Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Robert Reich Stands Tall for the Separation of Powers
Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who supports an auto industry bailout, nevertheless agrees that President Bush's unilateral loan plan is illegal and unconstitutional. This shows I'm right! Well, maybe not, but it's an example of a man standing up for a principle even when the principle is inconvenient. Too bad Obama couldn't muster similar courage.
Go here, here, and here for other examples of dissent, all from conservatives or libertarians who (like me) oppose the G.M./Chrysler "rescue" on other grounds as well. If you've noticed legal/constitutional criticism of the latest Bush bailout from people in Reich's ideological vicinity or to his left, point it out in the comments.
[Thanks to Ron Steiner for the tip.]
|12.19.08 @ 4:57PM|#
The commentary on the Reich's height is stupid, low-class, and beside-the-point.
|12.19.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Reich writes, If Congress explicitly decides not to
appropriate it for a certain purpose, where does the White House
get the right to do so anyway?
Congress was asking Bush to use money from the TARP for an auto
bailout for the past month and a half!
|12.19.08 @ 5:03PM|#
I don't how much I would go around saying that I agree with something Robert Reich said. Yeah, I know, he agrees with you, still...
|12.19.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Congress was asking Bush to use money from the TARP for an
auto bailout for the past month and a half!
To which I would reply: so?
That's the now your idea of an appeal to authority? That a minority
of congressmen wanted to do something, but got shot down?
Elemenope|12.19.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Congress was asking Bush to use money from the TARP for an
auto bailout for the past month and a half!
And when they put that in writing and have a vote on it, that might
actually matter.
TallDave|12.19.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Ugh. AIG was bad enough, but they could at least argue they had
an investment go bad as opposed to a failed business model.
Come on, if we're not going to let markets tell us when companies
fail, why have them at all? Let's just go back to the
tried-and-true "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need" economic theory.
|12.19.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Too bad Obama couldn't muster similar courage.
YYYEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
MEET THE NEW BOSS!
SAME AS THE OLD BOSS!
|12.19.08 @ 5:10PM|#
I have solved the energy crisis. We will hook joe up to a turbine and his spinning will provide more power than a thousand suns.
|12.19.08 @ 5:14PM|#
JW,
If Congress explicitly decides not to appropriate it for a
certain purpose, where does the White House get the right to do so
anyway?L
To which I would repley, read the damn post, and the commentary
from Reich which it refers to. They're about the intent of
Congress.
That's the now your idea of an appeal to authority? No,
RTFA.
|12.19.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Elemenope,
And when they put that in writing and have a vote on it, that
might actually matter. They did. The TARP bill passed both
houses of Congresses and was signed by the White House. did you
miss that?
The question is about their intent in doing so, specifically, did
they intend for the funds to be available for an auto bailout. Last
time I checked, there has never in American history been a distinct
vote held to affirm the intent of Congress in how to administer a
bill they passed.
|12.19.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Oh, come on Episiarch. At least the others could manage
something other than "nuh uh, that's spin."
Let's review, shall we?
Congress passed TARP.
Congressional leadership tells Bush to use TARP funds for auto
bailout.
Bush says no.
Back and forth.
Congress votes on additional auto bailout. This bill fails.
Bush accedes to Congress's request to use TARP funds for auto
bailout.
Did anyone but me read what Reich actually wrote? He doesn't even
claim that the language of the TARP bill doesn't allow this, just
that the presence of a failed vote to create Fund B for an auto
bailout means that it is illegal to use Fund A for an auto bailout,
because it shows that they didn't want him to use Fund A - except,
you know, they did, and said so for a month and a half.
BDB|12.19.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Then why was Congress ever involved in the first place, joe? What was all the screaming from Shelby about?
Wondering...|12.19.08 @ 5:25PM|#
The TARP bill passed both houses of Congresses and was signed by the White House. did you miss that?
joe,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that bill specifically mention
financial institutions? "Administering" the bill would include how
to spend-on/giveaway-to financial institutions, not re-interpreting
which companies get the money.
|12.19.08 @ 5:26PM|#
BDB | December 19, 2008, 5:19pm | #
Then why was Congress ever involved in the first place,
joe?
Because Bush initially refused to use the TARP fund for an auto
bailout. He could have at any time, but decided he wanted the
bailout to come from a different pot. When he didn't get his way,
he agreed to use the TARP funds, as Congress wanted him to.
|12.19.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Oh, come on Episiarch. At least the others could manage
something other than "nuh uh, that's spin."
joe, I don't have to. Your actions are clear to everyone except,
seemingly, you.
How much snow do you have so far, by the way? I'm at 3-4 inches at
this point. And how about you, LMNOP?
BDB|12.19.08 @ 5:28PM|#
You gotta love how whenever a corporate bailout gets defeated by Congress, the powers that be just go "LOLz no do it for real now" and then it gets done.
|12.19.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Wondering...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that bill specifically
mention financial institutions?
I'm still waiting to see details, but the reports I've heard are
that the Big Three's financial arms will be the actual recipients
of the funding.
|12.19.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Oh, c'mon, Wondering. The auto companies are financial institutions. They are "institutions" with "finances," so stop it with the picayune legalisms, already.
|12.19.08 @ 5:30PM|#
They are "institutions" with "finances," so stop it with the
picayune legalisms, already.
Actually, their financial subsidiaries are institutions that lend
money, and collect payments, and are incorporates as...wait for
it...financial institutions, subject to all of the laws that apply
to every other financial institution.
|12.19.08 @ 5:32PM|#
If the word "spin" has now expanded to include accurate
depictions of objective reality which a segment of political
activists find inconvenient, then I plead guilty.
I've always used it differently.
|12.19.08 @ 5:36PM|#
By the way, we did discuss the financial arms of the auto
companies here
already.
We're at about four inches here, too. Just came in from Round 1
of shoveling.
As a coastal elitist, I refuse to do manual labor and outsource it.
Probably to Mexicans, but that's for the condo association to
decide.
"Mex-Mexicans! They'll do it! They'll do anything! Who here knows
Spanish?"
|12.19.08 @ 5:42PM|#
But I've got to tell you, I'm deeply troubled by what I hear is the administration's likely decision to give them a bridge loan, when just last week Congress said they can't have it.
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in democracy. And under our Constitution, Congress is in charge of appropriating taxpayer money. If Congress explicitly decides not to appropriate it for a certain purpose, where does the White House get the right to do so anyway? By pulling the money out of another bag? That other bag, by the way, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP for short, was enacted to rescue Wall Street, not the automobile industry.
Now personally, I think there's more reason to rescue big automakers than big Wall Street banks, but what I want isn't the issue. It's what our representatives voted for. When they voted for TARP in October, they didn't say to the President, here's a $700 billion slush fund to use as you wish. They said: Here's $700 billion for Wall Street.
-Reich
Did anyone but me read what Reich actually wrote? He doesn't
even claim that the language of the TARP bill doesn't allow
this
Gold-plated Jesus dancing on the water, Joe.
What the fuck, over?
|12.19.08 @ 5:45PM|#
To which I would repley, read the damn post, and the
commentary from Reich which it refers to. They're about the intent
of Congress.
You mean this?:
"When they voted for TARP in October, they didn't say to the
President, here's a $700 billion slush fund to use as you wish.
They said: Here's $700 billion for Wall Street."
I don't give a rat's ass about what Congress said that they
meant to do, but got sidetracked and didn't vote for it.
Either TARP says that you can pour money down a big hole in
Detroit, or it doesn't. I haven't seen any language that says that
it can. Nor do I think that using Sea Lawyer's tricks to sneak it
in the back door by giving it to their financial subsidiaries makes
it legal.
Shit, now *I'm* agreeing with Reich. Fuck!
dfd|12.19.08 @ 5:48PM|#
I'm still waiting to see details, but the reports I've heard
are that the Big Three's financial arms will be the actual
recipients of the funding.
...
Actually, their financial subsidiaries are institutions that
lend money, and collect payments, and are incorporates as...wait
for it...financial institutions, subject to all of the laws that
apply to every other financial institution.
So I guess as long as any business starts up a "financial
institution" subsidiary they'd be eligible for a bailout of the,
however unrelated, fundamental business under TARP? Just some
paperwork and procedural BS and they're good to go.
I guess TARP is more of a blank check to the executive than even
pessimists had imagined. I'll bet the airlines are going to be
opening banks any minute now.
|12.19.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Congressional leadership tells Bush to use TARP funds for
auto bailout.
Bush says no.
Back and forth.
Congress votes on additional auto bailout. This bill
fails.
Full stop. Game over man, game over.
|12.19.08 @ 5:53PM|#
"We're at about four inches here, too. Just came in from Round 1
of shoveling."
Somebody save Robert!
junior|12.19.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Joe
"Congressional leadership tells Bush to use TARP funds for auto
bailout"
Congressional leadership is not congress and absent a vote this is
completely irrelevent.
GMAC is not a subsidiary of GM. To what financial arm are you
referring?
http://www.gmacfs.com/us/en/about/who/index.html
|12.19.08 @ 5:54PM|#
P Brooks,
Thanks for the quote. As I said, and the quote demonstrates, Reich
doesn't reference the language of the TARP bill at all. As anyone
who reads that, except perhaps you, can quite easily see.
Instead, like I said, he makes an argument about the intent of
Congress, an argument I responded to by noting that Congress itself
has been calling for Bush to use TARP funds.
Yes, JW, I mean that. The statement you quoted, about the intent of
Congress, which doesn't reference the language in the TARP bill,
but rather, the intent of Congress.
Seriously, why is this so hard for you people?
Either TARP says that you can pour money down a big hole in
Detroit, or it doesn't. I haven't seen any language that says that
it can. Have you read it?
Nor do I think that using Sea Lawyer's tricks to sneak it in
the back door by giving it to their financial subsidiaries makes it
legal. Actually, that's exactly what lawyers do. If you can
get it in the back door, it's still in, in a legal sense.
Now, a better argument might be that the using TARP funds for an
auto bailout, while perfectly legal, is a bad idea because the TARP
wasn't written with the conditions and specifications necessary to
do an auto bailout well. But some people have backed themselves
into a corner insisting on the question of legality.
idiotface|12.19.08 @ 5:55PM|#
guys, guys,
joe is backing up Bush cause Obama would have done the same thing
in this particular situation. He's setting himself up for future
threads.
Are Cash for Gold establishments eligible for TARP funds?
Don't think they'll need it. Just wondering...
|12.19.08 @ 5:58PM|#
joe is backing up Bush cause Obama would have done the same
thing in this particular situation. He's setting himself up for
future threads.
