"Failed Philosophy" of Deregulation Open Thread

|

Feel like talking amongst yourself during this already-irritating presidential address? It's all yours. Here are the remarks as prepared.

NEXT: Reason.tv Replay: 3 Reasons Obama Should Kick His Own Ass

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Failed philosophy of deregulation? What deregulation? What unregulated market? Does he think saying that shit over and over again will make it true? Jesus, these guys keep setting the stage for failure then blaming everyone else when they succeed in failing.

    1. Cheney said “no acoustic BOP’s”

      Bush said “no capital requirements for banks/dealers” in 2004.

      Bush said “No Fannie/Freddie Reform (HR 1461) in 2005.

      Are you that fucking stupid?

      1. Are you that fucking stupid?

        I find myself thinking that with everyone of your posts.

        1. Then I remember you’re an accountant and that answer is most likely yes, you are that stupid.

        2. yet you post nothing of substance each time.

          1. That’s the beauty of it. You dig your own holes. All I have to do is watch.

      2. Reality is elusive, isn’t it?

        1. I can point out a lot of idiot deregulation whilst the Bushpigs ran rampant.

          Yet you jerk off to your same meme that none of that even existed.

          1. There hasn’t been any real deregulation–in the sense that a regulated industry became unregulated–in many years. Certainly, financial services wasn’t even remotely deregulated.

            I’m appalled at how uninterested people have become in the truth. Especially when it gets in the way of their desire to screw other people.

            1. Well suck on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_capital_rule

              …Net Capital Rule of 2004 which let broker-dealers exhaust leverage to the point of a desperate public funded Bushy-Boy TARP rescue.

              Oh, I forgot. Bush is a “free-market” guy – what a fucking joke.

              You suck the GOP cock.

              Enjoy it – its not for me.

              1. “On April 28, 2004, the SEC voted unanimously to permit the largest broker-dealers (i.e. those with “tentative net capital” of more than $5 billion) to apply for exemptions from this established “haircut” method.[5]Upon receiving SEC approval, those firms were permitted to use mathematical models to compute the haircuts on their securities based on international standards used by commercial banks.[6]”

                1. They have to apply for an exemption, and get SEC approval. How, exactly, is that deregulation? It sounds like reregulation to me.

                  Also, how many of the institutions granted approval failed?

              2. Well, I suppose now would be a good time to say that I’m a libertarian who never voted for Bush and never supported him.

                It’s also a good time to point out that that wasn’t “deregulation.” Jesus, man, I was in banking back then. I was paid to deal with the morass of. . .regulation the industry had to deal with. On the securities side, there were deregulatory laws like Sarbanes-Oxley.

                What this has to do with the oil spill is a question I’ll leave to others.

                1. OK, then I withdraw my criticism of your top post.

                  We probably agree on principle.

                  But I push forward on ideology.

                2. “Well, I suppose now would be a good time to say that I’m a libertarian who never voted for Bush and never supported him.”

                  Most people here don’t. Which is why I don’t get Shrike’s “go suck Bush/GOP cock” crap.(unless its a spoof).

                  1. He’s a liberal. They’re legitimately incapable of perceiving principled opposition to Obama; anyone who dislikes or disagrees with their Messiah HAS to be a dumb-as-fuck Redneck with Bush’s cock in his mouth.

                3. “Dereg” is such a fucking joke. Pro Lib, did you also have to deal with OFAC? My company estimated it spent between $300 million and $500 million on that fucking boondoggle.

                  1. Sure did. BSA, OFAC, AML, USA Patriot, JESUSHELPME.

              3. Wikipedia. You lose.

              4. do you know what a broken dealer is? Its not a bank nor is it an investent bank nor is it an insurance company. Broker/ dealers did not cause any of the current mess.

              5. From that same article, you’re forgetting this:

                “Financial reports filed by those companies show an increase in their leverage ratios from 2004 through 2007 (and into 2008), but financial reports filed by the same companies before 2004 show higher reported leverage ratios for four of the five firms in years before 2004.”

                You’re also failing to mention the SEC response that is also included on that web page. All overleveraging by bankers is caused by the fact that we have a fiat currency supported by a system of fractional reserve banks led by the federal reserve. Until you change that, all the regulation in the world will not change anything.

                1. There is no free market unless the currency is free from government meddling and manipulation.

          2. I’m all ears. Please cite the bills or executive orders that deregulated drilling in the Gulf of Mexico during the Bush administration.

          3. Please do, I’d like to know. And what the consequences were.

          4. I’d love to hear about the financial deregulation that happened during the Bush years. Was that Sarbanes-Oxley? Basel II?

            1. See the Net Capital Rule above.

              Also the Bush veto of the GSE Reform Act of 2005.

              1. I remember that bill. Would’ve created a regulator that would’ve done pretty much nothing to rein in the GSEs. A leftist mentioning the GSEs not being dealt with has forgotten a lot of history, I might add.

              2. If you thought that HR 1461 would have reigned in Fannie & Freddie in any way, then you have been watching too much Fox News.

                Among many other bad things in there, it would have RAISED the limits on conforming loan sizes.

