Mr. Rubin is… or let’s make that was, as he’s resigning … chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee. Citigroup is breaking up it’s “supermarket” bank investment business model, despite receiving bailout funds.
Citigroup signaled a breakup of its unwieldy financial supermarket model with a possible deal to sell a share of its prized retail brokerage business to Morgan Stanley, said several people with knowledge of the discussions, underscoring the enormous problems the bank continues to confront even after receiving taxpayer bailout funds.
The new chapter of wrenching change came as former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who came under fire for his strong support of that model in an advisory role that helped fuel the bank’s troubles, said he would resign.
~~~For Mr. Rubin, his resignation is a sobering turn in a sterling career in Washington and on Wall Street. Since joining Citigroup in 1999 as an adviser to the bank’s senior executives, Mr. Rubin, 70, who is an economic adviser on the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama, has sat atop a bank that has made one misstep after another.
~~~In his capacity as a senior adviser to Citigroup’s top executives and board, he pushed hard for the bank to step up its trading of risky mortgage-related securities and other complex investments as long as it improved oversight — a strategy critics say sowed the seeds of the bank’s current troubles. Mr. Rubin, whose contract specifically absolved him from daily operational responsibilities, has maintained that he could not have foreseen the current mess.
Remember this guy? Let’s jog your memory…
Back in 1995, Clinton had Mr. Rubin – as his Treasury Secy – rewrite the rules for the Community Reinvestment Act, This was, as I mentioned in my Sept 22, 2008 post, the first domino falling in a perfect storm of housing and lending events.
Now if you’re standing, you’d better sit… Now that the election is over, and the media’s beloved candidate has taken the White House, the NYTs decides to cop to the truth about the economic housing origins.
Yup… the below is from the ol Grey Lady herself – the lead linked article in this post.
When he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible. During the same period, he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.
Woof… it’s a brand new day, eh? LOL
But wait, we’re not done with Mr. Rubin’s “sterling career” yet. In 2002, he was uncomfortably close to the Enron scandal. Yet, as even the uber-left rag, Common Dreams states, Rubin danced out of that shadow with a “get out of jail free” card.
As Enron’s accounting irregularities were being discovered and its fortunes rapidly sinking, Bob Rubin placed a call on November 8 to Peter R. Fisher, current undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance. According to Treasury, Rubin wanted to know if the Bush administration was going to intervene with the big credit rating agencies, who were about to lower their rating of Enron’s debt. Since Rubin’s Citigroup was holding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Enron’s debt, it had quite a large stake in the outcome of any such decision.
Treasury told the press that Fisher said no, and Rubin agreed with the decision — as if this were just an informational call to discuss the pros and cons of political intervention to protect the credit rating on Enron’s bonds. But this should not be allowed to drop.
The public needs to know more about this phone call, and any others that Rubin may have made on Citigroup’s behalf. Whether or not they are technically illegal, such actions are a blatant and corrupt abuse of one of the highest offices of our government.
So why do we care about Rubin now? Rubin’s replacement as Clinton’s Treasury Secy replacement was Larry Summers… the same Larry Summers who is now the *current* appointed Treasury Secy [see my update: NEC Director] with the Obama administration… and in sole charge of all that bailout cash.
UPDATE CORRECTION: As Chuck snidely pointed out in his comment below, I erroneously swapped the positions of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in their admin appointed positions. Geithner has his hands on the taxpayers bucket of cash, and Summers has Obama’s ear as his NEC Director and top advisor.
Geithner was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, working under both Rubin and Summers. Some say Summers was Gaithner’s mentor, but other sources described him as a Rubin protégé.
Well ain’t that an improvement? LOL
This, of course, make the potential of a Rubin position in the Obama admin even worse… reuniting the damaging cabal of Clintonian economic team once more.
Rubin is also a member of Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board.
After his latest “sterling” career moment of helping drive Citigroup into the ground , Rubin’s unemployed.
So the burning question is, how long before this loser shows up in Obama’s Treasury Department or economic team to help spend the taxpayers money?
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Is this just a bad soap opera or what? One would wonder!
Wasn’t Rubin in fact the
CEOChairman of Citigroup from Nov 2007 to Dec 2007 (or somewhere around that time) ?Sorry about the links .. they worked last year.
Larry Summers Obama’s treasury secretary appointee? Check your facts. He’s on Obama’s White economic advisory board. Tim Geithner is the ts appointee. Looks like your eagerness to condemn Obama has clouded your reading of simple facts. Get a life.
Chuck,
Eagerness? I don’t think that properly describes the intensity of condemnation that will be forthcoming.
I think a lot of Conservatives plan to use the playbook that you all used during the past 8 years. I do have to compliment you on the ferocity & fervor mustered during Mr. Bush’s Presidency. Just sit back and enjoy it, it is not that bad.
People dislike Bush for what he did. You guys dislike Obama for who he is. Think about it. Bush didn’t win a clear majority, Obama did. Bush acted as if he did, saying things like, “I won CAPITOL in this election, and I’m gonna use it, because that’s just the type of guy I am.” Obama won a clear majority, won more votes than any candidate in the history of this country, whooped you guys’ asses, and then said, “Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.” He hasn’t done anything wrong yet, yet you still condemn him. Your allies call him “B. Hussein Obama” as a pejorative and “Barack the Magic Negro” then hide behind the fact that a black liberal originally used the term so you can play to the racism in your majority southern party. You hate him for who he is, not what he does. Bush was hated for what he did. Didn’t win, pretended like he did, and proceeed to conduct one of the worst presidencies in history. The more you condemn Obama, the smaller you people look. Like I said, get a life.
lChuck-First of all Obama is not hated. He is disliked and criticized for “who he is” which is a far left liberal who is lurching to the center, but will, in the end go back to the far left. We’ve seen plenty of what he does. It’s also how he has voted all along. He’s for socialism and “redistributing the wealth”. Sure he’ll deny it, just as you will, however his past actions and words reveal what he actually believes and desires to do as President of the United States.
“Bush was hated for what he did. Didn’t win, pretended like he did, and proceeed to conduct one of the worst presidencies in history. The more you condemn Obama, the smaller you people look. Like I said, get a life.”