Don't give the game away, dude.
|12.19.08 @ 6:00PM|#
dfd,
So I guess as long as any business starts up a "financial
institution" subsidiary they'd be eligible for a bailout of the,
however unrelated, fundamental business under TARP? Yup. The
TARP bill was absurdly broad like that. Remember the initial
version, that stated that none of the spending could be reviewed by
any legislative committe or court? Congress fixed that, but they
still rushed through a very wide-open bill.
JW,
Full stop. Game over man, game over. So let me get this
straight, JW, Constitutional Scholar: if Congress passes a bill
authorizing the government spend money fixing roads, and allows the
DOT to decide which roads; then they take up a bill to appropriate
more money to fix I-95, and it fails; you're saying the DOT cannot
spend money from the roads bill on I-95?
That, sir, is moronic.
junior,
Congressional leadership is not congress and absent a vote this
is completely irrelevent. I will take the majority leadership
of the current Congress's word over that of Reason magazine comment
thread denizens, when the question is about the intent of the
current Congress. Thanks anyway.
On the subsidiaries, I just saw that one report. I've been looking
around, but I can't seem to find any detailed reporting.
|12.19.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Instead, like I said, he makes an argument about the intent
of Congress, an argument I responded to by noting that Congress
itself has been calling for Bush to use TARP funds.
Yes, the intent of Congress as manifested in the language
of the bill.
Some poeple called for bailing out the Big 2.5, others
didn't. It went up for a vote and failed. Stick a fork in it,
unless you consider Pelosi and Co. wishing really, really hard as
an analog for a vote.
Seriously, why is this so hard for you people?
Hard for us? Seriously? We're the ones having trouble understanding
separation of powers?
|12.19.08 @ 6:03PM|#
Wah wah wah, you must be wrong, joe, cuz what you say favors the
Democrats. You partisan!
Yawn.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Whining that I must be wrong because if
I'm right, it would refute a complaint about a Democrat is a
statement about your partisanship, not mine.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:04PM|#
If TARP gave Bush this kind of wide discretion then shame on
Congress, not Bush. If this is true then joe is correct here guys,
vent your anger on Congress for giving the power to do this to Bush
and then turning around and voting against a different bailout with
lots of bluster and such.
Can I ask something here? How did the bailout that was "defeated"
in the Senate defeated? They never did actually vote did they? I
should think some GOP senators (like Voinocich or whatever the hell
his name is from Ohio) would have voted for it, so was it a
filibuster threat that killed it?
|12.19.08 @ 6:08PM|#
Wah wah wah, you must be wrong, joe, cuz what you say favors
the Democrats. You partisan!
Alright, seriously, joe, I have a question. Do you actually think
that you're not a partisan shill, or are you just acting that way
because you think people wouldn't take you seriously if you
admitted it? Because I have to tell you that most people probably
have their minds already made up, so you might as well come
clean.
Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Let's review, shall we?
Congress passed TARP.
Congressional leadership tells Bush to use TARP funds for auto bailout.
Bush says no.
Back and forth.
Congress votes on additional auto bailout. This bill fails.
Bush accedes to Congress's request to use TARP funds for auto bailout.
Remember how the original version of the bill was three pages long
and gave Paulson a blank check to do whatever he wanted? And
remember how both the left and the right thought that was a bad
idea? So they made a 30 something page bill to give specific
direction on what to do. Which was supported by the Congressional
leadership (of both parties) but not by the full house. (until it
got some pork). If it just took Congressional leadership to
authorize Bush and Paulson to take action, they wouldn't have
needed to pass TARP at all.
|12.19.08 @ 6:11PM|#
So let me get this straight, JW, Constitutional Scholar: if
Congress passes a bill authorizing the government spend money
fixing roads, and allows the DOT to decide which roads; then they
take up a bill to appropriate more money to fix I-95, and it fails;
you're saying the DOT cannot spend money from the roads bill on
I-95?
Here's what the Constitution says:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills....
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;
But, you must be right. Nowhere does it say that the POTUS *can't*
spend money that the Congress said that he couldn't.
Either TARP says that Bush can do this or it doesn't. Put up or
shut up.
|12.19.08 @ 6:12PM|#
JW,
Yes, the intent of Congress as manifested in the language of
the bill. And the part where Reich quotes the language of the
bill, or tells us that it forbids this use, is where, exactly? Oh,
right, there is none. As I wrote, he looks at the fact that the
auto bailout bill failed and evidence that it was not their intent
to see TARP funds used for an auto bailout.
Here, let me quote the relevant sections, so you can tell me where
he talks about the language of the TARP bill, as opposed to 1) the
auto bailout bill going down and 2) the intent of Congress:
If Congress explicitly decides not to appropriate it for a
certain purpose, where does the White House get the right to do so
anyway? By pulling the money out of another bag? That other bag, by
the way, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP for
short, was enacted to rescue Wall Street, not the automobile
industry.
Nope. Not seeing anything about the language of the TARP bill.
Perhaps it's my browser settings.
Some poeple called for bailing out the Big 2.5, others didn't.
It went up for a vote and failed. Creating a separate fund for
the bailout failed. That was what the bill was for. Once again (and
apparently I'm going to have to repeat this over and over and over,
because people don't want to acknowledge it), THE PEOPLE WHO
BROUGHT UP THAT BILL WERE THE ONES WHO, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER, WERE
SAYING TARP MONEY SHOULD BE USED. You're telling me their intent
was one thing; they - the ones whose intent we're talking about -
are telling me the opposite.
THAT is your game, set and match.
Hard for us? Seriously? We're the ones having trouble
understanding separation of powers? No, nobody is having
trouble understanding separation of powers. You, on the other hand,
seem completely baffled by the concept of Congress's intent.
|12.19.08 @ 6:14PM|#
Episiarch, I don't want to talk about me. I want to talk about
auto bailouts.
I write what I think is true, about the subject of the thread. Why
is that so hard for you to get your head around, that I might think
differently than you? In case you haven't noticed, you're a fringe
of a fringe, and something like a hundred plus million people in
this country alone agree with my general ideas, as opposed to
yours.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:16PM|#
I don't know if joe is correct or not, but here is why I
wouldn't argue against him if I did not know for sure: you'd be
taking the position that Congress had not done something
irresponsible like give the Executive very wide discretion on how
to spend the TARP money.
And who the f*ck here would count on that?
idiotface|12.19.08 @ 6:16PM|#
You can shoehorn powers into broad based bills, but that doesn't
make it the right thing to do. TARP was sold to the public as a
plan to support financial institutions, not auto
makers.
A rushed through bill? Where have we been screwed by that
before?
PATRIOT Act|12.19.08 @ 6:17PM|#
"A rushed through bill? Where have we been screwed by that
before?"
Right here buddy.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Epi
I guess how I can see joe siding with W Bush against Robert Reich
could possibly be partisan spin, but it doesn't seem immediately
obvious to me.
I imagine joe and I and some others seem to consistently fall to
the left of your views because our actual views are, well, to the
left of yours. And we try to be consistent on that...
|12.19.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Either TARP says that Bush can do this or it
doesn't.
EXACTLY! This is about what TARP authorizes.
(BTW, your little diversion about "it doesn't say Bush can't spend
this money" is pointless, and has nothing to do with my
argument).
The TARP bill says that the Secretary of the Treasury can spend the
money on financial institutions. If, as the report I saw stated,
they are going to spend the money by going through the automakers'
financial insititutions, that's that.
It doesn't matter if I'm a Democrat, if Barack Obama is a Democrat,
if Congress later defeated another bill, or if you think it's a bad
idea to bail out Detroit.
If they're going to spend money on the Big Three's financial
institutions, then that's that. It's legal, and Reich's argument is
wrong.
(BTW, if I agreed with Robert Reich, who I voted for in a
Democratic primary, would that also prove what a terrible, terrible
partisan shill I am? I know, I know - of course it would.)
idiotface|12.19.08 @ 6:19PM|#
a hundred plus million people in this country alone agree
with my general idea
joe, I know you're a big fan of democracy. Try this one on for
size: 6 out of 10 Americans oppose the auto bailout. Source
cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/auto.poll/
Voodoo_Chile|12.19.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Aren't you all actually arguing about separation of undelegated
powers?
I understood that the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004
changed the definition of financial institution to mean pretty much
anything that has or has heard of finances. That may have been just
for the purposes of that bill and its ilk (FISA, PATRIOT, etc.)
|12.19.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Holy fuck joe. I've seen you arguing some pretty weak shit
before, but this takes the cake. Congress wanted to do it, but
didn't, so we can do it anyway.
That, sir, is delusional.
PATRIOT Act|12.19.08 @ 6:20PM|#
If Al Gore had been President in 2001, joe would be defending me too.
|12.19.08 @ 6:22PM|#
I guess how I can see joe siding with W Bush against Robert
Reich could possibly be partisan spin, but it doesn't seem
immediately obvious to me.
Dude, I merely calls 'em as I sees 'em. Note that I'm not giving
you a hard time.
On a side note, my beers and Vicodin are kicking in bigtime.
There's not much to do in a snowstorm.
In case you haven't noticed, you're a fringe of a fringe, and
something like a hundred plus million people in this country alone
agree with my general ideas, as opposed to yours.
Appeals to authority/popularity are meaningless.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:23PM|#
"If, as the report I saw stated, they are going to spend the
money by going through the automakers' financial insititutions,
that's that."
Hey, that is kind of smelly though, that's a pretty big weasel
there, if technically true.
|12.19.08 @ 6:24PM|#
idiotface,
So what?
JW,
Congress wanted to do it, but didn't No, and I'll explain
it to you again: Congress DID do it. They did it when they passed
the TARP. The people who actually passed the TARP have said that
this is what they did. They said that before Bush stated he didn't
want to use TARP money for Detroit. They said that after Bush said
he didn't want to use TARP money for Detroit.
Here, I'll write it five times on this comment, so I won't have to
write it one time each on five more comments. Ready?
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Has it gotten through your thick skull yet?
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 6:24PM|#
joe,
Remember back in '05 when the Republican Congressional Leadership
was telling us that the AUMF against al-Qaeda -- which was approved
by Congress -- authorized warrantless wiretapping? Were you taking
their word for it back then?
Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 6:24PM|#
random excerpts from TARP:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1424enr.txt.pdf
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are-
(1) to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and
stability to the financial system of the United States; and
(2) to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that-
(A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings;
(B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth;
(C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and
(D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority.
Are GM and Chrysler part of the financial system of the United
States? Isn't the fact that GM equity is at a 60 year low and Chrys
is private mean that trying to solve 2A is either too late or not
applicable? I'll grant you that 2B may be accomplished, but then
where do you stop?
|12.19.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Appeals to authority/popularity are meaningless.