            2. Here ya go, financial “deregulation” during Bush administration, from Wikipedia

              Economic regulation expanded rapidly during the Bush administration. President Bush is quoted as the biggest regulator since President Richard Nixon.[62] Bush administration increased the number of new pages in the Federal Registry, a proxy for economic regulation, from 64,438 new pages in 2001 to 78,090 in new pages in 2007, a record amount of regulation.[62] Economically significant regulations, defined as regulations which cost more than $100 million a year, increased by 70%.[62]

              Spending on regulation increased by 62% from $26.4 billion to $42.7 billion.[62]

              1. I’ll answer for shrike:
                NANANANANANAAA CAN’T HEAR YOU

              2. “the number of new pages in the Federal Registry, a proxy for economic regulation”

                A pretty poor proxy I would think. For example a new rule that mitigated the effect of a former rule would be counted as “adding regulation.”

                1. Unless it repeals the old rule, it’s just another regulation to keep track of. And I seriously doubt those make up a significant percentage of regulations.

                  1. A rule that effectively mitigates the intervention allowed under a still present rule is certainly something that can be considered deregulation. If “regulations” has any meaning for you folks it has to be in the amount of intervention/coercion allowed, not pages of text…

                    1. For example think of a regulation that says that business can only use x amount of water in their toilets. Then a new administration puts in an exemption for any business with less than 50 employees. Simplistically there are “more regulations” now, but certainly less people are coerced by regulation in my example.

                    2. You are willing to discount the possible negative effects of the exemption? You must love the tax code then and believe that plethora of exemptions and deals are in effect not regulation, but deregulation.

                    3. Now if the law were removed, that is deregulation.

                    4. Now if the law were removed, that is deregulation.
                      + the internet

                    5. HR Guy: “Boss, we can save $1,000 right now by putting in cheaper toilets, and we can sure use that extra capital to buy a new gizmo machine, but if we do we’ll have more business, and if business improves we’ll need to hire three extra workers during the busy season, and that’ll put us over fifty employees, and we’ll have to spend $10,000 and shut down for two weeks to install more expensive toilets, which means we can’t afford the materials to make gizmos, which means…”

                    6. I worked for a business that moved out of San Francisco because of a looming payroll tax when they exceeded the 50 person limit.

                    7. You are still showing up? Go away.

                    8. You are still showing up? Go away.
                      Was for MNG, Chony and applies to shrike too.

                    9. The same could be said of you with the endless attention posting and the blog whoring, Guy Monta . . . I mean suki.

                    10. Ownage or something ass kickking.

                    11. I was wondering where Guy M. went!

                    12. Suki isn’t Guy but Guy like. Guy wasn’t the real Guy either. The real Guy has been living like a king in Patagonia these last ten years. Surrounded by female welders.

                2. If that were a substantial portion of the “regulations” yu would see a corresponding decrease in money spent complying with regulation. That is not the case.

                3. I would think

                  I see your problem, I think.

                4. but that would remove the onld one… The regoster actually shrunk in pages from the last 70s to late 80s. Since then it has been expanding greatly.

                  But once, again, all you have are are aregments that we dobnt prove that there was new regulation. You are the guys who are making the claim that there was all this deregulation that occured, so the burden is on you to show what exactly was deregulated and why those deregulations were relevent. As of now, no one on this board has shown any examples of deregulation under the bush years.

              3. Bush was always a schizso type like when he jacked off ot Karla Faye Tucker’s death.

                That is why conservatives can’t be trusted.

                The GOP are always torture-creeps or gay-fag pedophiles.

                1. Bush was always a schizso type like when he jacked off ot Karla Faye Tucker’s death.

                  So what?

                2. Bush was always a schizso type like when he jacked off ot Karla Faye Tucker’s death.

                  The world would be a much better place if politicians spent more of their time masturbating and less coming up with new regulation.

                  1. Larry Flint for President!

                  2. The world would be a much better place if politicians spent more of their time masturbating and less coming up with new regulation.

                    Au zut, mon fr?re. With those bitches, the subsections and bylaws are formed from the splatter of their ejaculate.

                3. The GOP are always torture-creeps or gay-fag pedophiles.

                  I can understand why someone would hate pedophiles as i hate them myself.

                  But why does shrike hate gays?

                  And I know there of plenty of examples of republicans being outed…but where is the evidence they are pedophiles? Or does shrike think all gays are pedophiles?

              4. You are confusing the quantity of regulations with the quality.

                1. You are confusing the quantity of regulations with the quality.

                  And you, Chad, are conflating necessity with efficacy. I was wondering when you would show up to defend your Messiah. Now all we need is Tony to complete the trifecta of Apologizers-for-the Chief.

                2. So it is not deregulation, but misregulation.

                3. and youa re refusing to give any examples of deregulation.

            3. With “progressives” it works like this:

              Meltdown…had to be caused by deregulation.

              Hmmm, what deregulation took place during the period of interest.

              That’s it! Any deregulation can and will be blamed for any problems that occur. No need to look any further.

      3. Luckily, Barack Obama was there on the side of the angels, opposing Bush on those issues in the Senate every step of the way.

      4. He’s fucking, but he’s not stupid.

      5. There was bipartisan opposition to HR 1461, shrike. And I love the irony of you bringing up Fannie and Freddie in a discussion of regulation: giant GSEs that regulate home lending and then crash and burn, losing perhaps $1 trillion, are not exactly a good argument for regulation.

      6. Actually, that was Barney Frank, but thanks.

      7. shrike,

        Let him regulate your ass and leave mine out of it.