This is simply YOUR OPINION, and not the truth. Liberals hated President Bush from the moment he was declared the President, and the vileness and crudeness were an every day fixture for the liberals. The way that Obama is being criticized and discussed is NOTHING like the rudeness and disgusting behavior and language used about President Bush.
It doesn’t surprise me though. You libs have been so caught us in hero worship of THE ONE that you can’t stand the least bit of criticism. We’ll never be like the far left-and for that matter, mainstream left, but get used to it-we learned “from the best”. You have no reason to complain considering the past 8 years.
Sue,
On top of everything you so eloquently said, conservatives’ criticism of Saint Barry the Obfuscator will be done with humor. The Left has no sense of humor. Something they have in common with muslims.
Sue,
Your references to “socialism” and “redistribution of wealth” reflect just how out of touch you and your ilk are with reality. Obama won 53% of the popular vote, and now has an 80% approval rating. This is not my opinion. These are facts. Facts which you people refuse to face because you have listened to long to blowhards like Rush Limbaugh who have created a caricature of Obama that he’s some secret muslim terrorist out to destroy the country. You can’t come to terms with the fact that his only goal is to fix the problems created over the past 8 years due to negligence, incompetence, and misdirection. Then your friend RickZ comes behind you and makes a generalization about the left and Muslims. This is the right’s signature. “I can’t trust Obama…he’s, he’s, he’s an Arab”…”Who is the REAL Barack Obama? TERRORIST!” This is what you all think of our next president. Then you support idiots like Sarah Palin and wonder why the country is leaving you behind. I bet you think Sarah Palin’s interview with John Ziegler was awesome, and her incessant complaining about media treatment is the road to victory in 2012. You have Rush Limbaugh, who has never had the guts to put on the uniform, have the audacity to insult a great man like Colin Powell, because why? He’s not a “true” conservative? What the hell does that even mean? A distrust of anything “Arab”, condemnation of any form of gov’t activism as socialism, and pre-emptive wars based on false evidence? That is just….dumb. That’s why you lost, and until you wake up from this parochial, ignorant stupor, you will continue to lose. Get a life.
“Liberals” hated Bush from the moment he was declared president because….he didn’t win! At least we can recognize it was disputed. There’s no question that the country wanted Obama to win, and is in full support of him. There is about 20% of the country who still doesn’t like him, the same 20% still in support of Bush, the same 20% who think Palin would make a great president. This, my friend, is what you call the fringe right.
I see you’re still caught up in the labels. “Liberal” this and “liberal” that. “Socialism” this and “socialism” that. Wake up. A Republican president just injected $700 billion into the private sector. A democrat is proposing the largest tax cut in history. Those labels don’t apply anymore, genius. You’re stuck in the past. Your principals can’t stop talking about Reagan. You still want to apply to term “negro” to a black person. Your party is writing it’s own death certificate. Obama is too smart to overreach. Betting on that and holding to these outdated principles will only keep you all out of power for the next 50 years. This country isn’t going to be majority white any longer. You better wake up and get with it, Sue.
Chuck #3, you are correct. That’s what I get for doing a post at the end of a long day… Summers is Obama’s head of the NEC and his top advisory counselor. Other than changing the title, and not giving his mitts control over the bailout cash directly, the question remains the same…. will we find Robert Rubin somewhere in Obama’s Treasury and/or economic department? Geitner, Summers or Rubin… doesn’t matter. All are interchangable Clintonian architects of fiscal disasters. (see update)
I doubt you are in the position to talk about “clouded” reading ability and facts, Chuck. My post did not condemn Obama, but warned of who Rubin is in case he *is* awarded a position of economic power in the Obama administration. Obama has already “condemned” himself to me with his pick of Summers and Geitner as his economic team, right along with a host of others. My opinion, I’m allowed to have it last I looked in this country.
Yet you say Obama has not done “anything wrong yet”. With this, I can somewhat agree. He hasn’t done anything yet… period. He speaks little of specifics, and long on rhetoric. We’ll all have to wait and see what he tries to ram thru a willing Congress. All I can go on now is his “just words”, and frankly his New New Deal policies bode ill by all historic prospects. And his choice of economic experts to help him on his way are those that were instrumental in putting us in the position we’re in now. Nothing like hiring the fox to guard the hen house, eh?
@Chuck:
80% approval rating? Right now his average is 56.3%. Fox aka Faux has him at 59% being the highest poll averaged into his present ratings. With all the “ahem” hopies and changies going on, he’s no more than 3.3% higher than when elected. Appears that his highest approval rating was 64% way back in October, also appears that he trending downward a bit if you look at the chart. Wonder what blowhards you’re listening too.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html
BTW, no need to get huffy with conservatives, we haven’t called him a Nazi or anything like ChimpyMcBushHitler, no Limbaugh assasination ads like those on Air America, ahhh, memories. Just tender little references like “the One,” Messiah, etc. What a comparison, heh.
The rest of your rant does not interest me.
Missy, hard to place much import on an approval poll for a guy who’s not even taken the oath of office. “approval” of doing what?? Only the desperate can grasp such nonsense. Especially considering the recent alternative media exposure of just how smart the average voter is… Definition of a poll? Ask 1000 uninformed voters questions, and you’ll get 1000 uninformed responses.
I was thinking of that clip, while out shoveling, ugh. I think what’s happening is the right *and* left discontent in his appointments, the no comment with Israel and Hamas, his handling of Burris/Blago, all giving some pause to think about his leadership qualifications. Otherwise I’m sure he would be polling at 98%.
Coming up with an 80% approval rating and accusing the right of being the lone radical thinkers is a bit of a stretch. I didn’t check any data in the RCP list, but I will guess that it isn’t just 20% of radical conservatives that are disenchanted.