Good thing I didn't make one.
"My position is true, because 100 million people agee with me."
Appeal to authority.
"My position is genuinely held, and I offer as evidence the fact
that 100 million people agree with me." Not an appeal to
authority.
For my next trick, I will explain why the sentence "JW is a dimwit"
is not an ad homenim.
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 6:26PM|#
If, as the report I saw stated, they are going to spend the
money by going through the automakers' financial insititutions,
that's that.
GM doesn't even have a financial institution, assuming GMAC even
qualifies for that label. GM doesn't own controlling interest in
GMAC, only a minority of shares.
|12.19.08 @ 6:27PM|#
cunnivore,
Back in 05, the people who passed the AUMF were saying that
authorizing wiretapping was NOT their intent.
This time, the people who passed the TARP bill are saying that this
is their intent.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:28PM|#
"Note that I'm not giving you a hard time."
Epi, I appreciate that. I'm probably a liberal I confess, and I
tend to vote Democratic, but as I hate shills I try not to be
one.
I can tell you right off the bat some areas where I almost
violently disagree with the average Democrat/liberal on:
1. Gun control
2. Affirmative action
3. Immigration
4. Sin taxes
I can also say that most of my admired national political figures
are Republicans (John Warner, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, Richard
Lugar, John McCain and the guy I want to run for President Gary
Johnson; on the left all I can think of is Jim Webb, Byron Dorgan,
Bill Richardson and Barak Obama, note many of these are
newcomers).
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:30PM|#
I think a major problem are any of these broad bills. Hey lazy ass Congress, fill in more of the f*cking gaps.
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Back in 05, the people who passed the AUMF were saying that
authorizing wiretapping was NOT their intent.
You mean some of the people who passed the AUMF were
saying it was not their intent. Just as some of the people
who passed TARP (eg, Senate Republicans) are saying it was not
their intent.
|12.19.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Kolohe,
On the legal question of whether the auto bailout is consistent
with that language, the standard is "rational nexus." Is there a
rational nexus between preventing the Big Three automakers from
shutting down, and keeping the financial system liquid and
stable?
This, BTW, is a different question than the one Reich raised and I
disagreed with him about - the intent of Congress.
|12.19.08 @ 6:35PM|#
"My position is true, because 100 million people agee with
me." Appeal to authority.
"My position is genuinely held, and I offer as evidence the fact
that 100 million people agree with me." Not an appeal to
authority.
You ignoring the "popularity" part of that is exactly the kind of
behavior I expect from you, joe, and don't think I don't appreciate
it.
I can tell you right off the bat some areas where I almost
violently disagree with the average Democrat/liberal on
That's exactly the point. Blind defenses of Obama by certain
people, on the other hand, are.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I think with the AUMF you had a broad bill ("we authorize the
President to take action against these terrorists") but we also had
specific statutes governing wiretapping (FISA laws) and a common
cannon of construction is that specific trumps general.
I'm not sure we have that here in this essentially an
appropriations bill.
Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 6:38PM|#
MNG-
exactly.
Here's the loophole they're driving their Aztek through:
OFFICES; AUTHORITY.-
(1) AUTHORITY.-The Secretary is authorized to establish
the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ''TARP'') to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled
assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance
with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.
Where as mentioned above (or in a different thread) the def of
'financial institution' includes the words "not limited to" a bunch
of types of financial insititutions.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:39PM|#
I think libertarians should be working their ass off to get this
guy to be the GOP nominee:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31203.html
I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
|12.19.08 @ 6:39PM|#
cunnivore,
You mean some of the people who passed the AUMF were saying it
was not their intent. Just as some of the people who passed TARP
(eg, Senate Republicans) are saying it was not their intent. I
recall it was the White House, not any faction of Congress (let
alone the leadership) who made the argument that the AUMF
authorized wiretapping.
This time, it was Congress itself, in particular the Congressional
leadership, who first put forward the idea that TARP funds were
appropriate for an auto bailout.
I think that's a significant point - it isn't the executive who
made the assertion that this use of the program is consistent with
authorized powers, but Congress itself.
If Barack Obama or George Bush were proposing to use TARP money for
an auto bailout, and Congress was objecting, that would be
separation of powers issue, and I'd argue for Congress's
perogative.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:43PM|#
kolohe
You are the master of the retrieval of knowledge from the internet.
Wow. I'm still wowed at when you actually looked up the educational
attainment of all the US governors during my debate on Palin's
qualifications. And now here we all are, debating something that
hangs on the language of the bill, and you look it up. Noone else
seems to have taken the time and knowledge to do that (Epi has a
good excuse, one that has inspiried me to poor me some Gatorade and
vodka and settle in tonight).
In short, you da man. I bow to your expertise.
Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 6:44PM|#
the intent of Congress.
What kills me is that you're probably right, the intent of congress
may be different than what is stated in the section of the bill
titled "PURPOSES". Just like Vitter and Spitzer 'purpose' for
employing prostitutes did not have the 'intent' of cheating on
their wives.
|12.19.08 @ 6:44PM|#
MNG | December 19, 2008, 6:30pm | #
I think a major problem are any of these broad bills. Hey lazy ass
Congress, fill in more of the f*cking gaps.
I think the issue here is haste, not laziness.
In the AUMF, TARP, and USA PATRIOT ACT, they insisted on passing
big, broad bills intended to be the comprehensive response very
quickly, instead of passing something quick to deal with the
immediate issues, and then taking up a bigger bill with the time
they bought. I commented on this when they were debating the first
TARP bill.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:46PM|#
joe
Do you think it's a pretty strained, though I admit possible,
interpretation to see automakers financial wings as financial
institutions under TARP?
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 6:50PM|#
This time, it was Congress itself, in particular the
Congressional leadership,
The Congressional leadership is not Congress, joe. To return to the
warrantless wiretapping example, assume for the sake of arg that
the Congressional leadership did assert that the AUMF authorized
warrantless wiretapping. In that case, would you accept that the
AUMF did indeed authorize it?
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Furthermore, joe, you should recognize that your current argument would sanction the Congressional leadership leaving certain language out of a bill so that it would pass, and then claiming after the fact that they meant for that language to be in the bill, so now the language that was not in the bill should be treated as if it was. You don't see a problem with that?
|12.19.08 @ 6:54PM|#
MNG,
I don't think the classification of their finance agencies as
financial institutions is as much of a strain as claiming that the
money going to the automakers is really going to a "financial
institution" (even with the finance agency figleaf, or that keeping
the automakers afloat and employing people is equivalent to "the
liquidity and stabilty of the financial system."
I mean, financial services companies are financial services
companies, even if they're only they're company specific, but on
those other two points, there are a couple of intermediate steps of
logic you have to take.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:55PM|#
cunny
I don't think joe is arguing that these broad bills are GOOD, just
that the wide discretion used in this case was in fact
authorized.
See his 6:44 post.
But hey, I'm Mister Nice Guy and perhaps I'm being too charitable
;)
MNG|12.19.08 @ 6:59PM|#
While I think it's a pretty strained interpretation I am of
course on record here that those who voted for TARP should have
voted for auto bailout.
I can see those who oppose both bailouts.
I can see those who are for both.
But those who were for TARP but now raise cain over the automaker
bailout strike me as politically motivated asses (reverse class
warriors or anti-union in their motivations or defending their home
industry concerns).
|12.19.08 @ 6:59PM|#
cunnivore,
The Congressional leadership is not Congress, joe. No, but
on the question of Congressional intent, they are a pretty damn
definitive source.
To return to the warrantless wiretapping example, assume for
the sake of arg that the Congressional leadership did assert that
the AUMF authorized warrantless wiretapping. In that case, would
you accept that the AUMF did indeed authorize it? I might, if
not for the existence of the FISA bill that MNG brought up.
Let's say Congress has passed a specific auto bailout bill, and it
included all sorts of conditions Bush didn't like, as well as
language stating that it was the sole method of bailing out
Detroit. If Bush then went around that, and sent the automakers a
pile of money from the TARP fund with no strings attached, and did
so over the objections Congress, who said that it was not their
intent to use TARP to bail out Detroit, that would be the
equivalent of the wiretapping end-run around FISA.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:00PM|#
Hey Epi, have you checked out the (canceled) HBO series Rome yet? I'm digging it almost as much as the Deadwood I got turned on to this Summer.
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 7:00PM|#
MNG, joe called you a thick skull at 6:24:
Congress wanted to do it, but didn't No, and I'll explain it to you again: Congress DID do it. They did it when they passed the TARP. The people who actually passed the TARP have said that this is what they did. They said that before Bush stated he didn't want to use TARP money for Detroit. They said that after Bush said he didn't want to use TARP money for Detroit.
Here, I'll write it five times on this comment, so I won't have to write it one time each on five more comments. Ready?
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Congress authorized this when they passed the TARP bill.
Has it gotten through your thick skull yet?
|12.19.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Maybe Paulson should have required the recipients of TARP funds to lend to the automakers as a condition of the assistance.
|12.19.08 @ 7:03PM|#
No, cunnivore, I called you a thick skull.
MNG hasn't misstated my argument a single time.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:03PM|#
Cunny,
I'm not sure he did. As I said upthread while I find the
interpretation strained it most certainly is possible. And as I
said upthread, that's the fault of Congress. I actually think joe
might agree with me, and I think you, that TARP should not have
been written in a way that it could possibly be read to authorize
this move.
Before the night is through MNG is gonna heal many divisions on
this site!
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 7:04PM|#
The Congressional leadership is not Congress, joe. No, but
on the question of Congressional intent, they are a pretty damn
definitive source.
You still don't see the problem with letting the Congressional
leadership essentially insert new language that wasn't voted on
into a bill that's already passed?
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 7:05PM|#
I would never misstate your argument, joe. Doing so would make your argument look better.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:06PM|#
I can see Riech's point too: given that the interpretation of
lending money to the financial wings of the autocompanies is
strained, and then given that later Congress explicitly refused to
enact direct aid to the automakers in any form, it most certainly
seems that they never intended for TARP money for this
purpose.
But the language Congress passed could support this. They were just
stupid.
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 7:08PM|#
GMAC is not owned by GM. I'll be nice and not comment on the dimensions of anyone's cranium.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:10PM|#
cunny
I think you, joe and I would all be offended by egregious
violations of what we think is the rule of law.
You're saying that this kind of thing violates that because
Congress never intended, when they voted to pass TARP, for TARP
money to be used to bailout the auto industry. That sounds the most
plausible to me.
joe is saying that the foolishly broad language in TARP can be seen
as allowing this, and while I think it's strained I admit is it
plausible (the language is pretty stupid).