    2. If someone tells a lie often enough, most people believe it.

      1. and the more ridiculous the lie, the more likely it is to be believed.

  2. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history

    Could have fooled me.

    1. What’s more laughable? That they’re in charge of the clean-up, or that the clean-up even exists?

      1. More that they’re in charge of the clean-up, it’s a really big spill, they couldn’t hide that thing forever even if they wanted to.

    2. Why do you say that? Does it appear to be being run competently, efficiently, and effectively?

      And if Mr. Obama wants to claim full government credit for every error, every bad decision, every mistake, every failed attempt to cap the well . . . well, hey. I see no reason not to give him full credit for all of it.

      “This oily beach brought to you by the Obama Administration’s federal government cleanup effort. Remember in November!”

      1. Why do you say that? Does it appear to be being run competently, efficiently, and effectively?

        No, but then again nothing the government does fits that description, and I don’t really expect it to.

        And if Mr. Obama wants to claim full government credit for every error, every bad decision, every mistake, every failed attempt to cap the well . . . well, hey. I see no reason not to give him full credit for all of it.

        I have no problem calling him out as an arrogant, self-serving, ass-hat. It doesn’t mean I think presidents are somehow magic.

        “This oily beach brought to you by the Obama Administration’s federal government cleanup effort. Remember in November!”

        FIFY

        I have no doubt that the clean-up effort would have sucked just as hard under any administration.

        1. Neither do I.

          But the progressives are the ones who told us that a Gore FEMA would have made Katrina all right. It was Obama himself who told us that the reason government was failing was solely because it was under the control of people who didn’t want it to work.

          The best way to fight that is to consistently and personally identify the failures of the cleanup with Obama, so that in the name of saving their own partisan asses, the progressives have to speak the truth; that government cannot solve the problem.

  3. “Folks” count: 0
    “There are some who” count: 0
    “To those who say” count: 0

    So I thought he got a new writer.

    But a philosophy that says is standing in for all the usual ghosts, getting I sayed at in the usual way.

    Dude has the range of a bike horn.

    1. Any “let me be perfectly clear?”

    2. There was definitely a “there are those who say we can’t afford to spend all this money” in the spoken comments, if not the script.

      1. I smell David Analrod in tonight’s presidential address. Smarmy little shit that he is.

  4. Let me be clear.

    I will consider any serious proposal, that is, any proposal that does not cripple The American Power Act.

    1. No. Let me be perfectly clear. Gringo.

      1. There are some who say that Gulf residents have lost their famous sense of humor …

  5. When I was studying ecology and evolution, one of my collegues told me about a follow up study on the Exon spill in Alaska. The beaches that did not get any restoration work recovered more quickly than did the beaches that got restoration work.

    1. Maybe the beaches that didn’t get restoration work didn’t get it because they weren’t as badly damaged in the first place.

      1. At the BP oil spill class they mentioned this. The instructor had worked on cleaning up the Exxon spill. He said they used techniques like hot water and steam to clean up the gunk, which are no longer used because they sterilize the soil.

        1. And there’s a similar argument against using chemical dispersants.

    2. “The beaches that did not get any restoration work recovered more quickly than did the beaches that got restoration work.”

      Laissez-faire spill clean up!

      1. If the “clean-up” fucks things up worse than just letting the stuff seep down into the soil or get covered up by sediment deposits, then yes, laissez-faire would be the better approach.

        And a lot of the so-called “clean-up” was make-work to give the appearance of trying to fix something that was essentially unfixable by man, cleaning oil off rocks, which then got more oil on them.

        1. Are you suggesting the benevolent Federal Government is engaging partisan hackery and political theater for political benefit via style over substance? Do you have the temerity to propose that these political planarians would hoodwink the public with shows of futile fool’s errands in an bad faith attempt to reap PR points?

          1. something for showing your work. 🙂

  6. He also referred to the exploded oil rig as “Deep White Horizon”.

    1. Pretty “slick,” huh?

  7. “There hasn’t been any real deregulation”

    Ach, tis no true Scotsman!

    1. Gosh, it’s like the wild west, isn’t it? Why I can do just about anything without worrying about government regulation. Thank God that libertarian capitalist George Bush freed us from the shackles of government oversight, huh?

    2. Seeing as how lefties exclude all instances where regulation leads to regulatory capture from their regulatory pantheon, I could say the same about your side.

      Case in point, Obama’s laying out a textbook example of regulatory capture and blaming it on the failed philosophy of deregulation.

      1. It’s not inconsistent to think that folks who espouse deregulation will also be likely to appoint industry friendly people to regulatory agencies. In fact, the two went together often in the Bush administration.

        1. And, of course, people who espouse regulation also appoint people with similar conflicts and blind spots. Unless you think (e.g.) Obama’s Labor department is run by people with an even-handed, objective view of unions.

        2. That’s a correlation, not a causation, and you know it. Regulatory capture happens under the watch of both statist parties. Even when “the right people” are in charge.

          1. And once again, I forget to refresh before posting. Stupid, especially when dealing with low hanging fruit like that.

        3. Yes, we all know how distant Obama is from big business.

        4. Well, I suppose one could appoint people who figure that wind it the solution, and they ignore the running of the existing infrastructure.

    3. Since, as usual, the left’s screaming about “derelegulation” does not come with any explanation of what specific regulations that are no longer in effect would prevented or mitigated the spill, blaming this on “deregulation” would appear to be a load of BS.