MataHarley,
Who exactly who you advise be appointed to these positions? Nearly EVERY economist over the past two decades, save Roubini and the Black Swan guy, cheered on the policies that got us here. No question it was wrongheaded, which is why we need a president who can steer the ship in the right direction. That doesn’t diminish the intelligence of these economists. Who would you appoint to get us out? You don’t have any ideas, just critique. The man is proposing tax cuts. He just said the other day that if anyone has any ideas to create jobs, a tax cut or spending plan, he’ll do it. The success of the New Deal is debatable and is usually only seen through the ideological lense of whoever is speaking on it. Your lense is obviously conservative. Krugman thinks the failure to bring down unemployment was Roosevelt’s raising taxes to balance the budget. People like Hannity worship the tax cuts Reagan implemented when he came into office. The highest rate was 70%! That doesn’t exist today, so the opportunity for open up space for the free market isn’t nearly as large. Either way, no one has really explained to me how spending hurts the economy. Other than widening the deficit, how does it hurt to pay for projects related to infrastructure and other things that the country needs and along the way create a few jobs? What is the harm in that? You don’t have an answer. Your answer is Michelle Malkin’s: just suck it up and take it dammit, and when the next bridge collapses don’t whine. Please.
Even if you DO have a problem with spending, he’s open to Reaganesque tax cuts. So what the hell are you complaining about?! I suppose to keep your readership up, you have to criticize him in someway to satiate the hateful appetite of your audience.
As far as approval ratings go, you can be Cheneyesque and say they don’t matter, but they do. They reflect what America thinks of our leaders and their actions. This is not a dictatorship, it’s a democracy, so polls matter. Their are ignorant people who vote, but that’s on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Check these links if you don’t believe me:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mccainpalin-supporters-let-their-rac
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/238074.php
http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2008/oct/22/983/
http://www.youtube.com/morrillmajority
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar71V0MS1jg
So that video you posted is crap, because I voted for Obama, I know the answer to every one of those questions, and every friend of mine who voted for him does as well. There are intelligent people, such as myself, who can consume a litany of information and come to an objective conclusion about a president’s performance. Their opinions are included in the percentages. So a 28% approval rating for Bush absolutely means he did a terrible job, and a 70%+ approval rating of Obama’s transition absolutely means he’s done a good job so far, regardless of your small opinion about Geithner and Summers.
And if Obama hasn’t done anything, why don’t you stop criticizing him until he does? He’s not trying to ram anything through Congress. He said he wants 80 votes out of the Senate. If he has trying to ram a bill through, he could just load it with liberal projects and win on the party line. He’s doing the most anyone can ask for, but nothing satisfies you, because you hate who he is. If he was a conventional white Republican conservative, you wouldn’t question anything he did. That’s how you can explain away a pre-emptive war that had no justification.
Missy,
The rcp average is pre-election, genius. His approval rating has soared since then.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/Obama.poll/
That’s my point. Since his election, the country has rallied behind him, except for the fringe right that gets its news from Rush Limbaugh. I don’t listen to blowhards except to entertain myself with how desperate they’ve become. I read as much as I can, including blogs on both ends of the spectrum, all articles at rcp everyday, and watch both Fox and MSNBC. Drudge, Huffpo, national review, hotair, tpm, everything. I am a consumer of information. That’s why I was able to correct this poster and you.
Oh and one more thing, he hasn’t been called Hitler? Fat chance:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/01/its_official_sp_1.html
You people have called him every name in the book from marxist to communist to muslim terrorist. These terms say more about your prejudice and hate than it does about him.
Sorry, Chuck… I forgot to throw a few names in the hat INRE who may have been a balancing voice on the Obama admin economic team. So busy addressing the rest of your personal partisan BS.
Credit must be given to former Treasury Secy John Snow, who in 2003 and 2005 recommended an extensive regulatory overhaul of the lending industry. The same for WH chief economic advisor, Gregory Mankiw. (Add’l references found here in the IBD op-ed back in early Dec)
The same could be said for FASB chair Robert Herz, who sent up a flare in 2005. There there is also Yale Economist, Robert Shiller.
Add to that Richard Fisher, CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, who was critizing Greenspan’s handling of the interest rates… keeping them dangerously low for too long. In fact he was the only fed bank president who voted against the rate drops… not once, but five times.
Contrary to your allusion, New York University economist Nouriel Roubini and Nassem Taleb were not the lone rangers.
I’m sure you’ll discard all these as they are probably more conservative than you’d like to see in an Obama cabinet. But evidently the only economists you even heard… ala your statement, nearly EVERY economist over the past two decades… were those propping up Barney Frank and other Congressional members barring the door on reform. Then again, that’s what happens when you make a blanket generalization.
Oh, whadduya knooooooooow? Now I’m being moderated. My comments don’t meet the standards of your echo chamber I suppose. Too much clarity and too little Obama-hate. Thanks for confirming everything I said.
Chuck, you jump the gun. I have checked the moderation filter settings, and you are not in there… and there have been no changes. You are being hypersenstive since many of our regular FA community have found themselves in the moderation or spam filters on random occasions. So your self-serving “confirming everything I said” is not only premature, but completely in error.
As far as Obama’s tax cuts, you obviously do not read back thru prior posts and comments before jumping to conclusions. I have many times said here that Obama won because he campaigned on the normally conservative platform of tax cuts. His decision to back down on his raise taxes business is not sitting well with his party, and the Dems are split now on his latest economic proposal because it *is* a more conservative approach. You have not heard me criticize that aspect. What you have heard me criticize is his spending policy on the New New Deal. So again, you jump the gun and pre-assume… accent on the “ass” section, of course.
On your comment:
That all depends upon how the spending is done, doesn’t it? For every job the feds create, it takes away a job from the private sector and adds to the taxpayers burden. While roads and infrastructure certain have import, the jobs created are temporary. Then what? The taxpayer has increased burden, and that infrastructure is not adding jobs to the private sector when completed.
Obama speaks of green jobs. Yet other than the initial construction of solar or wind farms, just how many permanent jobs are created associated with either? And that’s assuming you can get either thru with the promised lawsuits by the enviros. I do support a mix of alternative energy, along with increased production of US natural petroleum resources, BTW. But to put all our fiscal eggs in alternative energies is a recipe for disasters. The US’s use for oil is not only energy. Our largest exports use petroleum in their manufacturing. Without oil, plastics etal do not exist.