If joe can see that the interpretation is pretty strained (he did
above) and you can see that it is at least plausible, then we
really have no dispute here. Really. We all support the rule of law
here.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:13PM|#
When Congress gives the Executive a broad grant like this, even
when the Executive's reading is not the most plausible one given
teh language and surrounding circumstances, if it is plausible and
technically supported by the language of the passed bill, then I
don't think we've got a technical violation of the rule of
law.
But we have one in spirit, I agree.
I think where joe might add something is that he claims that at the
time TARP was passed, regardless of the language (which can be
given an, albeit strained, endorsement of using TARP money for auto
bailouts), a vocal intent of those passing it was for it to indeed
be used that way.
Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 7:16PM|#
joe-
I still think your conflation of 'Congressional Leadership' and
'Congress' is flat out wrong. 'Congress' only says what a majority
(or in some cases, supermajority) of it's members agree to. In some
cases, (mainly intel/natl security oversight type stuff) "Congress"
has authorized (by majority vote) the "Congressional Leadership" to
speak for them. TARP was obviously not one of those cases. (The use
of TARP for automakers is however, as mentioned above, likely a
legal use of funds because Congress - and Congressional leadership
- as they always do these days , defer to the executive because
they refuse to take any responsiblity for anything.)
Here is something that likely happened from '02 to '06.
'Congressional Leadership' intoduced a bill with the support of the
White House. The minority party wanted some modifications to bring
it to a vote. For procedural reasons the 'Congressional Leadership'
acquiesed to those changes. Then Bush signs the bill, but in his
signing statement, said he's going to disregard those minority
party changes. But since the "Congressional Leadership" and the
President agree, are you still OK with this?
|12.19.08 @ 7:18PM|#
cunnivore,
You still don't see the problem with letting the Congressional
leadership essentially insert new language that wasn't voted on
into a bill that's already passed? No, I see that point, I
just don't think that's what's happening here.
If this was a tightly-crafted bill that clearly did not allow for
an auto bailout, but the Congressional leadership decided to claim
there was a secret codacil they totally meant to attach, that would
be one thing.
But this language is broad enough that the auto bailout can fit in
there.
And certainly, while we're talking about Congressional intent,
Reich's claim that the auto bailout bill proves that Congress
obviously never intended for TARP money to be used for this is
strongly refuted by the fact that before anyone dreamed of an auto
bailout bill, the Congressional leadership and most of the majority
party was asking Bush to use the TARP money to bail out
Detroit.
|12.19.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Oh, Episiarch, stop whining and pass out already.
Nice try, joe. Try harder, please. I may not be the hard-drinking
animal that you are, but I do okay.
Hey Epi, have you checked out the (canceled) HBO series Rome
yet? I'm digging it almost as much as the Deadwood I got turned on
to this Summer.
No, haven't seen it. Deadwood was fantastic and I was
curious about Rome but I just haven't had the time. I'm
actually just catching up on Heroes season 2 right
now.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:25PM|#
Epi
I'm a complete comic book mark and thought I should have got in on
the ground floor for Heroes, but I have this aversion to network tv
post-Twin Peaks/Northern Exposure. It's not rational but there you
go.
Anyway, if Deadwood is a 9 out of 10 I would give Rome a 8 out of
10. Check it out. Both have that neat thing of having historical
characters you've heard of wandering in and out of the
storylines...
|12.19.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Kolohe,
On the issue of Congressional leadership, my point rests on two
planks - what they were saying about TARP before there was an auto
bailout bill, but also that it was they, the Democratic
Congressional leadership, who brought up the bailout bill.
Reich makes the argument that since Congress rejected a bailout
bill, it shows that they didn't want the President to use TARP
money for a bailout. But what if it had passed? Would he (and
Sullum and the people on this thread) be arguing that since
Congress passed a bailout bill, it shows their intent to bail out
Detroit, so the President can give them a bailout from the TARP
funds? Clearly not - that would be absurd. Passing a bailout bill
with elements X, Y, and Z would absolutely not demonstrate approvel
for a bailout without those conditions.
So, since both passing and rejecting an auto bailout bill would
demonstrate that TARP funds were not intended to be used like this,
it cannot be the outcome of the vote that demonstrates that, but
merely that it was the taking up of a separate bailout bill that
proves that TARP was not intended for a Detroit bailout.
But here's the thing - it was the Congressional leadership who took
that bill up. Pelosi and Reid marked it up and lobbied for it - the
same Pelosi and Reid who said TARP can be used for a Detroit
bailout. So, clearly, taking up the auto bailout bill does not
demonstrate an aversion to using TARP for Detroit, either.
Elemenope|12.19.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Hey Epi, have you checked out the (canceled) HBO series Rome
yet? I'm digging it almost as much as the Deadwood I got turned on
to this Summer.
No, haven't seen it. Deadwood was fantastic and I was curious about
Rome but I just haven't had the time. I'm actually just catching up
on Heroes season 2 right now.
Rome was really excellent. I did like how they avoided
niceing up the brutal Romans, and also avoided all the
Shakespearian cliches from JC.
And the nudity was seriously out of control. In a good way.
|12.19.08 @ 7:27PM|#
I may not be the hard-drinking animal that you are, but I do
okay.
I'm afraid, Captain Vicodin, that you have me confused my much
younger self.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:29PM|#
LMOP
Agreed on the nudity. One of the most "snatch-y" shows imo, though
I have a complaint that they had much more in the early episodes
(to hook us in?).
Yes, I totally like the non-pc depiction of the two main
characters, among others. Romans would be like that, or more brutal
even.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:32PM|#
If Rome has a fault, vis-a-vis Deadwood, it is that there are no
characters quite as powerful as Bullock and Al, and no rivalry with
the same tension as what existed between them.
I would also think libertarians would like Deadwood as government
is certainly depcited in all of its possible self-serving
corruption.
Franklin Harris|12.19.08 @ 7:37PM|#
So, who has standing to actually file a lawsuit challenging Bush's unilateral bailout?
Fluffy|12.19.08 @ 7:39PM|#
Joe,
I haven't seen any report yet claiming that the money is being
funnelled through the financial services subsidiaries of GM and
Chrysler.
I know you've said you saw that, but it had no detail - but I
haven't even seen the low-or-no detail version. Not even the
Bloomberg articles on the auto bailout say that. The mechanism of
the bailout - and any question at all of its legality - is absent
from the finance news articles I have come across.
Strictly speaking, GM doesn't have a finance subsidiary any more.
They spun it off. It has a separate balance sheet and separate
majority ownership, and GM can't pillage its balance sheet just
because it wants to. So I'm still trying to understand the TARP
arrangement here.
It's at least possible they're doing it the way you say, in some
way I just currently don't understand. Even a link to a low-detail
report would be helpful as a starting point. Because it's also
possible, given that this is the Bush administration, that they
aren't making even a rudimentary effort to make this plan fit into
TARP, because they figure that they can do whatever the fuck they
want and it doesn't matter if it's legal. That's how they do
everything else, after all.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Although there is a crucial scene which I think shows how much some government is justified. Its when the camp first forms a government in order to attract inclusion into the Dakota government. Charlie Utter is named "fire marshall" or something and he is seen in a tavern citing them. This is important if one knows the history of Deadwood, that the Gem burned down and fires really hurt many people there, quickly spreading from dumbass one to everyone else. In a town where wooden establishments were built next to one another it makes sense to "coerce" your neighbor to follow basic fire regulations.
Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 7:42PM|#
I would also think libertarians would like Deadwood as
government is certainly depcited in all of its possible
self-serving corruption.
Deadwood is an excellent example of how anarcho-capitalism works
(or anarcho-syndicalism, I am fuzzy on the exact boundaries of each
terms.) But it also shows that it can only be a temporary
condition, a few years at most, likely not even lasting a
generation. Eventually it will devolve either into gangsterism,
feudalism, or some Yankton cocksuckers will take it all away.
|12.19.08 @ 7:45PM|#
I'm afraid, Captain Vicodin, that you have me confused my
much younger self.
joe, if you understood how weak Vicodin is, you wouldn't focus on
it. Now the suboxone is another story. Though I can really live
without the naloxone component.
I'm a complete comic book mark and thought I should have got in
on the ground floor for Heroes, but I have this aversion to network
tv post-Twin Peaks/Northern Exposure. It's not rational but there
you go.
Network TV has gotten significantly better becuse of the cable
competition. You might want to fight your aversion and give stuff a
try.
ed|12.19.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Robert Reich is 3'5" tall. I am not joking. The man is an
elf.
I think they prefer to be called midgets.
"Munchkins" is also acceptable.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 7:50PM|#
"Network TV has gotten significantly better becuse of the cable
competition. You might want to fight your aversion and give stuff a
try."
I've heard this a lot lately. After Rome I think I'll try Heroes.
Thanx
|12.19.08 @ 7:58PM|#
I'm not sure why anyone here would be looking to the text of
TARP or to the intent of Congress when they passed it. Paulson and
the White House have already told us flat out that whatever the
original purpose was is irrelevant compared to their greater wisdom
for its uses. Paulson even refuses to use the whole thing for Wall
Street! He fed a bunch to his buddies and now is waiting for them
to come back for another round! It has nothing to do with the
intent of Congress or the language contained in TARP. Paulson and
the WH are the ONLY entities capable of understanding what that
money should be used for, and they are the ONLY ones who can dish
it out appropriately.
And where the fuck was Reich during the entire Bush administration?
Separation of powers ... I'd be laughing hard if I wasn't
puking.
And idiotface, please don't cite polls as any kind of definitive
research.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted by phone, with 1,096 adult Americans questioned.
Obviously a broad cross section of America ... but does it really
represent All Americans? Nope.
Elemenope|12.19.08 @ 8:08PM|#
After Rome I think I'll try Heroes.
Honestly I'd start with Lost, Life, or
Terminator, first. They seem a bit more "put together"
than Heroes, which has an annoying tendency to use the
double-barrel shotgun style of plotting plot threads, and is not as
well-written as the other three.
Don't get me wrong; Heroes is often fun. But if you're
looking for a quality show to restore your faith in network
television, probably not the first choice.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 8:09PM|#
James
If the adult Americans questioned were chosen randomly then it
probably is VERY representative of All Americans.
I have no evidence of this, but I bet Reich was pretty critical of
the entire Bush administration without knowing for sure...Given
that he was a left wing part of the last Democratic
Administration...
MNG|12.19.08 @ 8:16PM|#
I think the nature of commercials destroys network shows. The
nature of commercial television is that they must write for 12
minutes and keep the audience, and then the next 12 minutes and
keep the audience, etc. This is what was so wrong with the old Star
Treks. They followed the formula: get into trouble, cliffhanger,
commercial; escape plot one that must fail, commercial, escape plot
two that must fail, commercial, resolution.
