The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Drince88]

The City of New Orleans has some pretty inept people in 'high' office. One of the 'best' is the director of sanitation, Veronica White. She just had her computer siezed by the feds, gave out all the city council emails to a lawyer (under FIOA) without going through the city lawyers (as is policy) but the mayor isn't going to discipline her because she ddn't break any laws. She has an ongoing feud with the Parish Council, too.

She just wrote a book "How To Maximize FEMA Funding After a Natural Disaster". $35 for an 80 page paperback. She definitely has a following given some of the reviews, just not a following that most people would like to have.

I just wish there was some way to work this into my Mardi Gras costume next year...

[SacTown Chronic]

Oh I don't know about inept. Is there a more corrupt and profitable political machine in this country outside of Chicago than New Orleans? Those guys down there wrote the book on how to bribe a politician.

[wendybeth]

Well, looks like GM is gonna have to go it alone: Obama denies bailout to automakers.


Had a few interesting conversations this week- one was with someone who was up in arms over the possibility of regulating the SEC and other entities. They thought it tragically socialistic, but at the same time blamed Clinton and Carter for the mess we're in right now. I asked how they were responsible, and of course they weren't entirely sure but knew (coughRushcough) that they were at fault. When I explained that their fault lay in their role in dismantling regulatory rules from bygone eras, the person was so confused I actually felt sorry for her. It's really hard to blame C&C for deregulation and cheerlead for the same. Another conversation arose when a co-worker was reading the paper and saw that certain banks might be partially nationalised....."Socialism! Rush was right!"...(sigh). I pointed out that just last week she was decrying AIG for it's actions with bailout money, and that this was merely a way to let the taxpayers become shareholders, with the option of paying off the taxpayers whenever the companies were doing better. Not only that, but the 'shareholders' could actually put stipulations on those funds, whereas before no real directives were applied or enforcable. She admitted that maybe that wasn't such a horrible thing.

[scaeagles]

Just because Rush may say it doesn't mean it isn't true. From the Investor's Business Daily -

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

It was economic hardball.

"We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible," Clinton's comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.

And they meant it.

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That's how the contagion began.

With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.

[scaeagles]

I'm not understanding a couple things here. Why is Obama slapping allies in the face?

First he insults the Brits and Gordon Brown by not having the traditional joint press conference, and then refuses the offer of British diplomats to hang on to the bust of Winston Churchill in the oval office for another four years. Some might say those things aren't a big deal, and that's certainly up for debate.

However, the offer offer 50K in emergency aid to Italy after the quake....50K? It would have been better to give NOTHING. That was insulting. Beyond insulting.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Regarding the Brits, as I mentioned before, Obama is only "insulting them" in comparison to Bush and Blair taking turns going down on each other. I think Obama is sending the message that the era of, "You support us in one effort, therefore we're going to bend over for you," is over.

As for Italy, dunno. According to this short blurb, the US offered to send rescue teams as well but Italy declined. So perhaps $50K is all they asked for.

[Alex]

Is anybody actually in a position to care in England taking offense or is it simply the right-wing press in England taking offense on their behalf?

As for the second, I know we've had a similar conversation before in the last few years but damned if I can find it. Just wanted to watch and see how much points of view change because now it is Obama instead of Bush.

But Italy probably rejected greater assistance out of fear that if they took a significant amount of money that the American public would grow outraged when they saw how much Italians were spending on Christmas parties this year and then try to tax their incomes back to zero.

[scaeagles]

I think that Brown and the British diplomats probably aren't interested in discussing or elevating it to any sort of incident. I doubt if they would ever say if they were....it's all conjecture by the press, similar to what it might be in any circumstance. But like I specifically said above about that, it is certainly debatable how insulting it is if at all.

The Italian thing....I have recollections, and honestly I haven't looked, about discussions of foreign aid and to where/whom it is given. For example, I think it is insane that we just pledged whatever it was - 800 million or a billion or something like that - to rebuilding Palestinian controlled areas when there is the likelihood that portions of that money will simply be used to purchase munitions for suicide bombings or rocket launches into Israel (this is the case regardless of which President has done this, whether Clinton or Bush or now Obama, with Hillary making this promise on her somewhat recent middle east trip). However, any ally that has been with us in Iraq? 50K of disaster relief. I suppose as GD said that might be all they asked for, but I doubt that. 50K is nothing. I don't think we asked for disaster relief after 9/11 or Katrina, but Italy sent 3 million to us after each. It is a symbolic gesture, and 50K symbolizes a slap. Donating nothing, I believe, would be preferable.

And of course my perceptions are going to be different about Obama rather than Bush, just as it is with every politically minded posted here.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I suppose as GD said that might be all they asked for, but I doubt that. 50K is nothing. I don't think we asked for disaster relief after 9/11 or Katrina, but Italy sent 3 million to us after each.

Most of the $3 million was not in cash, but in rescue teams and equipment (fully equipped helicopters), which is exactly what Obama offered and Italy declined.

ETA: Thinking about the Churchill bust - if Obama had accepted a bust of a foreign leader (even a dead one) to be displayed in the White House, the cons would have been ALL over him for showing weakness, threatening US sovereignty by acknowledging a foreign power's leader in that fashion.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

ETA: Thinking about the Churchill bust - if Obama had accepted a bust of a foreign leader (even a dead one) to be displayed in the White House, the cons would have been ALL over him for showing weakness, threatening US sovereignty by acknowledging a foreign power's leader in that fashion.

It's simpler than that. ${ANY_OBAMA_ACTION} will be immediately interpreted in the worst possible light, no matter what it is. Visiting foreign countries and assuring them that the Bush-era "we rule and you drool" policies are over = weakness. Addressing them in their own languages = pandering, if not outright treason. These are the same people who won't get off the birth certificate thing.

As long as they're an ineffective irrelevant minority I plan to simply ignore them.