Eugene Robinson: Harry Reid's comments were crudely put, yet true

[ABQCOWBOY]

Perhaps. Or maybe the stimulus did exactly what it was hoped it would do. Get the patient out of critical care and strong enough that we can begin surgery.

All depends on how cynical you feel like being.

(You're probably more right than wrong, but I don't think you're entirely right either)

If the patients are the American People, then it's failed. I don't feel as if I'm better off. In fact, just the opposite. If the patients were the banking industry, then why save some and not others? Why allow some to thrive while you allow others to fail? The banking industry is not what needed to be proped up. The stimulus was designed, as I understand it, to allow for the banking industry to buy up all of the "toxic loans". Well, that never happened. Instead, they invested in themselves and aquired more wealth, which in turn, made more money for the banking industry but never actually addressed the issue. Bad debt is still out there and the banks are not going to buy it back. They are going to continue to invest in themselves, invest in high yeild stock, continue to keep a very tight rain on loans because think about it, why would a bank loan money when interest rates are as low as they go? The answer is that they won't because banks are not in the business of doing business for no profit. They will continue to control the housing market by releasing a specified number of homes to the market so as not to flood the market and kill profits on those homes. They would rather they sit and do nothing because they are making money on other investments right now so they can afford to wait. The banks are not stupid, nor is Wall Street. They will continue to invest in foreign markets and make money while the American people struggle.

There is a reason the Government runs almost everything at a loss and Banks make money.

[DjTj]

It's pretty clear how the trajectory of black people in America, going up heading into the 60s, flatlined in the 70s and 80s mostly due to the War on Poverty (ironically enough).

You know the statistics regarding: drug use, illegitimacy rates, dropout rates, unemployment, crime, and gentrification.

So I guess I don't blame the Civil Rights bill as much as the welfare crap that came after it.

If in fact liberal policies have failed blacks in America, then why do they continue to support the Democratic Party in overwhelming numbers?

What explains the market failure? How do you fix it?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Last year, bank after bank was failing. The big three were about to go under. And we were inches from the entire U.S. economic system just going down for the count.

Today, banks are making a profit, the stock market has doubled from its lows, and orders are up in a wide spectrum of areas. If you can't see anything positive it's because you don't want to see it.

Or perhaps I'm looking at this with respects to the People and not the Banks or Wall Street. The Banks and or Wall Street don't suffer. They make money regardless because there are always two sides to every deal. If we are suffering, somebody else is making money. The Banking industry, nor Wall Street have alligence to the American people. They have allignece to whomever is going to make them money. Don't get Banking prosperity confused with the welfare of the American people. They are not one and the same.

[alexey]

Cap and Trade can not work simply because you take coal, even clean coal off the table. This not only robs the US of it's most abundant fuel source but it puts a lot of people out of work. The problem here is that you can't, IMO, stimulate the kinds of change you are discussing with just becoming more Green Efficiant. The sell to the American people is that we must curb the emmissions but the reality is that whatever we curb will still be outdistanced by a growing Chinese, Korean, Indian, African and Russian economic growth movement. It's a one step forward, 10 step back deal. By the time we reach the 2050 targeted emmisions thresholds, assuming we ever do, these other countries will have increased the total carbon emmissions by 4x what our projected goal will be. It makes no sense to try and do this. Even if the Cap and Trade regs were put into effect, our Government knows that they don't work. Many other countries all over the world have tried to implement them and all that happens is that business exceeds the number and just buys more credits from the Government. They pass the costs onto the consumer and the price of life goes up. Reductions don't actually happen. It becomes a revenue center and the Government makes more money but the problem is not actually solved. Meanwhile, the people pay.

Geo or Fusion is the answer IMO but neither is funded. Cap and Trade, IMO, is about money. Nothing more.

Yes there are concerns with Cap and Trade, and I'm sure they will come up if the Senate decides to move on that. Please note that the scheme has proven successful in the past for things like the acid rain. Also I understand that EU did Cap and Trade for Kyoto with some success, most notably in Germany. Obviously the effort has to be global. I do not think it is correct to say that China, India, etc are not interested in dealing with this issue. I understand that environmentalism is on the rise in China big time, for example. There needs to be a momentum, which was lacking due to us openly pooping on Kyoto. Also some technological advancements to make things cheaper will really help. Long term - Fusion for the win!!!