Again you misread the post. I said Obama’s current economic team choices are extremely poor judgment. However the entire post is dedicated not to bashing Obama, but to bashing Rubin, and keeping a wary eye out to see if he (Obama) adds to his misjudgment (IMHO) by adding him in to the mix. That said, we shall have to see how Summers and Geithner handle the current situation…. ala whether they have learned any lessons from the past. But his initial choices of these particular men show me that he does not have an accurate view of how this problem came about in the first place. Then again, those men can be replaced if they do not improve the situation.
On polls, I rarely, if ever, pick and choose them as an substantial support for any comments I make because I just plain don’t believe in them. Never have, and have been on record of ridiculing them at most every instance. However my faith in the intelligence of the average American voter has dropped regularly based on what they know about many issues. And your parroting of typical hateful generalities instead of specifics does not make you much of a spokesman for an “informed” Obama voter.
I can, and will criticize a PEBO or current President on decisions they make. Right now, I am criticizing Rubin, Summers and Geithner… and Obama for depending upon them for economic advice. Whether you like it or not means nothing to me. Go find some friendly digs to hang out in then. My criticism is not only justified, but still allowable via the 1st amendment.
I hate who Obama has portrayed himself as… a man who advocates government as the only solution to what ails America. A man who advocates affirmative action, and who wants to expand social welfare. I don’t care if he were lily white, female and named Hillary Clinton (who I would have preferred…). I hate those policies, and his race has nothing to do with it. So if you plan on accusing me of being racist, you’d better go dig up a comment of mine that supports your claim. Other than that, “let’s be clear” (as PEBO likes to say) as to whom is being hateful in their criticism, and who is being critical based on decisions and policies. And I assure you, you are not the one who is the latter.
We all get moderated from time to time, it’s caused by a spam filter. Your comment will be fished out as soon as the moderators check it. Relax, your comment will show up soon. Now, you might consider apologizing to the FA hosts for jumping to conclusions.
BTW, I alway just ask nicely with a P&T(please and thank you).
Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but can you dispute anything else I said? You continue referencing the RCP average. They stopped calculating after November 4th, so that’s irrelevant. The no comment on Israel/Hamas is exactly what he should be doing. The people criticizing him for not saying anything would be criticizing him if he did, so that’s a wash. He’s handled the Blago crap fine. It’s a mess in Chicago. He’s the next president, and he’s bigger than that. None of your criticisms have any legs, which is why his approval rating is over 70%.
Well for one thing, I will credit all good that comes out of Obama due to his dna as it relates to Cheney. How about that?
Sorry for not looking at the dates at RCP, I’m in the middle of a snowstorm and have been doing some hit and miss posting due to shoveling. But, am not letting you off the hook for broad brushing conservatives as a radical fringe. If you want to debate the radical fringe, go to where they habitate, you will find them in both left and right blog sites, but for some reason you feel the need to counsel FA. In here you will find many patriots that want this country to succeed no matter who sits in the OO, look around. You will also find that some of our regular posters don’t trust the man, me being one of them– one reason being that he was my senator, there are a few others in here from Illinois that are also sitting in the cat bird seat with a bit of first hand knowledge of what he is about. Sorry, the rose colored glasses aren’t a big seller to all that have experienced Barack Obama personally yet, I still want this country to succeed and be protected and hoping that he will measure up, am doubtful, but prayers do get answered.
So far all I’ve seen from you is opinion backed up by sites that you find agreement with. FA archives are full of like opinion and a vast majority has been proven wrong. Fortunately, the archives are open to all, might want to take a peak at the various topics you have opined on. As far as the Schlussel blog referring to him as Hitler, I will just say, it isn’t happening here, take it up with her, again, broadbrushing. Here you find an incident that in by no means compares with what President Bush went through, but it satisfies you. Sad.
“There are intelligent people, such as myself, who can consume a litany of information and come to an objective conclusion about a president’s performance. I am a consumer of information. That’s why I was able to correct this poster and you.” (Chuck to Mata)
OK, Chuck, I’ll take your word for it, but still I would like you to prove it. Let’s make a deal: I want you to watch this video and come back afterwards with a coherent opinion on this issue. I want you to explain to us why you do not agree with the economist point of view. I will be waiting for your answer and I am sure that Mata would like to hear it also. Mata, maybe you could embed this video that explain everything you have explain to Chuck.
Peter Schiff vs Obama’s Stimulus Plan 12/08/2008
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=118kqCPi6Ow&eurl=http://www.antagoniste.net/
Craig, I don’t care about pompous, arrogant comments such as you reference above by Chuck. I am not infallible, and his call was correct. No problem there. I prefer to have my attentions drawn when I make careless errors. I did mix up Gaithner and Summers via memory. I should have backchecked since I know well that Summers was a possibility for the Treas Secy, but ended up as NEC Director. But truth is… flew out of my mind as to the tasks. It comes down to the “same ol’, same ol'” to me. Same players, same arena of expertise, same historic cabal and irresponsibility from that era. And both holding positions of power in Obama’s economic team today.
By forcing me to drag Gaithner into the mix with the correction, it just compounded the warning of the headline for Rubin. I should have thought of that myself to drive the point home more directly.
But thank you for adding Schiff to the list of naysayers. Doesn’t much matter because evidently Mr. “Intelligent” is deaf to any who do not land on the left side of the aisle. Otherwise how could he have missed the two biggest powers in the WH, warning of this back in the 2003-2005 era?
But don’t count on me “waiting to hear” Chuck’s answer. As ol’ Rhett says, “frankly, my dear… I don’t give a damn”.
“But don’t count on me “waiting to hear” Chuck’s answer.” (Mata)
LOL! I will tell you a secret; I am not waiting for his answer either. I know he has no arguments against Peter Schiff and he cannot argue with you or me on this matter. I was just daring him to do so.