  8. Why is it that Repubs get a free pass on regulation? Except for kicking a few hundred thousand mental patients out on the streets (yay self-reliance!) conservative/libertarian demigod Reagan was far worse (or just as bad) an authoritarian statist than Clinton or Obama, and yet it’s the Dems that get compared to Stalin or Pol Pot. Why?

    1. You ask that here? Can no one get it through their head that we’re libertarians? While I think today’s Democrats are among the worst expanders of government in recent history, the GOP has done quite a bit to bring Leviathan ever closer. Screw them both.

      1. Asking partisan morons to understand that we are neither on their team or on the other team is too much to ask of their feeble partisan minds, ProL.

        1. Like BTO said, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

          1. Wasn’t it Rush who said that (the band, not Limbaugh, so calm down shriek), Danny DeVito? I mean Hobie.

            1. I thought he was making a bad joke.

              1. He has a sense of humor? I’m skeptical.

                1. I’m still skeptical about whether or not it’s an actual intelligent life form.

            2. Well, they are both Canadian bands.

              1. Only has has a child molester though. As far as I know.

              2. Take care of your business dickhead.

        2. We’re “not us”, therefore, we’re evil.

        3. Ellwood: So… what kind of music do you play here?

          Waitress: oh, we have both kinds – Country and Western!

          1. In the late 70s and early 80s, John Landis could do no wrong.

    2. As a long time H&Rer; I can tell you most libertarians here hated Republicans during their reign, so that dog will likely not hunt…

      1. Well I haven’t been here so long. From what you say though, libertarianism is more about knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism than any actual principles.

        1. You’re not too good at comprehension tasks, are you.

        2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..principles

          The More You Know!
          ==============*

          1. That’s a bit wordy. Try this

        3. I think knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism is a great principle. For most libertarians, exercise of authority should be constrained to its least possible while allowing society to function. We aren’t there. It follows that libertarians would oppose any expansion of authority when they believe there is already too much being exercised.

        4. I jerk some things. But my knee isn’t one of them.

      2. Name one regulation Bush overturned. One.

        1. Sorry, wrong place…

        2. You don’t necessarily have to name any regulation overturned. You can add new rules that gut regulations that are still on the books. You can appoint people who will apply the regulations in a lax manner. You can fail to regulate newly developing areas. Etc.

          If you guys are going to be mad at anyone be mad at all those people who loudly proclaimed as deregulation all this stuff you say wasn’t “real deregulation.”

          1. You’re forgetting that this isn’t merely an academic exercise. During the Bush years, Pro Lib was in banking; I was in insurance. We saw how the increase in regulation effected our companies. We were there.

            Admittedly, insurance was a different case, as it was regulated by the states. However, there was certainly no deregulation on the state level. And shit like OFAC effected every financial company in the country.

            1. Don’t you guys remember that huge deregulation called Sarbanes-Oxley, that freed businesses to work more effectively and efficiently?

              Yeah, me neither.

              1. They were fretting SarbOx implementation just as I was leaving the company.

                1. One ‘good’ thing about SarbOx is that it provides a high barrier to taking a company public on the US exchange. That’s one reason our company issued its IPO on the AIM.

                  I guess that’s not so good from the point of view of the US. But hey, Brit traders gotta eat too….

          2. You can add new rules that gut regulations that are still on the books.

            That’s deregulation. Just because it isn’t explicit doesn’t make it any less so.

            You can appoint people who will apply the regulations in a lax manner.

            That’s politics. What’s new about that?

            You can fail to regulate newly developing areas.

            That’s “not regulating.” Were motgages and derivatives a new area in the 00’s?

            If you guys are going to be mad at anyone be mad at all those people who loudly proclaimed as deregulation all this stuff you say wasn’t “real deregulation.”

            Carter was the Great Deregulator. Air travel, trucking, oil prices, all were explicitly deregulated during his term. And we’re all the better for it.

            1. I think you mean natural gas prices, but yeah, that was a bright spot of the Carter administration.

              1. No, he did oil price decontrol as well.

                Good article on it hier.

                Of course, it was a mixed bag with Carter. He gave us DoE and windfall profit tax on oil and he’s a giant, sanctimonious douchebag. But I’ll give credit where credit is due.

                1. I stand corrected. What I’d forgotten was that after the first oil crisis and and the end of gasoline price controls, they moved the controls “upstream” to domestic oil production. Carter did start phasing those out and Reagan finished the job.

          3. You don’t necessarily have to name any regulation overturned.

            Just admit that you fucking can’t find even one example, and we can move on to the next topic, mmmm-kay?

          4. “You can add new rules that gut regulations that are still on the books”

            Name one.

            “You can appoint people who will apply the regulations in a lax manner.”

            Who was? And which regulatiosn were?

            “You can fail to regulate newly developing areas.”

            Which are?

            Talking about regulation as a panacea in the abstract without identifying what an effective regulation that would have prevented or mitigated what actually happened is asking for a blank check. No one with any sense would give it to you.

    3. They don’t get a free pass on regulation, or at least not here. See: most of the comments before this one.

    4. Except for kicking a few hundred thousand mental patients out on the streets (yay self-reliance!) conservative/libertarian demigod Reagan

      I suppose you think it is acceptable to forcibly institutionalize and treat people.