Short term there may be big impacts from breakthroughs in battery technologies, algae fuels that can be put in regular engines, geo, cheaper solar (film, spray-on, etc), portable wind, smart grid.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes there are concerns with Cap and Trade, and I'm sure they will come up if the Senate decides to move on that. Please note that the scheme has proven successful in the past for things like the acid rain. Also I understand that EU did Cap and Trade for Kyoto with some success, most notably in Germany. Obviously the effort has to be global. I do not think it is correct to say that China, India, etc are not interested in dealing with this issue. There needs to be a momentum, which was lacking due to us openly pooping on Kyoto. Also some technological advancements to make things cheaper will really help. Long term - Fusion for the win!!!

Breakthroughs in battery technologies would also make a HUGE difference.

With respects to third world, they are interested but only if the United States, in effect, pays for Cap and Trade for them. They will not sign a pact unless they are compensated for what they spend on Cap and Trade. What does that mean for us? If we want them onboard, we have to pay their way. If we pay their way, what does that mean for them? It means that it doesn't matter what they use because we are on the hook for the excess.

They are not for this because this will slow their economic growth at a time in history when the U.S., the most powerful economic country in the history of the world is vulnerable and can not stop the progress of what we could and would normally crush before it became a threat to us.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

I recall David Chappelle saying that all black men speak two languages, street and job interview.

[ccsl2]

I recall David Chappelle saying that all black men speak two languages, street and job interview.

I know I do :D:D:D

[LaxBuddy21]

Perhaps! Or perhaps it took her too long to process through all the things that Palin has said before choosing an example that her brain overloaded because it couldn't handle that number of data.

That was very Captain Kirk of you, Lax. You could have literally blown her mind. (or she may have just been stunned that you wanted to get into THAT argument and wasn't in the mood for an all out political skirmish who knows.)

Lol fortunately I know she doesnt watch the news or read the newspaper. She reads facebook and hears what her parents and I say. Thats the extent of her political involvement although I wish it was more. Everyone should be aware of what is going on in our government.

[LaxBuddy21]

I recall David Chappelle saying that all black men speak two languages, street and job interview.

Ha thats funny! I love Chappelle. I dont understand why people do not try to speak proper English all the time anyway. Dont they realize how unintelligent it makes them look? I used to say warsh instead of wash and realized how ignorant it made me look so I corrected it. It just goes back to why I hate hip hop culture since it promotes ignorance like its the cool way to be!

[JohnLockesGhost]

If in fact liberal policies have failed blacks in America, then why do they continue to support the Democratic Party in overwhelming numbers?

What explains the market failure? How do you fix it?

Because the reason for voting to continue most of these destructive policies is simple, straightforward and wrong.

The reason for eliminating them is nuanced and convoluted.

I think H. L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

[mcsluggo]

Funny how in these days, you would never see a vote break down like that ... Republican Everett Dirksen of Illinois certainly deserves a lot of credit for helping to pass the Civil Rights Act.

But even your numbers show that the majority of those who voted for the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. The House and Senate were controlled by Democrats, and the sponsors of the Bill were Democrats. The President who signed the Bill was a Democrat. Barry Goldwater, the Republicans' 1964 candidate for President, had voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Most importantly, however, was the shift that happened after the Civil Rights Bill was passed. The Democrats opposed to Civil Rights all had to make a choice. Strom Thurmond, a Democrat since he entered the Senate in 1954, switched to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights vote. Robert Byrd, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stayed in the Democratic Party and would later vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

So while there were many Republicans at the time who supported Civil Rights, they were a dying breed, and as Nixon pursued his Southern Strategy, the Republican Party would come to embrace politicians like Strom Thurmond rather than men like Everett Dirksen.

an excellent post. Thank you

[DRSmith]

After seeing how Palin respoended to things last night on Oreilly I have a lot more repsect for Reid. Where as Reid stepped up and admitted and apologized all Palin does is deny deny deny.