Craig,
Peter Schiff doesn’t have an argument to react to. He’s saying we should not do anything, let every company fail and hope for the best 5 years from now. This is where it comes down to an individual’s philosophy. If there are 2 million people’s jobs related to the auto industry that will go away if the gov’t adheres strictly to free market principle, you say, fine. I say the that’s where the gov’t should step in and reduce the effect of the cyclical nature of capitalism. I don’t believe spending inherently means a distortion of the economy that will lead to a Depression. I mean, there are economists saying if we do nothing, because of the specific nature of this crisis, we could be headed for the depression of all depressions. My point is, there are really smart people on both sides of the argument. We all tend to gravitate to the arguments that gel best with our own inclinations. Peter Schiff does not have a monopoly on what works and what doesn’t. I frankly think everyone is driving blind, and the best we can do is work collaboratively to solve a problem the global economy has never faced. Singling out Rubin as a villain is pointless. After all, isn’t he the lone treasury secretary to oversee a balanced budget? Isn’t that the pinnacle of responsible gov’t?
He asserts that the gov’t can’t fund private sector jobs (for some reason I don’t get). Obama’s plan asserts 9 out of 10 jobs he creates will be in the private sector. So what if they’re temporary? On the one hand people complain the infrastructure jobs won’t work because they take too long, on the other you complain that the jobs will be temporary. What gives? We only need a bridge to get through what will be a spike in unemployment over the next 2 to 3 years, and once that’s over, get out and let the free market run again. Isn’t that the concept?
MataHarley,
Of the economists you site, are you certain Obama is not tapping them for their ideas? I don’t believe the guy has any bent. He had to adhere to liberal ideology in order to ascend through his career, but now he’s the president, and I think he truly wants to do what’s right, regardless of the ideological corner it emerges from. He has a group of economists headed by Paul Volcker. He says he reads his bad press. I think the guy honestly wants to solve the problem. Do you not? I’m not “deaf to any who do not land on the left side of the aisle” and I don’t think Obama is either. I don’t think he minds the fact that some democrats are questioning parts of his plan. That’s great! That should make you feel better. I believe he truly wants to do what’s best for the country.
I notice you making sarcastic references to my intelligence, but I had to assert it as an Obama supporter because you guys love to show that video to make yourselves feel like the only reason he won was because America is full of idiots. Generalities. You make them, and so do I. We’re all dumb, and you’re all racist, as evidenced by Missy’s assertion that everything Obama accomplishes will be a result of the dna he shares with Cheney.
Look I’m an average citizen with a fair amount of knowledge, just like you. Why isn’t it pompous of you to criticize Rubin? Why isn’t it pompous that you have this blog at all? You have a right to express your opinion, and so do I.
I guess I proved you guys wrong. I don’t mind arguing, nor do I mind being shown evidence that my argument is wrong. I’m not an ideologue. I just want what’s best for my country. I have no reason not to trust Obama. You guys say you do, and like I said, I think it’s because of who he is. You still haven’t given me a reason to change my mind about that. It’s funny you preferred Hillary to Obama. She advocated freezing interest rates for 5 years and healthcare mandates. That’s about as left as you can get.
Schiff also makes the claim that spending inherently means you’re diverting resources from somewhere else. It’s not true. We can deficit spend to get the economy moving, and raise taxes down the road once our GDP begins to grow again. I think he’s making a false argument just for the sake of disagreement. Either way, he doesn’t really say what we should do. Should Obama just sit on his hands and wait it out?
Chuck,
LOL! Get an Economic course 101. It is urgent. And stop informing yourself from idiot leftists economy baloney BS. You are wasting your time and ours.
“I just want what’s best for my country.” (Chuck)
LOL! If that would be true, you would have never voted for The One. Unless you are an ignorant misinformed guy. But you swear you are not; so I conclude that you do not like your country since you voted for that incompetent illegal alien.
Snicker.
Heh.
Ummm….
Not so much.
Nice to see you back with us Aye, been missing you!
Thanks Missy.
I took a little hiatus during the busy season of the year.
Now, I’m back until the big springtime surge.
I appreciate that you guys think I’m an idiot. My question is, what do you propose we do? Are you economic experts? Do you have the answer to solving the economic crisis? Look I agree America needs to become more productive, we’ve gotten drunk on debt, and we don’t make enough products. We have to make drastic changes. I just don’t see why government can’t play a role in that. In fact, until someone shows me some evidence, I don’t see how we convert to the economy we need without the aid of government. Companies are collapsing left and right. Everyone is overleveraged. It’s easy to make immature comments like Aye, but it’s hard to actually come up with a solution. No one has answered the question. What is the solution? You deride Obama for trying to find one, and then you act like little kids when someone calls you out on it. Grow up.
Aye, you’re a prick.
“I just want what’s best for my country.” (Chuck)
LOL! If that would be true, you would have never voted for The One.
Yeah Craig, and Sarah Palin as our VP would’ve been EXACTLY what we need. You’re an idiot.
Oh dear, Chuckie has, once again, resorted to name calling.
Tell me Chuckster, in real life, when you go over to someone’s house, is it normal for you to piss on the rug there too?
Now, back to the question at hand.
Chuckles, read the US Constitution to find out what the role of gov’t is.
Then you’ll have the answer as to what should, and should not, be done.
You got that part right at least.
Let’s start with a positive, Chuck. INRE your comment:
Actually, we have some long term FA community residents that are also lining up on your side of the aisle. And we actually have some very civil discourse, with the usual “family taunting” that gets throw in on occasion. Generally none of us take it to heart and we go. You did, however, come in with a bang on your condescending ‘tude.
So let’s call it a truce. I appreciate you pointing out my very careless mistake. It was not made out of lack of knowing, as both are Obama admin economic team appointees. Just a mix up in my brain for which had which. My error for being too lazy to verify which was which, and I admit it. And I genuinely thank you for pointing it out.
But you did so with a ‘tude. And I might have come back and asked you why you didn’t include Summers proper title, instead of just deriding the overall post… which focused on the flaws of Rubin, and not Obama.
I don’t think you’re an idiot. I think you are partisan… and perhaps too trusting of any POTUS of any political stripe. You think I am partisan, and too distrusting. As far as I can see, this is really our starting point for further discourse. If I’m in error in that assessment, feel free to lay it out more clearly.
