tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post7289174354129979189..comments2023-10-10T05:07:13.577-07:00Comments on En Tequila Es Verdad: "An Angry Fountain of Liberal Rage"Dana Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00890312745525306991noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-66710395866386769702008-10-16T08:04:00.000-07:002008-10-16T08:04:00.000-07:00Cujo: I realize probably nobody is reading this th...<B>Cujo</B>: I realize probably nobody is reading this thread anymore, but I hate to leave a bogus argument standing.<BR/><BR/>The point in contention was whether "Clinton was no better than the others" with regard to proper enforcement of financial regulations.<BR/><BR/>In support of your point, you said "Enron happened on Clinton's watch, ... as did a number of the excesses of the dot-com years."<BR/><BR/>I pointed out (a) that Enron and the dot-bomb were due to new types of shenanigans not previously anticipated, and therefore not something which could be taken care of by "enforcement", and (b) all the work Clinton did towards increasing government transparency -- which doesn't address the core of the problem (i.e. questionable accounting practices in private industry), but it's certainly a hell of a lot better than what presidents before and after did, i.e. the exact opposite.<BR/><BR/>I <I>suspect</I>, too, that he did do some work towards improving accounting practices and accountability, but I would have to research it.<BR/><BR/>You responded that it wasn't that Clinton <I>caused</I> the problem, just that dealing with new types of shenanigans was part of his job -- which he didn't do.<BR/><BR/>That might be true, but it wasn't the point to which I was responding; your original point was that he didn't do his job any <I>better</I> than any other president. I argued that he did do so, by a considerable margin.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-26135284705863839552008-10-04T15:34:00.000-07:002008-10-04T15:34:00.000-07:00There's no "connection", Woozle, they just didn't ...There's no "connection", Woozle, they just didn't do their jobs - which was to deal with the mishmash of "creative" accounting methods these new companies were using to get around the laws. They did that at least partly due to philosophical reasons.Cujo359https://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-26220472385126244112008-10-04T06:16:00.000-07:002008-10-04T06:16:00.000-07:00Cujo: "Enron happened on Clinton's watch" -- I dou...Cujo: "Enron happened on Clinton's watch" -- I doubt very much that you can blame Clinton for Enron, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think the connection is.<BR/><BR/>Some reading material:<BR/>* <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis" REL="nofollow"> California electricity crisis</A>: rolling blackouts were caused by <I>state</I> deregulation and bad judgement<BR/>* <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal" REL="nofollow">Enron scandal</A>: Congress deregulated sale of electricity in "early 1990s", presumably under Clinton -- did Clinton advocate this or let it slide without comment or what?<BR/><BR/>But more to the point, failure to regulate Enron was due to their increasing use of "black box" accounting methods -- a quite new way of gaming the system which, as I understand it, had not been anticipated. I don't think Clinton did anything to encourage this, and as far as I can tell he did what he could to prevent this sort of thing in general via increased transparency.<BR/><BR/>By "transparentization", I mean making public information <I>freely and easily</I> available and accessible. The web hit the public radar under Clinton, and if I remember right a lot of the basic federal websites were created on his watch -- whitehouse.gov, THOMAS, and probably others. (Before that, while you might have been <I>able</I> to get the information, it would have taken some work.) There were other measures not directly related to the web but I'd have to research it. (Ok, one quickie: "Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments" which, iirc, specified how the FOIA should apply to online info services provided by the FedGov -- clearing the way for agencies to create web services without worrying about whether they would be deemed inappropriate.)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-7133137675233651902008-10-04T02:30:00.000-07:002008-10-04T02:30:00.000-07:00Enron happened on Clinton's watch, Woozle, as did ...Enron happened on Clinton's watch, Woozle, as did a number of the excesses of the dot-com years. As for what "biggest transparentizaion" means, I have no idea. Only military and diplomatic information is classified. That has nothing to do with regulating an economy that I'm aware of.Cujo359https://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-90525650266849889142008-10-03T22:46:00.000-07:002008-10-03T22:46:00.000-07:00I always considered myself slightly right of cente...I always considered myself slightly right of center. These days that is billed as radical - WTF is a leftist anyhow ? <BR/>I studied types of government - briefly at school - and remember there were two extremes of authoritarian police states - Fascism and Bolshevic - and that most people preferred things less centralized and 'uptight'.<BR/> Oh yeah. There were Nazis in America prior to - and during - WW II. Communists ? Well, McCarthey made a big noise - which always seemed a convenient front for killing unions as 'unAmerican' in retrospect.<BR/>But yeah. Politics and me ? Not so much. <BR/>And I lived in a place that watched in quiet head-shaking at the enterprise of letting off endless tons of H.E. in the jungles of 'Nam for reasons that made no sense to many Americans - and it didn't stop the mass murder regardless.<BR/>I understand anger and disappointment. I also am not too chuffed at the lives lost 'fighting the Nazis' only to find 'We have met the Enemy, and He is Us' down the road. <BR/>I do, however, have a healthy respect for the brute force, spying,lying and hate consistently displayed by those who would enslave us all ( no hyperbole to that in the least - regardless of the experience before current deteriorating conditions).