This formula totally killed otherwise neat shows like the Wild,
Wild West. In almost every episode there are two ingenious escape
angles which are doomed to fail to satisfy commercial breaks, and
then some forced half-assed resolution...
|12.19.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Dude, let's not harsh on Star Trek, mm-kay? While
LMNOP's recommendations are good, I also suggest
Supernatural, House, or The
Office.
They don't compare to HBO stuff but they are good nonetheless.
MNG|12.19.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Epi
Star Trek, in its many variations, has always been great.
Early Star Trek great because it was so differnt, formula or
not.
STNG great for so many reasons: Data, Patrick Stewart, Worf, the
Borg, etc.
Deep Space Nine great, the wormhole beings, the big war at the end,
including Q in an episode.
Voyager-Uh, I didn't like that one so much.
Enterprise-uh, yeah, that one not so much either.
House? Are you serious? The commercials look terrible. Fox?
Elemenope|12.19.08 @ 8:30PM|#
House? Are you serious? The commercials look terrible.
Fox?
House is fantastic, but it's a show where it is critical
that you watch at least the first season first, because the
characters and their interactions are the funnest part and our
fairly subtly wrought at some turns.
I think the nature of commercials destroys network shows. The
nature of commercial television is that they must write for 12
minutes and keep the audience, and then the next 12 minutes and
keep the audience, etc. This is what was so wrong with the old Star
Treks. They followed the formula: get into trouble, cliffhanger,
commercial; escape plot one that must fail, commercial, escape plot
two that must fail, commercial, resolution.
Fringe is interesting for attempting to address this
problem, if for no other reason. If I understand it correctly, the
network for that show has an arrangement where there are far fewer
commercial breaks, which are more expensive and are sold in
slightly larger chunks. Which has the neat side-effect of making
most of the ads full-length trailers for movies.
Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 8:36PM|#
I agree that House is great, but disagree that you need to watch
in any particular order. Hugh Laurie's performance stands alone and
can be appreciated after a single episode. (Also, I feel I haven't
missed that much by only starting to watch it last season, and
catching reruns on USA).
In contrast, a series that absolutely has to be watched in order is
something like (21st cent) BSG.
I wish Fringe was better, it's so close but is wildly uneven.
Elemenope|12.19.08 @ 8:43PM|#
Hugh Laurie's performance stands alone and can be
appreciated after a single episode. (Also, I feel I haven't missed
that much by only starting to watch it last season, and catching
reruns on USA).
I thought so too until recently. Then I went back and watched the
first season 'cause I hadn't seen it in a while, and forgot a lot
of the nice touches that really sharpened the characters.
In contrast, a series that absolutely has to be watched in
order is something like (21st cent) BSG.
QFT. You miss a couple episodes of that and you're utterly
fucked.
I wish Fringe was better, it's so close but is wildly
uneven.
I watch it for similar reasons that I watch House. Much
like Hugh Laurie, John Noble has a screen-stealing character which
is endlessly enjoyable to watch. Otherwise it's just
X-Files for the aughts, but less corny.
Elemenope|12.19.08 @ 8:46PM|#
To sharpen my point about House, in the current as well as the immediately previous season, the supporting characters seem more wearied of Dr. House's behavior than shocked, and that doesn't evoke as much fun banter.
Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 9:01PM|#
Actually, that's my problem with Fringe: it's considerably more
corny than x-files. It doesn't matter that they've reversed the
sexes of mulder and scully (and have a black guy* vice white guy as
a boss but he's still bald guy). But they took the lone gunmen from
a minor recuring charcter to the main one. (note that the spinoff
that featured them failed miserably). Also, Laurie's character is
very focused and consistent, while Noble's, although he's supposed
to be crazy, is rather random. Most good depictions of crazy people
still hold to some internal but bizarre logic.
*also, since what's his faces performance was so great in the
Wire** (and for that matter Oz) with such a well drawn out
character, I find the series utterly wasting his talents.
**another series well worth catching up on (and from the
beginning)
|12.19.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Deep Space Nine great, the wormhole beings, the big war at
the end, including Q in an episode.
I can't watch a Star Trek that is stationary and doesn't
go where no man has gone before. Hawk being the main character
notwithstanding.
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 9:10PM|#
Fringe was good until I realized that whoever the first person
they show from outside the team, and who doesn't die within two
minutes, is part of the Pattern conspiracy.
Also, in half the episodes the team actually winds up helping the
conspiracy more than they hurt it! So it's debatable whether DHS
would have been better off not hiring any of these people in the
first place.
I also must admit that the only reason I've kept watching it this
long was because of Denethor. He does seem to have the mildly
insane father role nailed down.
cunnivore|12.19.08 @ 9:18PM|#
I also should note that Fox is going to be doing the same limited-commercials thing for Joss Whedon's new show "Dollhouse" when it starts up in February. The show itself looks more like Buffy than Firefly, unfortunately.
Elemenope|12.19.08 @ 9:30PM|#
I can't watch a Star Trek that is stationary and doesn't go
where no man has gone before. Hawk being the main character
notwithstanding.
It wasn't stationary. Once they got the Defiant out of
mothballs, the mischievous fuckers were flying all over the damn
place, starting wars and offending sensibilities.
Good times.
Elemenope|12.19.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Also, with appropriate kudos to Picard and all that, but Sisko was the baddest-ass captain in the franchise.
|12.19.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Congress DID do it. They did it when they passed the TARP.
The people who actually passed the TARP have said that this is what
they did. They said that before Bush stated he didn't want to use
TARP money for Detroit. They said that after Bush said he didn't
want to use TARP money for Detroit.
But yet, this langauage of GIVE DETROIT A WHOLE FUCKING LOT OF
MONEY is strangely absent from the bill. I bet if they wanted TARP
to say that, it would. Keep imagining that it does, squeeze your
eyes real tight and you might actually see it.
Tell you what sport, Congressional intent and 25 buck will get you
a quickie BJ in some parts of town. Move fast before that intent
wilts.
Has it gotten through your thick skull yet?
You're so endearing when you turn into an obnoxious assclown. Makes
me want to buy you a fruit basket.
Ollie North|12.19.08 @ 10:32PM|#
The question is about their intent in doing so, specifically, did
they intend for the funds to be available for an auto bailout. Last
time I checked, there has never in American history been a distinct
vote held to affirm the intent of Congress in how to administer a
bill they passed.
I want to thank you, Joe, for backing me up there with that legal
defense. That is exactly what I told them when they slammed me on
grounds of that Constitutional disgrace, the Boland
Admendment.
You are still the biggest pile of bullshit to slop the Earth, but,
hey, at least you've got my back!
Mike Laursen|12.19.08 @ 11:19PM|#
Will there be any sepration of powers when plutocrats run
everything?
When plutocrats run everything?
Mike Laursen|12.19.08 @ 11:26PM|#
But yet, this langauage of GIVE DETROIT A WHOLE FUCKING LOT
OF MONEY is strangely absent from the bill.
Silly, all that letter of the law stuff is so second millennium. I
predict Congress will start allowing bills to be submitted as
PowerPoint slides. Details TBD.
|12.20.08 @ 1:35AM|#
"Also, with appropriate kudos to Picard and all that, but Sisko
was the baddest-ass captain in the franchise."
WTF. You fucking asshole.
You know why Picard was so great? Because he knew real men don't
have to be tall.
Real men like Robert Reich.
The Shat|12.20.08 @ 1:44AM|#
The Shat is shorter than the Stewart. Eddie Olmos is also shorter than the Stewart but taller than the Shat
|12.20.08 @ 1:49AM|#
"The Shat is shorter than the Stewart."
Really? Wikipedia doesn't have height info, but I always remember
Picard being abnormally short. Reichish, if you will.
Anyway, if I'm wrong, I stand corrected. The shortest captain is
obviously the best.
|12.20.08 @ 8:59AM|#
I predict Congress will start allowing bills to be submitted
as PowerPoint slides. Details TBD.
They do that already, don't they? Dream up a catchy,
important-sounding name, put a title page on top of a ream of blank
paper, and then make the whole thing up as they go along.
"There's no time to think, dammit! Legislate now, ask questions
later."
|12.20.08 @ 9:18AM|#
" ... TARP for short, was enacted to rescue Wall Street, not the
automobile industry."
This is where Mr. Reich has his facts wrong. No reading of the TARP
legislation passed by Congress would support this
interpretation.
The TARP law grants the Executive (through the Treasury) $700
billion to spend however it likes.
The President is well within his authority and Mr. Reich knows
this. Congress gave the President $700 billion to do with however
he pleases, and if you don't believe that, I invite you to read the
TARP law that Congress passed. If you are too lazy to read the fkin
law, then you deserve to be ridiculed as the idiot that you
are.
|12.20.08 @ 9:26AM|#
You know why Picard was so great? Because he knew real men
don't have to be tall.
Picard is a French man with an English accent.
Kirk traveled through the Great Barrier, met God, and wasn't even
impressed.
More here.
Snowstorms are beautiful, but being trapped inside sucks.
|12.20.08 @ 9:32AM|#
Maybe there's a little silver lining here. Either:
A) The auto bailout works. The government doesn't have to pour in
more and more billions and the companies come back as strong,
profitable, competitive firms.
-- OR --
B) The auto bailout fails. Even after the government dumps in good
billions after bad, Chrysler and GM go down.
If A then we have healthy auto companies. If B we have a huge, new
high-profile example of why the government should never do this
kind of thing. It's not much, but it's something.
|12.20.08 @ 9:35AM|#
A few points:
1) Courts rarely, if ever, accept or follow the
after-the-fact-of-passage statements of individual congressional
reps/senators or groups of congressional reps/senators regarding
what a bill (now law) does or doesn't mean. And the reported cases
on that point of statutory construction are legion. Courts follow
the language of the law. Period. In cases of uncertainty or unclear
language, some judges (but by no means all) will examine the
legislative history to see if that helps regarding interpretation.
But what the "leadership" of the House or Senate says during a
damned press conference is irrelevant.
2) In the immediate aftermath of the passage/signing of the TARP, I
seem to recall several non-financial institution companies
announcing that they were making plans to start their own "banks"
(or words to that effect) so that they, too, could qualify for a
slice of of that big, juicy, TARP money pie that every lobbyist in
D.C. is angling to get a piece of. The #1 Rule is, of course, that:
"when the gravy train is rolling, be aboard."