Now to some substance instead of raw emotions:
First, the reason I think he’s *not* tapping into alternative views is because they aren’t on his Transition Economic Advisory Board (the link near the end, and repeated here for you). I’d love it if they were.
But let’s go to the paragraph about his genuine belief that he “truly wants to do what’s right”. I will absolutely agree. I don’t think Obama is an evil “muslim” who’s bent on destroying the US. I believe he wants to do what he believes is best for this country. Then again, I also believe that about Bush. And I may be presumptuous in “ass”uming you do not share that belief, just based on your previous diatribes.
On the whole, I think anyone that takes that office has a vision in mind to improve on an already great nation. You are not the first to suggest here on FA that Obama will do what he believes is correct. Oddly enough, the shared census for that (even from our left-leaning commenters) is not for love of country, but for self-love and quest for legacy. Either way, such an event can translate into success for the US… which most of us share as a goal.
It does happen that, based on Obama’s past writing and his campaign talking points, I don’t like his visions for an “improved” US that “reclaims dreams” that actually… as he himself proves… were not lost. But steadily Obama has been proving his campaign talk as “just words”, and moving more to center left instead of far left. Yes… that’s an improvement for me. But he’s still left of where I believe we should go. Therein lies the beauy of the US… the diversity of opinion, and the battle for electoral power every 4-6 years. What we all hope is that in that 4-6 years, no single entity or party can do irreparable damage.
What was “pompous” on your part was personal assaults, Chuck. My reasoning for criticizing Rubin is well documented, and shared by many on your side of the aisle as well… when they are not busy playing politics. Your comments, however, were personal and self-serving. I am hoping in the future, they will be more reasoned for civil disagreement.
Yes to that you pointed out my careless error. However you did not prove me wrong that Rubin would be a very bad addition to the Obama economic team… again the point of the post. And I’m glad you don’t mind arguing, but hope our future discussions will be more substance, and less personal. On both of our sides.
But I’m not so convinced about the “not an ideologue” bit. LOL
Your “snickers” and “hehs” are no less disrespectful than name calling, so don’t mention it. As far as the house analogy is concerned, I’ve driven by this one several times and each time there’s nothing but Obama hate. Now that I’ve actually walked in, I noticed more engagement with issues than a cursory drive-by gave me. For that reason, I plan on coming over more often. I actually appreciate the poster’s responses. Most conservative blogs require registration, which is always closed to make sure everyone there is in agreement in their opposition to Obama.
But ok, now you’ve made it clear what the problem is. Your ideology has you beholden to this belief that government cannot act in the face of crises, even when millions of people’s jobs and livelihoods lie in the balance. That’s called irrational. No responsible president is going to stand by and let the unemployment rate double without doing something about it, whether you think that violates the Constitution or not. Because you’ve refrained from answering my question, I will assume that your suggested response is to do nothing. Let any company teetering on bankruptcy to fail, no matter it’s size. But the fact is that the relationship between the government and our economic system we have has been evolving ever since this country’s inception. Am I wrong? Why aren’t anti-trust laws are unconstitutional for example? Let’s just say for argument’s sake that I went back and read the Constitution, and I’m just too dumb to come away with a conclusion on what should be done right now. I want YOU to explain it to me like I’m a second grader. Seriously. Tell me what you think the government’s response should be to this crisis.
MataHarley,
You’re right. I was being personal. Honestly I think it’s a result of reading comments on HotAir and michellemalkin and not being able to respond. That spilled over to this blog, but I see you guys aren’t really hateful like them. I really don’t consider myself an ideologue, as I am a fairtax advocate, am wary of universal healthcare, and believe lower taxes generally are better for the economy. I diverge with the right on social issues, however. I think the role and size of gov’t should not be dogmatically small, but instead responsive to the conditions of the nation. I think Bush is a good person, but for several reasons, many beyond his control, was not a good president. The opposite can be said (IMHO) about someone like Clinton. Now, I have to admit to a certain affection for Obama. I believe he is a truly great man with the potential to be a transformational president. If I have a bias in any direction, it is there. I don’t tow the Democratic line, and have frankly been getting annoyed with complaints coming from that side lately, just as I have from this one. I do look forward to having substantive debates here. I’m eager to learn as much as I can. And yes, I do want what’s best for my country, and I don’t think voting for “the One” contradicts that. I would still like to hear what the right believes we should do about this problem, for it is a problem and it can’t be ignored. It seems like that’s what Obama is being implored to do: cut taxes and let the chips fall where they may.
First, Chuck… INRE your other response:
And thank you very much for noticing… albeit a tad late. Then again, many times first impressions really suck the big one… ‘scuse my language. You will find we FA authors, and most of the FA community commenters are a general sampling of the US public. That is to say, a mix between conservative/liberal depending on the issue at hand. And we also try to do more commenting with back up source data that helped us form our opinion. I think, in this way, FA differs from many other more well known “conservative” blogs.
Altho I will give you warning that the majority of we FA authors are either active military ( or in the service of govt intel ), ex-military, ex-military dependents, or just plain huge fans of the military. So we are big on the troops and their safety… as well as support of what a CIC demands of them. This we believe is intrinsically tied to their performance and duties. And yes… when Obama is CIC… we will still feel the same way.
Which of course, brings me to your next post, where you are used to being rejected from the larger “registration only, and oh… BTW… no room at the inn” other conservative blogs. Don’t feel alone. Sometimes media popularity has it’s price, I guess. Hang, even I can’t post on Hot Air as I didn’t make the “registration deadline”. Oh well. I’ll live.
But yes, a dissenting voice is welcome here on FA when it has some substance, and not necessarily a repeat of parroted standard talking points, nor blind support just because Obama doesn’t have an R after his name.
I’d say your clarification of ” fairtax advocate, am wary of universal healthcare, and believe lower taxes generally are better for the economy” gives you more in common with most of us than you originally believed (or are comfortable with?? LOL). But then, you’d have to have hung around here for awhile to know that. As well as the rest of your post #35.
I think that latest one is a more than fair introduction to the rest of us as to where you stand. Sometimes just knowing who you are talking to, and where they are coming from, is a big bonus. For any questions of us, just use the “search” function at the top. For the authors, you can search our posts via our name.