<BR/>Anger. Best thought of the day over the loss of an ideal.opithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01621946866211400380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-29830180851716831922008-10-03T21:31:00.000-07:002008-10-03T21:31:00.000-07:00From Dana, He keeps using that word "progressive."...From Dana, <I>He keeps using that word "progressive." I do not think it means what he thinks it means.</I><BR/><BR/>*sigh*<BR/><BR/>I'm not one of these people who try to shut down debates by always criticizing the source, but c'mon. If you're going to try and prove a point I don't know if a Daily Kos-associated Wiki is the place to go. That would be akin to me linking to Conservapedia to try and strengthen my case. <BR/><BR/>As I've said on my blog many, many times, there is a HUGE difference between the bastardized 'progressive' that liberals like to throw around today and the real Progressivism that was alive and well in this country once upon a time. I back up my assertion that Progressivism is not synonymous with liberalism by citing one of the men who lead in the the Progressive Era. Benjamin Disraeli, a fellow <I>Progressive</I> conservative said this:<BR/><BR/><I>"In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change, which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines.”</I><BR/><BR/>It's that simple Dana. Change is going to happen, but smart conservatives want to see change grounded in reality, not based on the abstract and unproven principles that so many misguided liberals like yourself advocate. I base Progressivism on the giants of the movement: TR, Disraeli, LaFollete. You base yours on Obama. I suppose both postions are defensible, but mine seems so much easier.Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-71128907309523223822008-10-03T20:54:00.000-07:002008-10-03T20:54:00.000-07:00On reflection, being called an 'angry fountain of ...On reflection, being called an 'angry fountain of liberal rage' sounds a bit effete. At least the fountain part.<BR/><BR/>Alternate suggestions:<BR/>* An enraged volcano of liberal rage.<BR/>* A thermonuclear explosion of liberal rage.<BR/>* Venting liberal rage like tree full of deranged howler monkeys.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-32870334142531685572008-10-03T20:32:00.000-07:002008-10-03T20:32:00.000-07:00A bunch of young pups around here.It was the Reaga...A bunch of young pups around here.<BR/><BR/>It was the Reagan years that first set the stage for my profound annoyance with things GOP. I knew Bush was going to be an idiot but expected him to only make it through one term (He was well into a downward spiral after his first year of office), but I never anticipated the extent of the damages he could do. I think few did at that time.<BR/><BR/>At least I'm am proud to have voted for Wellstone for Senate and against Arianna Huffington's first husband in California.<BR/><BR/>Call me a jaded but proud liberal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-69931196477571637432008-10-03T18:12:00.000-07:002008-10-03T18:12:00.000-07:00Wow. I think that should be in the description to ...Wow. I think that should be in the description to your blog. I don't know anyone whose blog got a title that cool.Cobalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00276860017599044287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-73891354377600781802008-10-03T17:21:00.000-07:002008-10-03T17:21:00.000-07:00Cujo said "Clinton was no better than the others" ...Cujo said "Clinton was no better than the others" with regard to proper enforcement of financial regulations.<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that Clinton presided over the biggest declassification and transparentization of government operations in the history of the US.<BR/><BR/>If that's true, and if enforcement of regulations was the way to have prevented the mess we're in now, and transparency is one way to ensure enforcement, it seems to me he stands head and shoulders <I>above</I> the others.<BR/><BR/>So which part of that chain is wrong?Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-91872069697481907032008-10-03T13:47:00.000-07:002008-10-03T13:47:00.000-07:00SteveC, my take on this is that there are probably...SteveC, my take on this is that there are probably regulations that need to be reconsidered in this area. There may even be some that should be scrapped altogether. That much seems obvious. Unfortunately, though, one of the main problems has been that the regulations we have aren't enforced properly. This is something that's been going on since the Reagan Administration. Clinton was no better than the others in this area. One of Phil Gramm's actions as a Senator, which I mentioned <A HREF="http://cujo359.blogspot.com/2008/09/of-foxes-and-hen-houses.html" REL="nofollow">in this article</A>, was to limit the funding of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), so it was less effective at regulating these businesses. Enforcement of the regulations was left to the states, which is one of the reasons Eliot Spitzer became involved in the Enron investigations.<BR/><BR/>There's plenty of blame to go around, but I think the upshot is that this is all the result of the last thirty years of economic policy, particularly regarding the financial industry. Whether there was real deregulation or de facto regulation, deregulation was much of the cause.Cujo359https://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-27353783378929909192008-10-03T13:32:00.000-07:002008-10-03T13:32:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cujo359https://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-1815382906995286642008-10-03T13:16:00.000-07:002008-10-03T13:16:00.000-07:00Unfortunately, Woozle, you're right. Our argument ...Unfortunately, Woozle, you're right. Our argument with the religious fanatics isn't about whether there are gods or not, nor is it about the nature of those gods. It's about <EM>the future</EM>. It's about whether your wife, girlfriend, or daughter can have a safe abortion. It's about whether we can get the kinds of drugs we need without having to go all over town to find a pharmacy that's willing to fill the prescription. It's about whether or not science is taught properly in our schools. Most importantly, it's about whether we have to belong to one particular religion to be full citizens.