3) Whether GMAC is a "financial institution" under the terms of the
TARP or not is beyond my level of knowledge. But, it does seem
fairly apparent and obvious to everybody that GM is burning through
$1 billion every 15 days. Every 15 days. Accordingly, the amount of
money that all these guys, regardless of the cut of their jib, are
talking about is irrelevant to the end game. At least for GM and
Chrysler (who, according to at least one recent article, has like
6-7 of the 10 worst cars on the market today).
4) Bush is trying to punt this thing downfield a few yards, a few
weeks actually, and let Obama deal with it. Bush, love or hate him,
didn't create the mess that is the domestic auto industry. That
being said, he will understandably not want it to totally crater on
his watch.
|12.20.08 @ 9:55AM|#
How do we know it is "illegal'? And, if so, why not condemn Bush
rather than a president elect who is not in office?Isn't tapping
domestic phones illegal and on and on and on..
you folks seem to direct your ire at the Democrats and skip
entirely anything the GOP does or might do or thinks of
doing...
totally agree with the point (4) above, wherein Bush once again
screws his own party and then wiggles to seem ok and let the new
guy get stuck. Why? So you can pour your ire against him because he
does not read your journal.
VM|12.20.08 @ 10:13AM|#
warren:
chill the hyperbole, man. old boss: pro torture, lying to start
wars, etc. New boss: to be anywhere close to the old boss, obama
will have to do some fucking evil shit.
|12.20.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Letalis Maximus--Good write up. TARP might allow for
Paulson and Bush to do any damn thing they want (and probably does
-- SURPRISE!) and GMAC might qualify as a financial
insitution, but this cut from the whole cloth bullshit of
speechifying and "Ooooh daddy, I want that! I want that! Get that
for me!" as a proxy for an actual vote and and an actual bill is,
well, bullshit. Wishful thinking at best.
Obama going along with this is a no brainer; it's win-win for him
with no downside. He didn't make the decision to do this and he can
deny all culpability later when it blows up in his face. But, he
can reap the rewards now from his union constituency by saying that
he agrees with it. He's got nothing to lose.
Kirk traveled through the Great Barrier, met God, and wasn't
even impressed.
I have a bad feeling that the JJ Abrahms version is going to suck
H-U-G-E balls. I'll give it a fair viewing, but I'm not making any
bets.
MNG|12.20.08 @ 10:36AM|#
"Picard is a French man with an English accent."
But they both are foriegn so its the same thing.
MNG|12.20.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Dude, I just read up on this Abrams Star Trek. WTF? Why make a Kirk prequel? Why not make one with the cast of TNG, Deep Space Nine and Voyager all interacting in various ways. WTF? We've already had a zillion original star trek films.
Elemenope|12.20.08 @ 11:03AM|#
Dude, I just read up on this Abrams Star Trek. WTF? Why make
a Kirk prequel?
Actually, from all that I have read, it's more like a
Spock prequel, with a plot that centers around time-travel
shenanigans with old Spock meeting with young Spock and getting
their spock on.
|12.20.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Read some comments, scanned some and blew off the OT pop culture
discussions.
Y'all needed somebody who actually knew shit about the Big 3
yesterday, didn't you?
GMAC Financial Services
On Nov. 30, 2006, GM sold a 51 percent controlling interest in GMAC to a consortium of investors led by Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., a private investment firm, and included Citigroup Inc., Aozora Bank Ltd. and a subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
Not part of GM.
Chrysler Financial
In 2007 Chrysler Financial is established as a standalone company as a result of Cerberus Capital Management taking over a majority interest in the Chrysler and the related financial services business.
Not part of Chrysler.
Ford Credit
Ford Motor Credit Company is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company. Since 1959, Ford Credit has put more than 50 million people behind the wheels of great Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles.
Part of Ford.
Chrysler and GM don't own the financial services companies that
bear their names, thus using TARP's financial services mission a a
means to bailout out completely different companiesis a
non starter.
Only Ford Credit is a wholly owned subsidiary of the automaker that
shares the name, and only Ford is not getting cash. They aren't as
desperate and will survice the shakeout.
I'm seriously considering Ford motor as a speculative investment.
I'm probaly too old for speculation, but F looks like a real good
stock to me. Last man standing, lean and mean and a 20-50% increase
in market share possibly awaits. Car sales go down in a recession
and lead the way out of one. The damned things wear out. You can
put off a purchase for a year or three, but the underlying demand
just increases while people are in financial bunker down mode.
|12.20.08 @ 12:58PM|#
How much snow do you have so far, by the way? I'm at 3-4
inches at this point. And how about you, LMNOP?
We're at 0 inches and holding steady here in Hawaii. But I recently
started wearing jeans instead of shorts when it dropped into the
low 70s at night.
Where's that damned global warming when you need it?
|12.20.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Am I being too cynical in thinking that Bush wants to keep Chrysler and GM alive just long enough for Obama and the Democratic Congress to get blamed for them going under, in a bid to put Democratic Rust Belt Congressional seats in play in 2010?
|12.20.08 @ 1:12PM|#
We're at 0 inches and holding steady here in Hawaii. But I
recently started wearing jeans instead of shorts when it dropped
into the low 70s at night.
For prolefeed only.
6-8" here in the rust-belt capital. I love snow in the big city.
It's prettifies the squalor.
|12.20.08 @ 1:26PM|#
We've only got a dusting of fresh snow. The temp (currently -10
or so) is creeping slowly upward, toward a predicted high score of
"zero".
Throw another heretic on the fire.
Naga Sadow|12.20.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Well, now that prolefeed has mentioned not being buried in snow . . . it's a bit chilly down here in Biloxi too. I think it was about 80 or so yesterday! Burrrrrrrrrrr! (shivers)
Elemenope|12.20.08 @ 2:43PM|#
How much snow do you have so far, by the way? I'm at 3-4
inches at this point. And how about you, LMNOP?
We settled out at about 8-9" where I live, and where I work (which
is a good ten miles closer to Narragansett Bay) has about 7".
|12.20.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Meh, it's just cloudy and shitty in DC. No snow though, thank god. The traffic is bad enough with the last-weekend-before-Xmas mania.
The Angry Optimist|12.20.08 @ 2:54PM|#
What's all this I hear about a Kirk prequel?
Beep once if it pisses you off.
The Angry Optimist|12.20.08 @ 2:54PM|#
What's all this I hear about a Kirk prequel?
Beep once if it pisses you off.
|12.20.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Well, now that prolefeed has mentioned not being buried in
snow . . . it's a bit chilly down here in Biloxi too. I think it
was about 80 or so yesterday! Burrrrrrrrrrr! (shivers)
I'll take the snow, you can have Biloxi.
I lived for 14 month's in Pascagoula, I know of which I speak.
Elemenope|12.20.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Beep once if it pisses you off.
LOL! Besides, everybody who's anybody knows that Capt. Robert April
was dear old Enterprise's first captain, and Pike was just a whiny
space-filler till someone worthy like Kirk could take over.
Mike Laursen|12.20.08 @ 3:32PM|#
They do that already, don't they?
Yeah, but, you know, the presentation is so boring. They could jazz
it up a bit.
Naga Sadow|12.20.08 @ 3:56PM|#
J Sub D,
My feelings would be the same were it not for a child hood case of
frostbite on my ears. Now . . . I'm like "Hey! Fuck snow!".
|12.20.08 @ 4:17PM|#
My feelings would be the same were it not for a child hood
case of frostbite on my ears. Now . . . I'm like "Hey! Fuck
snow!".
Ears? Frostbitten EARS?! Damn, what a whiner. If you still have
them it should just be considered a normal part of life in a
temperate climate. Everybody has gotten a mild case of frostbite in
Michigan. Sans amputation, it's considered banal to discuss it.
;-)
The Angry Optimist|12.20.08 @ 4:51PM|#
oh, see I thought he said "in his ears", which would be much
more serious.
But yeah, a little frostbite on your extremities? Come now.
Tension Hoar|12.20.08 @ 6:50PM|#
I got frostbite in my esophagus once, drinking Liquid N2 on a dare.
|12.20.08 @ 6:54PM|#
My buggy whip business failed will Congress bail me out? People get the government they deserve. Too bad our nation is so dull they can't be bothered to read Tactitus to see how these government interventions fared in Roman times. We never learn.
MNG|12.20.08 @ 7:45PM|#
I'm too busy reading Livy to read Tacitus.
Oh, and does your buggy whip business employ hundreds of thousands
of Americans in well paying jobs?
Kolohe|12.20.08 @ 8:18PM|#
Oh, and does your buggy whip business employ hundreds of
thousands of Americans in well paying jobs?
The Department of Defense does. Do you also advocate maintaining
expenditures north of 600 billion a year?
Shane|12.20.08 @ 10:15PM|#
Thomas Jackson, don't take it personally. MNG is a former counselor for the union of candlestick makers.
MNG|12.20.08 @ 10:16PM|#
No Kolohe, that money should be appropriated for the Peace
Corps, the Department of Labor and SAMHSA.
Duh.
cunnivore|12.20.08 @ 11:04PM|#
Oh, and does your buggy whip business employ hundreds of
thousands of Americans in well paying jobs?
It used to...until technology advances and changing economies made
paying high wages to buggy whip makers (and telegraph operators,
Pony Express riders, longshoremen, etc) impractical.
cunnivore|12.20.08 @ 11:06PM|#
In other words, the fact that their employer is losing billions of dollars a month might indicate that those hundreds of thousands of Americans are being overpaid.
Paul|12.21.08 @ 12:06AM|#
Congress was asking Bush to use money from the TARP for an
auto bailout for the past month and a half!
Who's the majority over there these days, anyway?
Paul|12.21.08 @ 12:08AM|#
Oh, and does your buggy whip business employ hundreds of
thousands of Americans in well paying jobs?
Yes.
MNG|12.21.08 @ 9:37AM|#
"the fact that their employer is losing billions of dollars a
month might indicate that those hundreds of thousands of Americans
are being overpaid."
It also might indicate that their competition is being heavily
subsidized and protected by their governments, hence making their
labor costs and their products artificially low in comparison to US
automakers costs and products.
"until technology advances and changing economies made paying high
wages to buggy whip makers (and telegraph operators, Pony Express
riders,"
Uh, we are'nt going to stop driving automobiles anytime soon so I
don't really think the buggy whip analogy fits. We are not talking
about a technology that is going into the dutsbin of history
anytime soon but about one in which some players are more heavily
subsidized and protected by their national governments than others
combined with poor management modes on the part of some others.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 11:01AM|#
It also might indicate that their competition is being
heavily subsidized and protected by their governments, hence making
their labor costs and their products artificially low in comparison
to US automakers costs and products.