  9. talk about wikiality/truthiness. If enough people believe it’s true, it becomes true I guess. Barry Soetero’s pretty clever at blaming the crap out of bush for everything.

    1. Neil, is that you? The counter balance to left crazy with right crazy? Jahvobesus, we can only hope!

      1. DOOOONDEEEERRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOO!

        1. If both Neil and Dondero were to return, I might have to quit my job so that I could post more. That would be too good.

          1. If the TEAM RED slaughter will be as seeping as I suspect it will be, he may return to grace the board again during the honeymoon phase and leave when TEAM RED starts doing the bipartisan statist dance again.

  10. Hey, it’s shriek!

    1. Weren’t you going to do a new one? And do one about another troll (I can’t remember who right now)?

      I DEMAND that you entertain me for free.

      1. Yeah, one about “Max”. Okay, with your demand and all, you might wind up in the next one.

        However, it’ll have to wait until my “inspiration” arrives. Which will hopefully be soon.

        1. I eagerly await the picture you use to represent me. Here’s a suggestion.

          And can’t you just call your dealer for more “inspiration”?

          1. You wanna look like a fag?

            Sweet!

            1. Of course I do, but I think you’re missing the point.

              1. Stupid points.

          2. hopefully you you look better in person.

  11. Keep sucking that GOP cock, reasonfags. The cunthole theocrats on this sight keep showing there stupidity. How many fucking times do I need to explane it to you redneck shitcunt dittoheads?

    1. You’re going to have to keep on “explaining” it, you cuntsore half-abortion, because you’re too fucking stupid to realize there are as few GOPers here as there are DemDicks like yourself. Why don’t you go back to your true home at Democratic Underground and jerk off to your Obama pics like the good little freedom-hating lefist homophobe you are and leave us in peace, you drippy pussy discharge?

      1. , because you’re too fucking stupid to realize there are as few GOPers here as there are DemDicks like yourself.

        There are ALOT of Demdicks here. If you ever come across a thread on Game Theory like Bailey had last week, just run away from that fucker, ’cause it will be wall to wall demdicks showing off their precious little knowledge base.

    2. theocrats? now that is funny. I seriously almost did a spit-take.

    3. While I try to refrain from the grammar nazi, since my grammar sucks, given recent comments I find it hard to say, “Look at that intellect go.”

      How many fucking times do I need to explane it to you redneck shitcunt dittoheads?

      Is that like De Plane!!

      1. No, it’s da EX-plane. U no, da kool one dat won da EX prize!

    4. And I have to come up with a new cartoon showing what a worthless, sloppy jerk-off shit you truly are. Now go rewind the President’s speech and break out the Vaseline like a good little authoritarian powerlusting jerkoff and let the grownups talk in private.

    5. shrike: “The cunthole theocrats on this sight keep showing there stupidity.”

      Anyone else see the irony?

      1. I am a religious skeptic who doesn’t worship the state. What irony?

      2. Nothing like being called stupid by someone misspelling three words in three sentences!

    6. What “theocrats”, shrike?

      Good God, you’re a stupid prick.

    7. I think shrike is talking about himself…

  12. No haters more hateful than former true believers (until the asskick comment, I thought he was pretty tactful in his response to the spill):

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..mmand.html

    Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama’s Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

    Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

    Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

    Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

    Matthews: “No direction.”

    Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

    Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

    Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

    Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

    Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

    Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

    1. So… I’m guessing the tingle is gone, but does Matthews still forget he’s black? It’s pretty bad when your shills start to distance themselves because they need a fig-leaf of impartiality, and they cant find it.

      1. Chris Mathews goes home at night, puts a double bourbon in a glass, puts on a B B King LP on his first rate audiophile disk spinner, sits there in his big cushioned chair, tears up about what could have been.

    2. “Michelle. Get the sweetener the coolaid is loosing it’s flavor.

    3. Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

      That’s different from Obama’s usual speeches how? Olberman’s just twigging now onto the obvious that Obama talks a lot without really saying much concrete of anything?

      Seriously, it’s part of how the man got nominated and elected, he did not say much that could be nailed down and could appear all things to anybody who was not paying close attention. This was man who would not take a definite position on much of anything unless he absolutley had to, as evidenced by his legislative voting record.

      You did not want a leader, Olberman, you wanted a chameleon who could fool enough of the people to get into office. Noticing now that he does not have the personality to be an effective CEO is too late.

      1. I think many supporters knew Obama was rather vague in many ways during the campaign, but excused it because 1) he wasn’t in power yet, and 2) he needed to get the votes, but once he was elected he’d really be doing things.

        Here’s something he could do: suspend or repeal the Jones Act so that foreign oil-cleanup ships can help in the Gulf. Oh, wait, the unions wouldn’t like that, so never mind.

        1. Uh, PapayaSF, suspending the Jones Act would look too similar to deregulation, and as we know deregulation has failed.

          1. Much like your reign Herr Obama.

        2. My god the Jones Act is so fucked up… I saw it first hand working with Holland America, and I just ran entertainment. I couldn’t imagine being someone crewing the actual ship dealing with all that shit. It was terrible.

      2. You forgot to mention the color of said chameleon at the time

    4. Krauthammer was more forgiving than the MSNBC crew.

      I guess the people with the most invested take it the hardest.

  13. [rant] FIGHTING URGE TO RANT [/rant]

    Pro’L Dib, JW, Epi….I need strength to not rant….and I have some choice profanity….Fried Aquatic Avian….slipping…don’t want to be the anti-shriek….