<BR/><BR/>I'm not terribly interested in how banks work. I never have been. But right now I'm learning everything I can, which is kinda hard, because everyone has an opinion and they aren't always careful about labelling the latter as such. It's an important issue, and how we resolve it is going to determine our economic future for my lifetime, and maybe beyond.<BR/><BR/>So I wish folks like PC, if they're really disinterested in all these questions, would just sit down and shut the fuck up and let the rest of us determine their futures for them. Or they can learn what they need to and then tell us where they stand.Cujo359https://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-23589638512684338612008-10-03T12:14:00.000-07:002008-10-03T12:14:00.000-07:00My collection of stuff on blaming Clinton for the ...My collection of stuff on blaming Clinton for the meltdown is <A HREF="http://www.issuepedia.org/Talk:1999-09-30_Fannie_Mae_Eases_Credit_To_Aid_Mortgage_Lending" REL="nofollow">here</A>, though I may move it to its own topic page at some point. (Kudos to Dana for the wonkroom link, which led to a rebuttal from back in <I>April</I> already.)<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Rereading the early Progressive Conservative from Dana's link, I found this comment of his particularly relevant: "The vast majority of America has no interest in either side and would just prefer they both shut the hell up."<BR/><BR/>He was talking about "militant atheism" vs. theism, but I think it applies in other areas too -- such as whether or not certain people are telling the truth or being lying, manipulating scumbags. Why can't we "militant truthists" <I>just let it go</I> when the Repugs lie blatantly and get away with it? We're probably turning a lot of people off the idea of truthism, you know...<BR/><BR/>The failure of the sheep to give a damn which way they are being led by the herder may lead to an America where we <I>can't</I> stand up and be enraged anymore. (Indeed, many of them will be quite happy if us rabble are forced to shut the hell up.)<BR/><BR/>I don't know why they don't care, but I can't really be too angry at a sheep for being a sheep.<BR/><BR/>But when someone tries to defend sheephood as a valid intellectual position, and one we should all embrace in the name of the greater good... that's when I tend to see red (a color frequently found in slaughterhouses).Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-86709079572991586632008-10-03T09:27:00.000-07:002008-10-03T09:27:00.000-07:00PC may disagree with you and may find you full of ...PC may disagree with you and may find you full of rage, but isn't that the point? You're sharing your opinions, you're standing up for what you believe in, and you're not making excuses for what you say. I wish more people did the same.<BR/><BR/>You and I disagree on issues (although I find myself leaning left enough to need to put a foot down on that side to steady myself), but we're still friends. Heart sisters, even.<BR/><BR/>As cliche as it may sound, I'm thankful I live in a country that allows us to be "an angry fountain of liberal rage." Or conservative rage. Or green rage. Or whatever.Nicolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12268407996242055175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-83158086172775871272008-10-03T08:14:00.000-07:002008-10-03T08:14:00.000-07:00Hi, nice blog. I've been trying to understand thi...Hi, nice blog. I've been trying to understand this subprime mess, and being a liberal myself, I'd like it if I could show that the CRA didn't lead the the meltdown. Now, I don't think that it was necessarily the "lending to poor people" push that did it, I do that being able to package up and securitize loans ("securitize" means to turn them into securities -- like stocks) was a huge factor. Wikipedia says the CRA is what permitted this.<BR/><BR/>Now I think it was the repeal of Glass-Steagal which got the investment bankers into the picture, and they were, I think, much much more "into" the idea of securitizing loans, and made it much more prevalent than it had been before. But this last is just sort of speculation on my part, it makes sense, and it could be the case, but I don't know that it really is. <BR/><BR/>Then there's the whole credit default swaps mess -- a brand new financial invention, which being brand new, and taking the form of a contract between two parties came onto the scene unregulated.<BR/><BR/>Would like to know what you think in more detail about this, esp. wrt whether the CRA authorized the securitization of loans, as I think this is more of the source of the problem than "loaning to poor people" is, since securitization of loans removes the financial penaltry of making a bad loan to a party other than the lender.<BR/><BR/>Securitization of loans connects the giant money pipe that is everyone's 401k, IRA, etc investments up to the back end of the lending industry and shifts the risks from lender to investor, while at the same time hiding the risk.<BR/><BR/>So, if the CRA did actually authorize securitization of loans, I can't see how it isn't part of the problem. But, it doesn't seem to me to be part of the problem in the way that most people who are saying it is the problem seem to think.<BR/><BR/>But, I'm not a financial guy, so I might be talking out my ass. I'm just trying to understand it better, as best I can.stevechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03031509310091443835noreply@blogger.com