And believe me, you won’t be the first who got off to a rocky start here strictly because you came out with guns blazing without knowing how many “enemies” were actually standing guard in the ‘hood. First impressions can be rough, and erroneous on both sides. Cause and reaction, ya know.
So I actually think you will do well to air your opines here. Welcome. And yeah.. you’re going to get garbage hurled at you sometimes, and well as do a bit of “chucking” of garbage yourself. But I do think that we start with enough middle ground together for more productive cyber chat. Ala we’re not all blind Bush supporters, and you haven’t been hypnotized by every Obama uttering. A healthy distrust of all pols… regardless of party.. is what most of us believe.
But don’t put away your political lance… I’m sure there’s more jousting to be had in the future. :0)
Since you requested the second grader synopsis, here goes:
The gov’t should do nothing.
Zip.
Zero.
Nada.
Nothing.
It’s not the job of the gov’t to do anything.
If you were familiar with the US Constitution you would know that there is no Constitutionally established role for gov’t in this situation. None.
If you were to make yourself familiar with the Founding Fathers, and in the process studied their original intent, you would also find that the federal gov’t has no role. None.
My “ideology” as you term it, is the US Constitution, the Founders original intent, and the desire to keep the federal gov’t as small and unobtrusive as absolutely possible.
Furthermore, if you were familiar at all with the Great Depression and the actions of FDR and the fed gov’t then you would know that those actions actually extended the Depression by several years instead of solving it.
The only action by the fed gov’t I would find acceptable in this situation is to cut spending, and roll back tax rates (corporate and individual) in order to get more money into the pockets of the citizens and stimulate business growth.
Outside of that, any gov’t role will simply exacerbate the problem.
Fair enough. The Constitution and our Founding Fathers also didn’t make it necessary for black people to be free human beings. The Constitution was created for white male landowners, and for that simple reason, I’m inclined to consider it “living”. If this country was full of strict Constitutionalists from the time it was written until today, Barack Obama would have never been eligible to run for president. I assume that isn’t your preference, but maybe I’m wrong. We continue to make the Constitution live up to its own words. That is an ongoing, collaborative effort that will continue into eternity. Our job is to continue to perfect this great country (imho). Against that backdrop, I don’t think we should continue to let millions of people slip into unemployment for the sake of what you consider to be following the rules of the Constitution. That would have catastrophic effects that would reverberate not only throughout the country, but around the world. As far as the Depression and FDR, as I said before, we look back in history through ideological lenses. Those on the left consider his only failure to be raising taxes in 1937 in order to balance the budget. Spending did not prolong the Great Depression. Raising taxes did. My question is, even with high unemployment, didn’t the money spent by the gov’t provide jobs that otherwise would not have been there? Spending does not exacerbate anything. It only hurts if you raise taxes. Deficit spending only puts you at risk of inflation, which obviously will need to be monitored closely. Outside of that, what’s the problem?
“I have to admit to a certain affection for Obama. I believe he is a truly great man with the potential to be a transformational president.” (Chuck)
And what makes you believe that? Obama is a liar, a fraud, a manipulator, an usurper, a flip-flopper and a crook. He is also very secretive he won’t let anyone see his records; doesn’t that tell you something? Look at all his associations: Ayers, Dorn, Wrights, Odinga, Auchi, Rezko, Khalidi, etc. He is incompetent all he knows is to to vote “present”. Acorn and all his other crooked associations are all his doing. This guy is a bum. He is a communist pro-terrorist and he hates America. So, why do you believe that he is a truly great man? There is nothing to support that. He can’t even speak without a teleprompter and he is too coward to give his opinion in the Gaza situation. This guy will be the downfall of America if no one stops him. And you voted for that? Remarkable!
You are correct that the Constitution did not establish freedom for slaves. In fact, that very issue was one which had to be compromised on in order for the Constitution to be passed and ratified to begin with.
What you fail to mention in that regard however, is that the Founders established an amendment process by which the Constitution could be changed as the citizens of the country deemed it necessary.
If you desire for the fed gov’t to be involved more deeply in the economy and the private sector might I suggest that you begin with your Congressional delegation and the Senators that represent your state. Call them up and let them know that you want to have the Constitution amended so that the fed gov’t can do what you want done.
Outside of an amendment to the Constitution what you desire is not constitutional and has been repeatedly proven to be harmful rather than helpful.
As to the Depression and FDR, ideological lenses have little to do with the opinion that gov’t intervention extended the situation.
A recent UCLA study proves my point:
Pleaaaase Chuck get that Economic 101.
Craig,
You’re clearly a Sean Hannity hack. I don’t need to listen to anything you have to say. You’re irrelevant. I will refrain from addressing you from now on, and I’d politely ask you to do the same.
Aye,
I’ll bring well-documented evidence that supports FDR’s actions shortly.
Chuck, you have no order to give to me even if you are an Obama’s thug. I will respond to you as many times as I feel.
“I don’t need to listen to anything you have to say.” (Chuck)
LOL! You don’t want to know the truth, you only want to believe what you are aready falsely believing. You just want to continue to adore and admire the bum that will probably be your next President. Keep up the “head in the sand” attitude, it suits you fine.
P.S: Arizona Cardinals are leading 30 to 7… yeah! John McCain’s team. Anyone watching football?
I look forward to that.
BTW, Aye… I join Missy is saying “welcome back”, and that your presence has been noticed and missed.
And also, I thought your 2nd grade synopis, followed up by post #39 was just spectacular.
I can only add that IMF study of the Int’l Banking Crises in Nov 2008 supports the notion that more government intervention has been proven not to be as effective. And that what the US Congress is advocating today is far overkill of what other nations’ “cures” have been under similar circumstances.
As per my Sept 29th post, about Congress’ “my way or the highway” solution, coincidently quoting a Roubini article:
Craig. CARDINALS WON!!! 33-13. I suspect those were not Cardinals players in those uniforms. 😉
Hard Right,
I am a football maniac. I follow every game, Canadian and American. In the US, I only take for the red State’s teams… lol. I am sure glad Arizona won, what a game! Too bad that Tennnesse lost just before. Which is your favorite team?