    1. Sorry, doc. I had to let that go. The Valium I took didn’t kick in until about now-ish. The combo of a completely lying President, and a moronic, hypocritical defender of the same (who claims to be “classical liberal), was too much for me.

      Limited regrets, however. If I’m the only one who sinks to that level, I can get all the insults in, and the rest of you can keep your hands clean.

      1. Trouble yourself not. This Sociopath-in-Chief deserves every ounce, iota, grain, and quark of scorn and derision shoved his way.

        1. Are you kidding Doc? I kill for good rants. I just don’t know how you sat through that an evening with the parsin’ president unmedicated.

          Let it rip. Aim for collateral troll damage.

    2. Doc, you can prescribe yourself some benzos, oxycodone, and maybe a muscle relaxant; if you haven’t done so yet, I must assume you were just trying to do it all with alcohol.

      You should take advantage of your prescription pad before you explode. I wish I could.

      1. Actually, I don’t drink Epi; makes my hands shake some and I need steady hands. I don’t need any of that other stuff and self-prescription by my own pad is a huge no no. I do keep beta-blockers handy if I feel my head is going to explode though. I try to take as little pharma as possible. I’m pretty calm most of the time, but geez after sitting through the Sociopath-in-Chief’s bald faced minstrel show, I do want to kick my plasma screen in. It helps to read the more rational responses to the address posted here and the good mini-rant a la FriedAquaticAvian.

        1. Silly quack; you don’t actually write yourself prescriptions, you write them for your friend or wife or dog and have them give them to you; or you get Cutty to write you one as a fellow doctor.

          It’s fun to partake sometimes, doc; can’t you let yourself do so once in a while?

          And I’d like to point out that abstaining hasn’t done your brain any favors; a “baked” penguin has nothing to do with “frying”. I see you’re not a cook (sneer), which is probably a shame if you have steady hands and are good with a knife. But years eating at the hospital cafeteria have probably dulled your palate to the level of an enlisted man by now.

          By the way, you should imagine me saying that last paragraph in the accent of Thurston Howell.

          1. LOL I am aware of the loopholes in the system, just choose not to exploit them. The Cutty Method has some risks as far as scheduled pharma goes, so I would reserve that for actual need, such as said beta blockers. I haven’t seen my own personal physician in probably five years.

            I am well aware of the difference of convection v. direct heat in cooking, Thirsty; I do have excellent cutlery skills though. I did consider going to cooking school at one time, but I lack the flair and imagination of foodies such as yourself.

            1. It amuses me to see your clumsy attempts at pretending to culinary excellence. Were you thinking of applying to your local Le Cordon Blue? You probably had store brand mac and cheese with ketchup for dinner.

              1. And your feeble attempts at pharmacological supremacy reek of pregnant yak. I had microwave baby mixed in with my store brand mac n’cheese garnished with the finest off brand pickles and seasoned with with knockoff seasoned salt. I save ketchup for my el cheapo store brand capellini with marinara. I’m a cheap libertarian.

                1. You philistine. I had grilled marlin topped with grilled tomato with some broccoli rabe rolled in a slice of prosciutto.

                  Cheap libertarians are fine, but there’s nothing worse than a cheap doctor. Is your real name Dr. Nick Riviera?

                  1. Most of us early in our careers are cheap by necessity as residency tends not to pay well, and generally includes food allowances in the hospital cafeteria leading to the dull and unimaginative palate. LOL no, I don’t greet everyone with “Hi everybody!”

                    I also don’t eat pork, but I admit the rest of your menu sounds delicious! Living seaside certainly has benefits, as you have mentioned many times.

                    1. You don’t eat pork?!? Why? “Riviera” doesn’t sound Jewish or Muslim.

                  2. I had microwave baby mixed in with my store brand mac n’cheese

                    How much do babies cost? That can’t be cheap.

                2. After that little revelation, now I really don’t want your finger in my rectum.

                  1. Tulpa, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession and fixation with me checking your prostate. Parasites and now prostates? I think you are hitting on me again. Been going on a peanut butter binge with a faulty sarcasmometer again? Tsk, tsk.

                  2. Funny choice of words ‘now . . . don’t want’ instead of ‘now . . . wont let.’

                    Before you found out Mr. Groovus is Muslim you wanted him to put his stink hook of a pinky up your butt?

                  3. My bad, I now see the emphasis.

                    Before you found out what he does with that hand, you didn’t want him to put that finger up your rectum, now, after you found out his toiletry etiquette you really don’t want his hand up in there.

                    Still a learning.

  14. “And only if we rally together and act as one nation ? workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.”

    That’s exactly the approach that won’t work–this man knows nothing…

    “When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill ? a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.”

    …and that proves it. There is no bill, no law, nothing that government can ever do to make anything profitable.

    He can make our other options less profitable–but that’s double-talk.

    It was probably the best thing he could have done politically, spin the disaster to make it emblematic of something else he wanted to pursue. Like Hitler did with the Reichstag fire, or George W. Bush using 9/11 to justify an invasion of Iraq, demagogues use unforeseen tragedies to push their cases, and they’ll only stop doing that when we stop buying what they’re selling.

    1. this man knows nothing… There is no bill, no law, nothing that government can ever do to make anything profitable.

      But he, and Congress, can make other businesses very unprofitable, and very scared to expand.