[mcsluggo]

I agree it's uncommon to see people agree on controversial issues like that today. And yes, the majority of supporters were Democrats, but they were also the majority at the time. The stats showed a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill. As for people/regions switching sides after this, that wasn't my point. You said that the Republican party didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because of their past on Civil Rights. I merely pointed out that, back in the '60s, the Republican party was a bigger supporter of Civil Rights than the Demcrats. By your argument, this information should allow them the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to change the parameters of your argument, then fine. But when I present you information based on your first argument and you dismiss it out of hand, that weakens your stance.

It OBVIOUSLY wasn't YOUR point that the people/regions shifted sides... but that is THE point to take from this snapshot. in 1964 blacks certainly wouldn't have been considered "safe democrat votes", and for good reason... however that is a bell-weather place in history. From that point forward the "southern strategy" dominated and the republican party ACTIVELY courted voters and politicians based on dis-satisfaction with the 1964 civil rights legislation (specifically) and uneasiness with race matters generally.

pointing out these OBVIOUS dynamics isn't "changing the parameters of an argument", nor does it weaken his stance.... however ignoring the painfully obvious dynamics of the situation certainly weakens your position.

[mcsluggo]

<<<< but to be fair, you are trying to defend a basically undefensable position, so it isn't your argument that is flawed, really, just your position. I suppose your argument is as good as that position can support. >>>

[mcsluggo]

The fact that he got elected at all is astounding to me. If you just focus on practical experience, never mind the racial implications or even the Bush Administration, that alone is astounding to me. He was not, IMO, the best Democratic Candidate for the job. I think his inexperience is showing in the decision making process. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better IMO.

In the world that we live in, as bad as it is, I found in interesting that today in the Washington Post, an article was release that reported the Fed has made a profit of 45 Billion dollars this fiscal year. This is not the way it's supposed to work.

two things from this...

first: Obama is the most electrifying speaker in a generation. THAT was his qualification. Similarly, republicans in 2000 were much more electrified and excited about W-Bush than they had been about the infinitely more "qualified" Bush senior in 1988 or 2002 -- "qualified" in definable, quantifiable terms from his experience, but ANYBODY could see that bush-jr was heads and shoulders more charasmatic than bush-sr.

Second point: did you read the whole article on the fed profits? yes the fed made $45 billion in 2009... was that orders of magnitude different from the $36 billion the Fed made in 2007? The Fed makes money (all of which goes to the US Treasury, btw), it just does... would you have been more? or less pissed? if the fed had "only" made $20 billion in profits last year?

[mcsluggo]

Unemployement is at 10%

11% of Americans believe the economy is in Excellent to good condition. 46% believe it's flat out poor.

The numbers for this Administration as a whole are unbelievably worse. It's not me, per say. It's the American people who are drawing these conclusions.

you know... this sort of quote is hilarious to me. really.

it honestly is WHY Obama is president today, and why Republicans will have a good mid-term election... but jeez. DOES ANYONE NOTICE THAT THE ENTIRE WORLD IS IN A RECESSION?

Blaming Bush got Obama elected, and Blaming Obama will get the new junior senator from Nevada elected... but that doesn't mean that a thinking person has to buy into the bs.

[mcsluggo]

Yeah, because Civil Rights legislation improved the condition of black people in America so much.

uh.... you don't think it has? really?

I am not asking whether or not you think it is perfect, just whether or not you think that civil rights legislation has improved the conditions of black people in America.

[ABQCOWBOY]

two things from this...

first: Obama is the most electrifying speaker in a generation. THAT was his qualification. Similarly, republicans in 2000 were much more electrified and excited about W-Bush than they had been about the infinitely more "qualified" Bush senior in 1988 or 2002 -- "qualified" in definable, quantifiable terms from his experience, but ANYBODY could see that bush-jr was heads and shoulders more charasmatic than bush-sr.

Second point: did you read the whole article on the fed profits? yes the fed made $45 billion in 2009... was that orders of magnitude different from the $36 billion the Fed made in 2007? The Fed makes money (all of which goes to the US Treasury, btw), it just does... would you have been more? or less pissed? if the fed had "only" made $20 billion in profits last year?