It's an excellent point, and one that by extension into general
terms causes me to question the long term validity of
libertarianism as a *national* ideology. I tend to think that any
ideology that requires everyone to act in accordance with it in
order to work is an essentially broken ideology.
To wit, if you are all about free-markets and free-trade, and
*everyone else* is engaging in protectionism, you are going to get
royally fucked.
This is why I think that libertarianism, as such, is better as a
*personal orientation* than a *policy teleology*.
MNG|12.21.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Well, in theory LMNOP its the Japanese consumers who get screwed
by their government's protection of their car industry and our
consumers who benefit. Likewise it's their taxpayers that get
screwed by the subsidization.
In theory.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 11:24AM|#
In theory.
As William James said, theory is always good for the lulz.
Paul|12.21.08 @ 11:33AM|#
It's an excellent point, and one that by extension into
general terms causes me to question the long term validity of
libertarianism as a *national* ideology
And this point is as old as the hills and has been made repeatedly
by many a union...Boeing's union comes to mind whenever "Airbus"
gets brought up.
I'm more than happy to allow foreign citizens to subsidize my car
purchase. That doesn't mean we should do it here.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 11:35AM|#
I'm more than happy to allow foreign citizens to subsidize
my car purchase. That doesn't mean we should do it here.
So, let all manufacturing be done in some other country, and pray
that nothing bad happens.
Wow, good plan.
|12.21.08 @ 11:51AM|#
I'm more than happy to allow foreign citizens to subsidize my car purchase. That doesn't mean we should do it here.
So, let all manufacturing be done in some other country, and pray that nothing bad happens.
Wow, good plan.
Why stop there? Other nations have the advantages of lower labor
costs, less stringent environmental rules, lower tax burdens, less
workforce safety regulation, less protection for colllective
bargaining etc. All of these factors give evil furriners an unfair
advantage over the red, white and blue American workers and the
greedy corporations that employ them.
No trade with any-fucking-body until they match our
standards!
BTW, Michigan has a beef with Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama about
lower wages and tax incentives (can you say government subsidy?)
giving an unfair advantage over the Great Lakes State workers.
They'll be hearing from our trade representative, Ralph Nader.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 11:53AM|#
J sub D -
Thank you for applying the principle I elucidated to liberalism. It
sucks too.
|12.21.08 @ 12:23PM|#
MNG might like to take note that Toyota Motor
Corporation is listed on the NYSE. They pay dividends on their
profits so perhaps he'd like to buy some of the company and let the
taxpayers in Japan subsidize him for a while.
Or is that not as much fun as bitching about beinng taken
advanbtage of?
MNG|12.21.08 @ 12:32PM|#
J sub D
I probably have stock in Toyota and lots of other things (I don't
keep up with such nonsense to be honest, my wife and financial
advisor and my retirement fund does all that).
But I also care about my nation's well being. I know, I know, there
really is no such thing as national well being, there are just
individuals in this place called "the US" who own their own plot of
lands, should not care about some mythical abstract entities like
"national interests," "national resources" blah blah blah and other
libertarian dogma....But I'm funny like that.
I'm glad you like the "race to the bottom" that occurs when areas
compete with labor, environmental and safety regulations (how low
can you go?), because my God how great it is for us
consumers.
Soon all the products around us will be so low! It'll fit well with
our janitorial and other booming service job salaries!
MNG|12.21.08 @ 12:33PM|#
We should all run out and by stock in companies that benefit
from heavy protection and subsidies from their national
government.
That'll teach 'em!
MNG|12.21.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Politically has anyone pointed out the following: the only state
that McCain really thought he could turn from blue to red was
Michigan. With the somehow finding the balls to stand up to the, in
comparison to TARP, paltry bailout for a blue collar industry, have
they written off Michigan for a while?
Remember when Antionnette said "let them eat cake?" The Dems may
think of the GOP thusly: "let them have the South." Because a
"national" party governed by the out of step extremists who control
the South politically is one that will probably only have the South
(and Utah/Idaho of course!).
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Politically has anyone pointed out the
following...
The age old question of whether it is better to have principles and
never have the power to act on them, or no principles and the power
to do whatever one wants.
Of course, lately the GOP has managed to have neither principles
nor power. Good job, guys!
|12.21.08 @ 3:01PM|#
We should all run out and by stock in companies that benefit
from heavy protection and subsidies from their national
government.
Uh yeah. Toyota (got a link that details their subsidies that is
not from the UAW?), if subsidezd to build cars domestically or in
the United States, would likely find subsidies more difficult to
wheedle if foreign owned.
Face it, MNG. The Bid 3 and UAW got fat, dumb and happy* from WWII
till the 70s. Then they ignored the reality of competition in a
free automobile market. Now they're getting their asses kicked by
cars built in southern states by Americans who don't want to
join the UAW.
* Blindingly ignorant should go in there as well, but I opted for
tradition.
|12.21.08 @ 3:03PM|#
[/i] after the first sentence (a quote from MNG).
Preview is your friend. Use it, love it, swear by it.
Fluffy|12.21.08 @ 3:52PM|#
So, let all manufacturing be done in some other country, and
pray that nothing bad happens.
US manufacturing output, in real terms, is higher than it has ever
been.
Our manufacturing sector hasn't disappeared, despite the
quasi-mercentalist policies of other nations. It actually has gone
from strength to strength.
Manufacturing employment has stagnated or declined for
many decades, particularly in heavily-unionized industries, but the
total amount of goods manufactured in the US has continued to
grow.
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Politically has anyone pointed out the following: the only state that McCain really thought he could turn from blue to red was Michigan. With the somehow finding the balls to stand up to the, in comparison to TARP, paltry bailout for a blue collar industry, have they written off Michigan for a while?
During the primary, McCain said to Michigan voters, something to
the effect "your jobs are not coming back. We need to figure out
how to get new jobs." (the first sentence is close to a direct
quote) Romney, otoh, pandered on this. Romney, of course, wound up
winning Michigan (but likely because of home field advantage)
Also, McCain pulled out of Michigan rather early, just a week or so
after the convention. (Publicly disagreeing with this decision was
one of the early 'Palin going of the reservation' moments)
|12.21.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Manufacturing employment has stagnated or declined for many
decades, particularly in heavily-unionized industries, but the
total amount of goods manufactured in the US has continued to
grow.
Similar to farm employment dropping by a shitload* percentage while
agricultural yields increased by oodles.* Making more while using
less labor/people is perceived by many to be a bad thing. Many are
foolish.
* My apologies for using technical terms.
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Here's a factoid obtained from
here:http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
In Jan 1950, there was a little over 13 million people employed in
manufacturing in the US. In Jan 2009, there is projected to be a
little over 13 million people employed in manufacturing in the
US.
During this time, manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 at 19.5
million.
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 4:23PM|#
I will say, one thing that gives me pause is that manufacturing employed a steady figure of around 17 million from the mid 80's to 2000. It has fallen off considerably since then.
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 4:29PM|#
one last thing for the triple post score.
Production line workers were 11.2 million in Jan 50, peaked at 14.5
million in '79, was 12-13 million for the 80's and 90's, and has
dropped to just about 9.3 million in this decade
VM|12.21.08 @ 5:38PM|#
LMNOP hits it out of the park with this one:
Of course, lately the GOP has managed to have neither principles nor power. Good job, guys!
QFT. and we're the ones stuck with the bill.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 6:46PM|#
In Jan 1950, there was a little over 13 million people
employed in manufacturing in the US. In Jan 2009, there is
projected to be a little over 13 million people employed in
manufacturing in the US.
Jan 1950, US Population: 152,271,417
Jan 2008, US Population: 303,146,284
So...as in terms of population, manufacturing jobs have fallen
48%.
cunnivore|12.21.08 @ 6:58PM|#
As William James said, theory is always good for the
lulz.
Elemenope, I'll take Adam Smith's "theory" over your unjustified
assertion that a free trade nation is at a disadvantage vs.
protectionist ones.
Sesame Street Cunnivore|12.21.08 @ 7:03PM|#
LMNOP @11:53am:
So, let all manufacturing be done in some other country, and
pray that nothing bad happens.
@6:46pm:
So...as in terms of population, manufacturing jobs have fallen
48%.
One of these things
is not like the other,
One of these things
just doesn't belong...
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 7:17PM|#
I'll take Adam Smith's "theory" over your unjustified
assertion that a free trade nation is at a disadvantage vs.
protectionist ones.
If by "Adam Smith" you actually meant "David Ricardo", that
sentence would make sense.
Personally, I think that the doctrine of competitive advantage is
held hostage *in reality* to an unfavorable game-theoretical
situation, akin to the Prisoner's Dilemma. Sure, everyone will be
wealthier if everyone trades, but if only some (or, worst case,
one) nation chooses free trade, it gets screwed over the short term
making the free trade policy *politically un-viable* and therefore
practically unsustainable, regardless of what theory
says.
Hence, theory, untested by reality, is clearly for the lulz. Even
theories as well-established as Ricardo's.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 7:18PM|#
So, let all manufacturing be done in some other country, and
pray that nothing bad happens.
The above is what is known in crude and unrefined circles as
sarcasm.
Use it, know it, love it.
MNG|12.21.08 @ 7:22PM|#
Manufacturing productivity goes up and employment goes down, I
think that's a bad thing for this nation I'm afraid. I'd rather
have 10 of my neighbors with high paying manufacturing jobs
producing 10 widgets an hour each than have only 6 but that can
produce 15 widgets each an hour.
According to this logic if the US employment were at one person
(the Flash let's say, the Barry Allen version too) but that
superhuman employee produced slightly more than we currently do
then that latter situation is better.
"Unemployment is at an all time high, but productivity is through
the roof" is not good news for a lot of folks...
MNG|12.21.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Economic theory has also come a long way since either Ricardo and Smith. Most economists would find much of what they say needs quite a bit of qualifying now.
MNG|12.21.08 @ 7:35PM|#
J sub D
I think the key will be, will those who lose manufacturing
employment opportunities find equally or more renumerative work as
the dwindling farmers did, or will they find work in "food
prep."
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 7:38PM|#
It is rather difficult to compare farm labor statistics. The
Dept of Ag does not aggregate them as well as the Dept of Labor.
There seems to have been a methodology change sometime in the last
thirty - forty years where they stopped counting 13 year olds doing
their chores as farm labors. Getting statistics depends on surveys
from the labor force, which has been migratory for a century (if
not more), not to mention are not keen on interacting with govt
officials.
Nonetheless from here
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1063,
I believe you can make apples to apples comparisons by just looking
at the 'hired labor statistics.'. Doing so shows that there were
around 2.4 million in summer of 64 (the furthest the numbers go
back to) (US pop: 192 million) compared to 1.2 million in summer of
08. (us pop 303 million).