      Between the tax hike, the new accounting rules, and the new “regulations”, I’m putting all of my money in long-term puts on the Nasdaq. Barry and his wrecking crew are going to level this economy.

      1. It’s times like this that I have to remind myself that markets are remarkably resourceful and innovative. We thrived despite FDR and Carter, and those guys were worse. ….we’ll get past this idiotic government too.

        Still, the Administrations of FDR and Carter weren’t known for their bull markets, I have to admit.

        Still, China has a negative trade balance now (way under-reported news), there’s no stopping Brazil, and India’s future looks a lot brighter than its past. I’m kind of an options junkie myself, and if I felt like that? Like you do?

        I don’t give specific recommendations online, but there are Chinese home builders (sort of your KB Home for China) that are trading below their cash value–nevermind book. The Chinese government still wants more peasants moving into the cities…

        I think a lot of American investors are projecting our problems over there–there’s just no housing bubble over there. And if it trades on the NYSE and you can sell covered calls?

        Then why wouldn’t you want to do that?

        Under book + Covered Call = Teh Shiznit

        1. We thrived despite FDR and Carter, and those guys were worse. ….we’ll get past this idiotic government too.

          I bet people in the Ottoman Empire were saying the same thing in 1910. And they had more justification, as their civilization had lasted what, three times as long as ours?

        2. “We thrived despite FDR and Carter, and those guys were worse. ….we’ll get past this idiotic government too.”

          I wonder if they were worse, or if they had a head start. Also, their motives could have been, well, different.

  15. Obama was on tonight? Crap, I completely forgot. I missed my chance to purposefully not watch.

  16. Seems to me that the issue isn’t so much deregulation vs. regulation, as it is a matter of SELECTIVE deregulation and SELECTIVE regulation. Libertarians don’t like selective deregulation (we’d prefer FULL) and Dems and Reps don’t like selective regulation (they’d prefer FULL).

  17. For those of you who do economics: What caused the market climb after the crash of 1987? Lower taxes? Deficit spending? Tech boom?

    Thanks

    1. Government (Baker) did. Oh you didn’t ask who started it.

      Fundamentals and company fundamentals were generally strong despite the crash. I’m sure some will argue it was increased liquidity from the Fed, but given recent circumstances I hope no one would try to beat that horse.

    2. Well, we went through a recession in 1990-1991.

      I’d say economic growth during the 90s was partly fueled by a techbubble, and partly fueled by globalization, and the transitioning of many countries from socialism to capitalism. End of the cold war, collapse of communism also led to descreases in defense spending freeing up resources globally.

  18. Regulators are always fighting the last war. The problem is unethical people in positions of power that screw everything up for all of us.

  19. I don’t understand how you people can stand to watch presidentfags talk. Maybe it’s just that I’ve gotten fucking old, but getting pointlessly enraged just isn’t that fun anymore.

    1. This. I have to many valuables around the house. Just isn’t worth it.

    2. I read the transcripts. My natural reaction to politicians talking is generally homicidal.

    3. I can’t understand either, but for me, even watching a politician spew for 30 seconds makes me scramble for the remote faster than Lindsay Lohan going after a bottle of Grey Goose.

      1. Notice that bitch getting tubby? She’s off the cocaine, but still downing the Goose. She didn’t quit it, its just we stopped selling it to her. She called me up last week, and I told her straight, “Lo Lo, you know when you drop dead the first person they be coming for is the last person who sold you your coke and shit.”

        1. She’ll just go to her doctor and get some Ritalin.

          1. I hear you can get coca tea on the Internet that will show up on a drug test…

          2. any suggestions?

            1. Ritalin?

    4. I agree with Warty, including the getting old part. The older I get, the less tolerance I have for political BS and the less likely I am to give pols the benefit of any doubt whatsoever. I am sad that, in the age of our first black President, it is hard for me to give a damn because, after all, he is just a slick pol like the rest of them. They say that we’re all the same, under the skin. That goes double for politicians. I don’t care what color or sex a statesman is — I’d just like to FIND one!

      1. I’m 25 and haven’t given politicians the benefit of any doubt since the first time I could vote in 2004.

      2. I cant say anything about your age however, it seems that people with something to do cant watch this crap cause, they are doing something not watching some lying prick on the tube.

      3. Shit, I’m 21 and I can’t watch Obama without getting apoplectic. Son of a bitch.

  20. The problem with the word “deregulation” is that the very concept as a positive or negative suggests that the content of regulations is irrelevant, that more is either better or worse just because they’re regulations.

    Getting rid of bad regulations is good, getting rid of good regulations is bad. To anyone that thinks regulations can be (but are by no means guaranteed to be) a net positive for society, the terms regulation and deregulation are not terribly informative. They certainly tell us what happened, but not how we should rationally judge what happened.

    There’s also the problem of lax regulation — lax regulation essentially rewards people who fail to comply with regulations, since they don’t have to bother with the costs of compliance, while more scrupulous/gullible entities are punished more and more harshly with regulatory burdens for every failure of the system to actually function as intended. It’s a little like the DRM debate (punishing honest customers with increasingly restrictive or annoying bullshit, while pirates crack the DRM and do what they want).