About the only team I follow are the Cardinals. I will be rooting for the Eagles tomorrow since if they win, the Cardinals have home field advantage against them. At home they have been very hard to beat.
Funny you mention the CFL. Where I work we have a higher up who used to play in it. He’s maybe 5’3″, but very stocky in build. He was probably what we call a pocket rocket type player. Small but a very fast runner.
BTW, I also root against blue state teams. I was very happy to see Minnesota lose.
“Small but a very fast runner.” (Hard Right)
Yes, some small players are really fast. Today I really appreciated Fitzerald, your number 11… what a player, a good catcher and a fast runner. This guy rocks. I will also root for the Eagles tomorrow (thanks for the tip), because I would like Arizona to win the Super Bowl this year. Go Cardinals, go!
The thing is, the catch he made with two defenders hanging off him was one of his more pedestrian ones. If he isn’t the best receiver in the NFL I don’t know who is.
I laughed when the announcers said you couldn’t leave him so open. They didn’t. He GOT open which is one of several reasons why he’s so good. I’m starting to think he could play blindfolded the way he pulls in catches everyone else would miss. What’s even more amazing is that he does it game after game. I hope the Cards have him locked up contractually because other teams will be chasing him if not.
If the Cards win the Superbowl we might see Phoenix burned down in celebration. 😉
Aye,
Roubini himself advocates gov’t action, just the right kind. Paulson initially took the wrong tack, buying up bad assets. The correct action is injection cash, but that is gov’t intervention nonetheless. Are you against that as well?
Roubini:
I have also argued that, in order to resolve this financial crisis it is not enough to take the bad/toxic assets off the balance sheet of the financial institutions (a new RTC); it is also necessary and fundamental to reduce the debt overhang of millions of insolvent households via a significant debt reduction on their mortgages (an HOLC program like the one that was implement during the Great Depression); and also recapitalize undercapitalized banks with public capital in the form of preferred shares (as the RFC did with 4000 banks during the Great Depression). An RTC scheme without an HOLC and RFC component would not resolve two fundamental problems: millions of households are insolvent and unable to service their mortgages; the financial system is vastly undercapitalized and needs capital to avoid an ugly credit crunch and to foster new credit creation that is needed for future growth.
That is why I proposed the creation of a HOME (Home Owners’ Mortgage Enterprise) that would be a combination of an RTC, a HOLC and a RFC. Let me flesh out this proposal and its key elements and compare it to the Treasury TARP proposal that in its current form has many flaws.
The RTC (Hoover’s creation) did the same thing Paulson originally did with the TARP money. It took Hoover over a year to correct this approach. It took Paulson a few weeks, which I think is a good sign. Also, the second $350 billion will be used by the Obama administration similarly to how Roubini proposes it be used: the creation of a HOME. Either way, he advocates gov’t intervention to address a serious problem. Citing the limits the Constitution places on gov’t, you are against ANY gov’t action, regardless of what is happening in the country. That is dogma. You don’t see it as such because you feel the Constitution supports your view, but in the face of enormous problems that only the gov’t has the power to help solve, I see your view as an ideology.
Regarding the New Deal, it obviously wasn’t perfect. Some things worked, some things didn’t. For instance, I think there is a consensus that the FDIC was and continues to be a huge success in restoring confidence in the banking system. No? Some things that were tried were in fact unconstitutional, like the NRA, which was eventually scrapped. But to quote economic historian Eric Rauchway,
“The most important thing to know about Roosevelt’s economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt’s first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938. As economist Christina Romer (now director-designate of the Council of Economic Advisers) writes, these rates were “spectacular, even for an economy pulling out of a severe recession.”
Thus, at the very least, the New Deal did not prevent a “spectacular” rate of recovery. More, we have reason to believe some of Roosevelt’s policies enabled it.”
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_the_new_deals_mistakes
Ben Bernanke:
“Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression.”
“Our [with Martin Parkinson] own view is that the New Deal is better characterized as having ‘cleared the way’ for a natural recovery (for example, by ending deflation and rehabilitating the financial system), rather than as being the engine of recovery itself.”
Milton Friedman: admitted that the New Deal’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was “the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since … the Civil War.”
In any case, to claim that gov’t activism in the face of economic crises is barred by the Constitution if a fundamentally ideological one, not an argument for or against what is best for the welfare of American citizens. The debate on what to do and how to do it is wholly separate from whether the gov’t has any role to play whatsoever. The latter argument is irrelevant to the issue of the day. That’s why conservatives–from candidates for RNC chair to private citizens–who were and are opposed to any and all “bailouts” have lost the ear of the electorate, and as long as you cling to this rigid doctrine, you will remain out of power.
Again, Chuck, I hate to be repetitive or redundant, but what you, and others, are proposing is simply not constitutional.
The fed gov’t has NO role outside of reducing spending, cutting taxation, reducing regulation, and getting out of the way.
Outside of that, there is no role for the gov’t.
The free market is just that; free. The private sector functions just fine when the gov’t stays out of it.
A great portion of what is going on right now can, in fact, be traced back to gov’t involvement and tinkering where they had no business.
You can call that “dogma” or “ideology” or any other term you wish to apply to it, however the facts support my position.
It is not the job or the responsibility of gov’t to buy up toxic assets, overdue mortgages, or to invest in or prop up any sort of free enterprise.
No matter how much you may believe that it’s the right thing to do, and no matter how many examples or opinions you attempt to cite as to why it was done before or why it appears to be a good idea now, it remains unconstitutional.
Finally this, or any other, problem is not so enormous that free market forces are unable to resolve it. The “invisible hand” that Adam Smith wrote about is still there. It just needs to be left alone and allowed to work without the shenanigans of politicians from any party.
You and I have a basic difference of opinion on this matter.
You see gov’t intervention as the answer.
You see the growth of the nanny state as a good thing.
I see gov’t intervention as the problem.
I see the American people having the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.
One of us has the Founding Fathers, original intent, the US Constitution, and historical proof on our side.
The other, not so much.