So adjusting for population, farm jobs have fallen almost 70%.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 7:43PM|#
According to this logic if the US employment were at one
person (the Flash let's say, the Barry Allen version too) but that
superhuman employee produced slightly more than we currently do
then that latter situation is better.
"I don't normally do this, but I've got an idea for a commercial
for you. See, it starts with a carpenter building a beautiful
chair. And then, one of your robots comes along and makes a better
chair twice as fast, and then we superimpose on the screen:
USR: Shittin' on the Little Guy. You see, that
would be the fade-out..."
MNG|12.21.08 @ 7:47PM|#
But LMNOP, imagine how set the guy who invented the robots would
be!
Provided they didn't kill him.
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 7:49PM|#
MNG @ 7:35
here is some evidence to support that assertion - the red line
on the graph on the right. However, they say that their data is
somewhat flawed, and additionally, they are no longer able to
collect it.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 7:51PM|#
But LMNOP, imagine how set the guy who invented the robots
would be!
Provided they didn't kill him.
The Zeroth Law is a real bitch.
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 7:54PM|#
According to this logic if the US employment were at one person (the Flash let's say, the Barry Allen version too) but that superhuman employee produced slightly more than we currently do then that latter situation is better.
Rather than (the movie version of) I Robot, what you have created
is the post-scarcity economy of ST:TNG. I am somewhat (but not
entirely) less optimistic that Roddenberry that such a transition
could be made as seamlessly was portrayed. (which is what the
Proyas/Smith version has going for it)
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 7:58PM|#
The only thing that limits the industrialized world from a post scarcity economy right now is energy. But even fusion, solar satellites or matter/anti matter moderated by dilithium crystals would still be subject to hydraulic despotism.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 8:10PM|#
But even fusion, solar satellites or matter/anti matter
moderated by dilithium crystals would still be subject to hydraulic
despotism.
Buy a comet, that's what my uncle always said. Your bottom line
will thank you in a few centuries.
cunnivore|12.21.08 @ 8:17PM|#
According to this logic if the US employment were at one
person (the Flash let's say, the Barry Allen version too) but that
superhuman employee produced slightly more than we currently do
then that latter situation is better.
This, fellow readers, is the lefty version of the anti-minimum wage
argument that if minimum wage were raised to a billion dollars an
hour no one would have a job. Extreme examples are of limited
utility.
Even in that example, though, you have to keep in mind that the
superemployee still needs to eat, travel, have a place to sleep,
have plumbing, etc. The lost manufacturing jobs will be replaced
with service jobs because the same amount of money is coming into
the economy since output remains stable.
cunnivore|12.21.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Hence, theory, untested by reality, is clearly for the lulz.
Even theories as well-established as Ricardo's.
So you're claiming that your assertion is justified by some
nebulous "reality"? Care to cite some studies that show, while
controlling for other factors, that protectionist economies fare
better than free trade economies when all else is equal?
MNG|12.21.08 @ 8:33PM|#
"Care to cite some studies that show, while controlling for
other factors, that protectionist economies fare better than free
trade economies when all else is equal?"
Can I just deny the hundreds of economic studies extolling the
benefits of free trade like most libertarians deny the hundreds of
climatological studies that support global warming?
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 8:51PM|#
cunnivore -
You yourself pointed out the absurdities of extremity. What makes
you think that because I don't think trade works *exactly* like
Ricardo envisioned that I am a dyed-in-the-wool protectionist? (I'm
pretty far from it.) I do have a problem with people dismissing
problems simply because they are not predicted or do not conform
with theory.
Brian Greene|12.21.08 @ 9:01PM|#
I do have a problem with people dismissing problems simply
because they are not predicted or do not conform with
theory.
But if you make your theories completely independent of
experimental evidence, you never have to worry about this
conflict.
Fluffy|12.21.08 @ 9:16PM|#
Manufacturing productivity goes up and employment goes down,
I think that's a bad thing for this nation I'm afraid. I'd rather
have 10 of my neighbors with high paying manufacturing jobs
producing 10 widgets an hour each than have only 6 but that can
produce 15 widgets each an hour.
According to this logic if the US employment were at one person
(the Flash let's say, the Barry Allen version too) but that
superhuman employee produced slightly more than we currently do
then that latter situation is better.
Economies will produce jobs at levels commensurate with their
wealth and with the elasticity of their labor markets.
If we had an economy where one person could produce the entire
current manufacturing output of the US, then YES - that situation
would in fact be better than what we have now. Such an economy
would support a service sector much larger than the one we have
now. Entire categories of additional services would be invented to
soak up that extra wealth. And manufactured goods would be almost
ludicrously cheaper than they are now.
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 9:23PM|#
And manufactured goods would be almost ludicrously cheaper
than they are now.
But would they all come in plaid?
MNG|12.21.08 @ 10:31PM|#
"Such an economy would support a service sector much larger than
the one we have now. Entire categories of additional services would
be invented to soak up that extra wealth. And manufactured goods
would be almost ludicrously cheaper than they are now."
Getting away from the extreme of one person, if well paying
manufacturing jobs are lost because of productivity gains, how do
you know the things you describe would result (that we would see an
increase in the service sector, commodification of new services,
etc)? How do you know the result would not be something like
underconsumption or something else?
I'm cringing at the idea that the answer will be classical economic
assumptions 101, that is that capital will just find its way to the
most productive venues because that is just how supply and demand
work blah, blah, blah...
Elemenope|12.21.08 @ 10:52PM|#
...leading to the clearly ludicrous theory that war with the Borg and the Dominion were economically necessary, to prevent all that *capital* from going to waste...
Kolohe|12.21.08 @ 11:26PM|#
if well paying manufacturing jobs are lost because of
productivity gains, how do you know the things you describe would
result (that we would see an increase in the service sector,
commodification of new services, etc)?
It works if one assume the model is similar to agriculture, where
the jobs (I wouldn't call them well paying) that have been lost due
to productivity increases of the industrial and then the green
revolutions have lead to a rising standard of living of all
involved. Now, this transition in a lot of places has not been
smooth, both in the past (Corn law England) and in the present (the
urbanization of the rural poor in parts of Latin America, Africa,
East and South Asia). But in the long run it has worked out (and I
predict it to be the same for the developing world). (as another
parenthetical aside, my personal theory of why the Great Depression
seemed so much worse than any time in American history - even
though by many measures it wasn't - is that it was the first
downturn where the majority of the American people were not
directly engaged in agriculture, and so could not weather the
economic storm by simply going back to subsistence
agriculture).
One more thing on those 'well paying manufacturing jobs'.
Manufacturing jobs, even in the 19th century, have always been
marginally better remunerated than agricultural work. But the line
worker did not have a 'middle class' lifestyle. The 'well paying
aspect' of the 50's- 70's could very well be an historical
accident. At the end of WW2 America contained a majority of the
total world industrial capacity. This quasi monopoly, combined with
a pent up consumer demand that had been deferred for a generation,
(and on top of a work ethic forged by 12 million men under arms who
would never have a worse day at work than they had in the early
40's) made it possible for semi skilled labor to reap huge rewards.
This world, needless to say is gone.
cunnivore|12.21.08 @ 11:52PM|#
What makes you think that because I don't think trade works
*exactly* like Ricardo envisioned that I am a dyed-in-the-wool
protectionist?
You weren't talking about minor details of the workings of trade;
you were asserting that free traders are at a disadvantage if the
rest of the world is protectionist, which seems like a major
challenge to economic theory going all the way back to Smith.
Never said you were a protectionist. Change the subject much?
BF Skinner|12.21.08 @ 11:54PM|#
Brian / Siggy,
You two make me sick. Or I should say, the stimulus of your
presence elicits a conditioned response of vomiting.
cunnivore|12.21.08 @ 11:56PM|#
Can I just deny the hundreds of economic studies extolling
the benefits of free trade like most libertarians deny the hundreds
of climatological studies that support global warming?
Speaking of changing the subject!
cunnivore|12.22.08 @ 12:01AM|#
MNG,
I can understand being skeptical of whether economic theories will
guarantee that the loss of manufacturing jobs won't hurt the
economy.
Keep in mind, though, that the proposed alternative requires
racking up ever more government debt, slanting the playing field in
the auto industry, and perhaps worst of all, sending yet another
message to big companies that the government will bail them out if
they screw up. That course of action is not without its own
risks.
Fluffy|12.22.08 @ 8:16AM|#
Getting away from the extreme of one person, if well paying
manufacturing jobs are lost because of productivity gains, how do
you know the things you describe would result (that we would see an
increase in the service sector, commodification of new services,
etc)? How do you know the result would not be something like
underconsumption or something else?
No society has ever experienced consistent productivity gains and a
decrease in overall employment.
And you might not like Econ 101, but the reason stuff ends up in
the introductory class is because it's a) basic and b) pretty much
universally acknowledged in the field.
Basically to have the outcome I am predicting not occur,
you'd have to have the class that receives the wealth associated
with that immense and unprecedented productivity gain not devote
any of it to consumption of goods and services, and not save or
invest any of it.
Because if they do devote it to consumption of goods and
services, they will demand new services from the market until their
disposable income is spent, as consuming classes have always done.
And if they do save or invest it instead of spending it
all on consumption, their savings and investments will reduce the
cost of capital, allowing third parties to use it to soak up
capital goods and business services.
|12.22.08 @ 12:05PM|#
If they're going to spend money on the Big Three's financial institutions, then that's that. It's legal, and Reich's argument is wrong.
GMAC was spun off as a standalone some years ago. It hass its own
NYSE listing.
Chrysler's credit arm was sold to a private investor even
earlier.
Ford Motor Credit is in better shape than its parent.
Now I can't speak as to whether using TARP funds for a Big 2.5
bailot is alloweded under the legislation, but I can't see that
some notion that they're "financial institutions" will cut it if
that is a requirement.
|12.22.08 @ 3:29PM|#
I half plagiarized these - tried to think up some on my own, but
I came up short:
As an economist, Robert Reich is quite predictable - always taking
a short position.
Before Robert Reich started radio commentary, he worked as a pro
baseball player: short stop.
Q: How does Robert Reich travel? A: By mini-van.
Yesterday, Michael Jordan and Robert Reich robbed a gas
station.
The police are searching high and low.
Robert Reich is so short he plays handball on a curb
Q: What to you call Robert Reich waving? A: A microwave.
Q: How do we know Robert Reich is gay? A: He came out of the
cabinet.
Q: Why do you get if you let Robert Reich wire your house? A: Short
circuit.
Q: Is Robert Reich offended by short jokes A: No. They go over his
head.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245