    1. An important thing not being admitted by the President and his supporters is the non-governmental regulation provided by the marketplace and civil society. When this private-sector regulation is not allowed to act — for example, when government caps damage liability awards for those who submit to its “regulatory” regimen — then truly heinous operators can squeak by with government blessing. In the world where you could actually sue BP into the ground, that is probably what would happen in a case like this, even without a single regulation on the books. There is also the regulation provided by competition as well as reputation/word-of-mouth/goodwill. Those who favor government intervention like to denigrate such marketplace regulatory forces, but those forces are nevertheless powerful, if allowed to work. This is why, all too often, industrial players cozy up with government to protect them from marketplace forces, under the guise of “regulation.”

      1. A professor who was a Democratic congressional staffer in the 70’s told our class that the
        biggest backers of the 1974 Clean Air Act were industrial interest that hated living under the tort systems of fifty states. Quite odd to me was how he believed that was a strong argument in its favor.

      2. In the world where you could actually sue BP into the ground, that is probably what would happen in a case like this, even without a single regulation on the books.

        That is the current world we live in.
        And they knew that going in.
        And they still didn’t follow standard industry practice to reduce risks.

        The “75 million liability cap” is a red herring that does not apply to this situation.

        1. I don’t know what world you live in, but in the one I live in the rule of law has been suspended: Presidents can steal companies from legitimate senior creditors and hand them over to unions, prop them up with cash from a fund that by law the president has no authority to give them, and generally provide whatever extra-legal assistance is deemed necessary to companies that are “too big to fail”.

          In the world I live in, BP could not reasonably be expected to believe that they might be sued into the ground in the event of a mishap. And in fact, in the world I live in, it appears that BP will be allowed to survive by paying $20B in protection money.

  21. OT but the local news here in so cal has a video of a white cop punching a teenage black girl.

    Poverty pimps on scene in 3,2,1…

    1. I saw that! Look, spot me twenty for layaway, and I’ll get you a nice deal on a 52″ HDTV once the riots start.

    2. Must have been a Tea Party member.

      1. But that is still no reason for the cop to punch her.

  22. I read the text and the main thing that enraged me was his bathering on about energy independence and green jobs, without a single mention of nuclear.

    That’s just a dead giveaway that his energy program is a giant steaming pile of pork. It’s just about shoveling some money to some “green energy” companies that just happen to be Democratic donors.

    If he was actually serious about climate change or energy independence he would have the balls to say “and, yes, we will need nuclear power”.

    1. That’s just a dead giveaway that his energy program is a giant steaming pile of pork.

      Hence, “held in escrow” == political slush fund.

      1. == “administered by someone close to me who needs a job”

    2. bathering on about energy independence and green jobs, without a single mention of nuclear

      Of course, Obama is on record supporting expanded nuclear…and has taken concrete actions to implement that idea – starting very early in his administration.

  23. I am so tired of all these parasites with their hands out!

    BP doesn’t owe anything to anybody!

    1. Nice try.

      Well, not really.

  24. I’m surprised no one’s pointed out the deliberately martial language, some right there in the first paragraph

    “battle we’re waging”

    “assaulting our shores”

    “our battle plan is going forward”

    “tackle this challenge” (or as it’s known in some parts ‘put it in a hug’ 😉

    1. Anyone would think he was trying to foment some seditious treason or something.

    2. He’s trying to unite that nation in peacetime like we are in wartime like Wilson and both Roosevelts did.

      1. Would someone put this retard out of his misery?

    3. It’s a Battle for Green Energy!

  25. “shrike|6.15.10 @ 4:34PM|#

    That is why its free.

    Ok – today. I love Calpine (CPN) – 99% modern natural gas power plants.

    But coal-fired plants need to drop their subsidies first.”

    Do not feed this guy. He’s not your normal say dumb/provocative shit, act an ass, ??, profit troll. He’s the sort of psychopath that surfs opposition websites to find opportunities to construct a false identity to concern troll. He’s literally sick and should not be treated with lulz like chony,etc.

    The quote is from the film subsidies thread today. In less than a minute I found Calpine’s plant map and saw that about 1/3 of their NG plants are single fire(not in any way modern). For those not familiar with Calpine, the relevant technology, or the relevant corporate propaganda, there’s no honest explanation for this kind of mistake.

    I submit that such particularly deranged and retarded trolls should be dismissed for the safety of their neighbors (and mine, John).

    1. While I keep an open mind that Shrike is either entirely truthful, or where he obfuscates there is a higher purpose, I have found it odd that someone who claims to have shorted a bank in 2008 heavy in unbacked mortgages as a speculator generally favors those who hate speculators and who write laws that are not in the interest of speculators. Also when examining the prose, the little there that is there when he is sprouting e-dick woody as mr high financier seems second hand from journalistic sources (cough, cough, Liar’s Poker). Keep in mind, it could be brilliant parody of a certain type, could be just communicating through short hand, but the suspicion is back after you pointed that out.

  26. Ahh, the joys of living in overseas – only thing on the tele last night was the World Cup. Didn’t even realize that Obama gave a speech until I saw it discussed on the BBC this morning…

  27. Hell, I live in the U.S. (OK, the overseas part of the U.S.), and I didn’t know Obama lied another speech until I saw this thread.

    I avoided the rage by not watching him, same as I don’t watch any politician unless they’re getting hammered by Colbert or Stewart.

  28. I watched Office reruns instead. Caught the classic ep where Michael and Jan throw the worst dinner party ever.

    1. And the Celtics vs. Lakers?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.