposes this tax, not because they're beholden to banks but because they see it accurately as a brazen money grab by the Dems to cover their giveaways to the unions. Stein is a stooge writing whatever the Dem leadership tells him to in order to get Coakley elected and faciliate their agenda.
if they really cared about reforming our financial system, they would be investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. but of course they are not.....”
“Seriously? You can start comparing him to Kerry if Brown got his "wealth" solely by marrying the widow of one of his co-workers. And add a couple of zeroes to the total.
And owning a time share is not owning a property, it's owning a timeshare. But I guess if you're going to try to slam someone for your own political purposes, such details are irrelevant.
If HP wants to be taken seriously as a news and journalism entity, it can start by hitting the delete button on amateurish hit pieces like this...”
righttheleft on Jan 13, 2010 at 22:24:30
“send stein an email. call him out. i just sent him one”
Riverman on Jan 13, 2010 at 20:52:37
“What are you smokin? The guy is a fraud. The repugnant party is the party of con-men. Only a repugnant could find a candidate running a con on the electorate to be a non story.”
mrusteika on Jan 13, 2010 at 20:52:09
“know the facts: scott brown makes $15,000 a year for being the assistant minority whip of the MA state senate. there are FIVE republicans in the MA state senate. SCOTT BROWN MAKES FIFTEEN GRAND A YEAR FOR HELPING BOB HEDLUND COUNT TO FIVE ONCE A WEEK.
anyone who thinks scott brown ought to be elected must be truly ignorant.”
“He might as well vote for it, he's going to lose his seat anyway. Not a good choice to replace Salazar. He's a smart guy with solid credentials, but lacks the campaigning skills & experience for the task. And he doesn't have enough of a voting record to run on that. Tough spot to be in, I think they should have gone with one of the Congressmen instead.”
OldBro70 on Nov 22, 2009 at 15:00:04
“Are you using your crystal ball, chicken innards, tea leaves or hallucinations to foretell Senator Bennet reelections chances?”
JayeSF on Nov 22, 2009 at 14:44:29
“My guess is if (excuse me...'when') he votes for Healthcare Reform he will probably maintain his seat.
If he is being challenged from the left and wins the primary, this will bolster his image of a centrist in a state which is just sorta barely itchily Blue (at the moment).”
“"The investors who bought this can't be expected to know all the nooks and crannies."
Actually, for many of the products referenced, the investors are expected to know 'all the nooks and crannies." Securities law requires that investors in many of these products to be 'qualified institutional buyers' - QIB's for short. This investor threshold presumes the ability of the buyer to evaluate the security independently. For products that don't issue only to QIBs, a strong case can be made against the seller and perhaps the agencies as well.”
“Why does he think that shareholders would vote down these bonuses? They most assuredly would not, the main holders of these stocks are institutions who know that vetoing these bonuses would chase a lot of the talent away to non-public firms like hedge funds, hurting not helping their investment. If they didn't like the pay structure they would more likely just sell the stock, losing their voting rights of course.”
“Taibbi is drowning in the deep end of the pool again, he's woefully incapable of understanding the complex financial instruments at work, yet he dives in with his predetermined opinions anyway.
There's a cogent argument in there about the necessity, cost and efficacy of each program/bailout that was undertaken, but that discussion should be led by someone with a financial education, not this clown. All he does is take the discourse further into the gutter...”
Phillup Textfield on Sep 1, 2009 at 14:55:14
“you are correct. he has the limited cognitive maps and impish humor better suited to vanity fair or maybe a color column in ESPN magazine. he's a frat boy with a thesaurus not a banking and capital markets analyst.”
mikekopac on Sep 1, 2009 at 12:20:03
“why don't you start frozen...tell us how the gov gets back the "investment" in AIG
how much was it 180 billion?
tell us precisely where that money went.....
AND I am an obama supporter, I voted and campaigned for him”