Your response is not in context with what the original discussion was about. We all recognize the fact that Obama is a gifted speaker but the point is that voting should be based on substance as opposed to other. That's the was the point, if you will.

The Fed made money as a direct result of increased funding by our Government, to the Fed. Basically, they took the money we gave them and used it to make more money. Now, 36 Billion was the record of profitability by the Fed till the reporting this week. 36 Billion in a good economic environment is one thing. 46 Billion in an economic climate where buisness is failing and unemployment is 10% is another. Especially since the majority of that money is from additional funding given to them by we the people. I would also add that while it's all good to say that it goes back into the Treasury, lets just remember that it does not go to pay back the Tax Payer or pay down our debt. Essentially, there are no regs attached to that money because it was not budgeted, so to speak. It can be used for anything. There is no tracking mechanisam in place to even report back on how that money is spent. In short, yeah, I would have been much more satisfied to see 26 million of this go to paying down the bills and 20 million shown as profit.

Really..... really?

[ABQCOWBOY]

you know... this sort of quote is hilarious to me. really.

it honestly is WHY Obama is president today, and why Republicans will have a good mid-term election... but jeez. DOES ANYONE NOTICE THAT THE ENTIRE WORLD IS IN A RECESSION?

Blaming Bush got Obama elected, and Blaming Obama will get the new junior senator from Nevada elected... but that doesn't mean that a thinking person has to buy into the bs.

Good advise, had it come a year earlier. You don't face an economic climate, such as the one we have today, and then introduce legislation like Cap and Trade and Healthcare reform that will dramatically expand or national debt, while at the same time, kill jobs and slow recovery efforts. I mean, there is politics and then there is this.

The numbers I posted earlier are where the Country is at right now. Don't shoot the messanger.

[Seabee1973]

Strong and yet weaker than most thought. That Obama was elected by a good sized majority in the most active election in decades (more voter turnout) speaks well to our color blindness.

A lot of them voted for him for the wrong reasons

[WVUforREDSKINS]

A lot of them voted for him for the wrong reasons

And what is that, exactly? I voted for him. I vote for who I think the best leader is....If you can explain why he wasn't the best ticket, i'd love to hear it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

And what is that, exactly? I voted for him. I vote for who I think the best leader is....If you can explain why he wasn't the best ticket, i'd love to hear it.

I realize your not asking me this question but I will tell you why I did not believe he was the best qualified. He had no practical legislative experience to speak of. He had no foreign policy experience to speak of. He had no economic backround to speak of. Mainly, it was a lack of experience that made me believe he was not the most qualified.

[Tweedr01]

Just thought I'd add this link, looks like the majority of voters have no idea what candidates support and already had their mind made up ahead of time:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/12/howard-stern-interviews-obama-supporters.php

[LaxBuddy21]

Just thought I'd add this link, looks like the majority of voters have no idea what candidates support and already had their mind made up ahead of time:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/12/howard-stern-interviews-obama-supporters.php

But Obama didnt get elected because he was black right? If you dont know the issues and you voted, you voted either on looks or on the letter next to the name. In either case, you are a flat out moron. I really think we should require a voter competency test. You should have to go through each issue and know how each candidate stands before you vote. I dont care if you keep taking the test until you get it right because at least that way you would be exposed to the issues if nothing else! But no, this would offend the moron that cant pass the test or cannot read or write or cannot speak proper English blah blah blah. We all know we cannot offend anyone in the minority in this country!

[Tweedr01]

Lol fortunately I know she doesnt watch the news or read the newspaper. She reads facebook and hears what her parents and I say. Thats the extent of her political involvement although I wish it was more. Everyone should be aware of what is going on in our government.

Lol, my wife does the same thing, although her entire family is conservative (they are from pakistan, which i thought was pretty cool), as am I, she hears everyone at her work and her friends (she works at a car dealership where everyone is very liberal). When the election was coming up she wanted Hilary to win, why? Because she was a woman...then I had her talk to her brother and she finally understood...then she didn't like Sarah Palin, McCain, Huckabee...why? I dunno, they just rub me the wrong way...