I don't think people get how linked Wall Street and Main Street are right now. OF COURSE the TARP bailouts were necessary - had Wall Street collapsed all at once, it would have taken millions of loans and mortages with it. The credit crunch we face now would be the nation's glory days compared to what it would be with more collapsed firms. And when people lose their liveliehoods and homes, local economies lose consumers and thus shed jobs and businesses. The banks really were too big to fail - TARP followed by (the yet to be taken step of) breaking up those banks was the proper approach, not stepping back and letting them destroy everything beneath them as the populists demand.
Obama and Paulson's mistakes weren't these bills. Obama never should have promised to limit employment to 8%. This allows Repubs to paint his policies as failures, when in fact the size of the downturn was larger than anyone realized - rather than preventing a 1-2% rise in unemployment and capping it at 8%, it now seems that Obama presented an even more drastic rise with a cap of what, 15%? 18%?
Unlike many Tea Partiers and other progressives, I've always supported TARP. I believe I called it "the worst bill I'll ever support" last fall, and I stand by that. I'm glad to see this paper come along to back it up with data. Even if these economists are off by half, they still remind us of the downturn's sheer size, and the sheer size and holdings of the banks. This is important news, and I wish I could rec'd the post twice.
And regarding climate change itself, we are not 100% sure what causes it. It might be a sudden and normal shift requiring adaptation, that's one theory, but there are many theories, most of them focusing on methane and carbon levels, tipping points, and feedback loops. If the theories that say we can't stop it are correct but we try to stop it, no harm done. If the theories that say we can slow or curb it are correct and we don't even try, epic and deathly fail.
You clearly missed my point and we are talking past each other. The crack about getting up on the wrong side of the bed was not about climate change, but about your overreaction to my saying it would be off point for someone to interpret this post about health care and FinRegs instead of climate change. And since we're back on that topic, since you implied I blame Obama for every less than perfect legislative success, please find the posts where I have done so and point them out to me.
My only point with this post is that the issue that faces a tipping point should have come before those that don't.
Before anyone comments that the hcr and FinReg bills DIDN'T save their targets, let me point out that even if they had, they would still be pointless if and when climate change comes to bear, costing trillions and wrecking livelihoods and maybe even lives.
Interesting to see that the list isn't even real, and the rest was along the lines of what I'd though upon seeing the list anyway - how the heck is a list of known liberals from liberal publications proof that the media is liberal? Aside from a few Politico (hardly a left-wing site) and Newsweek names, where were the Courics and Blitzers, the Tappers and Todds?
Yeah, he strikes as more of a Gingrich type - intelligent enough and with ocassional flashes of pragmatism, but mostly just slimy and willing to do whatever it takes to slither ahead. His brand first, party second, truth only if there's time left over.
There's no such thing as cheap energy. Coal may not cost much in dollars, but it costs far too much in lives, security, health, and environmental factors. Oil isn't much different. People are slowly coming to realize this, and over time more and more of those external costs will be internalized, even if takes the states and municipalities rather than Congress to do it. In the end, clean energy may not be cheap, but it is cheaper than fossil fuels and money involved will one day reflect that.
BTW, no matter how much these comments and questions may frustrate you, be grateful for them. The diary is currently on the "most commented" list, which means it will stay on the homepage longer than would otherwise occur. We may not yet feel there's enough evidence to believe it, and yet by virtuing of pressing the point, we're ironically geting it more readers. "Effing give up" on that.
I have said huffpo wanted to smear Clinton and they wanted me to find ways to do it. What else do you want to hear?
I didn't ask you to repeat yourself, I asked you to explain yourself. An answer to the specific question I asked, that's what I want to hear - not a repeat of what led me to ask the question. I'm not going to believe accusations against anyone, right or left, without evidence - the fact that you're a credible figure who said so just isn't enough. I'm not doubting your story in the slightest; I'm just asking for more evidence to back it up before I believe it. That is hardly unreasonable.
So let's try again: We know HuffPo wanted Clinton to look bad. Okay, yes, I get that and don't doubt it, but did they ask you to make up evidence if it turned out she wasn't actually doing what they said she was doing? Or did they just insist that she was doing so and that you should show existing evidence of such? If the latter, how is that like Breitbart, and if the former, do you still have their emails so you can share specific quotes and name names? Simple questions, that's all.
Also, a tip on using MyDD - for me to see your comment in a timely manner, click "reply" on my comment, not "add a comment" at the bottom of the post. Users get notifications for replies on their own comments, but not for additional comments on posts upon which they've commented. More good conversations fall by the wayside that way... :(