Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Can you tell you what Fox thinks the R's should cut from the budget?

I mean, now that DeMint has taken SS cuts off the table and has said we don't need to make any of the HCR-connected cuts to Medicare. And we know that the Defense budget is sacrosanct. TIA.

I don't know how much of the right wing PR machine he represents, but Limbaugh is ducking the "Cuts?" question with a Rube Goldberg explanation of how banning earmarks will cure everything. I heard him on the radio today saying that if DeMint's proposal to ban all earmarks goes through, lawmakers will no longer have anything to bribe each other with. He argued that if they'd banned earmarks before the Health Care Bill was up for consideration, it would have precluded Ben Nelson from signing on after being promised the "cornhusker kickback" (a ten year opt out of HCReform for OK).

Apparently, indirect prevention of future spending is now equivalent to a present tense cut. Interesting logic there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think you're off a bit here. Lend money to BofA and it likely won't be invested anywhere, just go to supporting their current loans and investments as they continue to suck wind. Maybe that gives shareholders and bondholders some comfort, and so maybe that helps out the Chinese bondholders a bit, but really all that happens is that the money makes it possible for them to continue to work to salvage what they have, and maybe avoids them pressuring some big American businesses to repay their loans and lets them forestall some foreclosure proceedings in their acquired mortgage business.

But if you're a medium size business and did business with BofA, they've already squeezed you until it hurt and you're probably borrowing from someone else.

There are lots of domestic businesses seeking loans these days, including some good sized ones. More available money would probably lead, for example, to a round of consolidation in several industries, and a fair bit of M&A activity. You are right that there would be more foreign buyers than domestic ones. But that money's probably not coming from BofA for at least a couple quarters, and even then you've got to be a little wary about taking it the way they've behaved.

Goldman, on the other hand, looks ready to pump some more money out any time now.

A couple things:

1. One of the ways to offset losses in one market is seeking outsized gains in another. Don't bet on anywhere near the majority of that money being used to shore up domestic balance sheets.

2. I agree we'll see consolidation and M&A activity. And that's the last thing we want in a 9.6 unemployment environment.

I don't see businesses looking for loans. But my info on that is as much anecdotal as empirical, and I have seen many articles saying lending is up, so I'll defer to you on that. The question then becomes, what kind of loans? I highly doubt any to expand and take on new hires.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If no one signed the letter or is supporting its goals, who authored and passed it around? Are you saying Fox is improperly suggesting a letter that clearly created itself out of thin air was prepared by Democrats?

To be serious for a moment, difficult as it is with fox -- I think their lax journalistic standards make them an easy mark. Every political professional in dc spends lots of time trying to spin the media or create a story. Some lower-tier blue dog staffer who wants to keep his job with a committee or a new member drafts up a letter, feeds it to fox, fox circulates it for him, maybe it takes off, maybe it doesn't, but now he's got some fox reporter who owes him. And who knows, maybe some enterprising member picks up the letter, and says, hey, here a chance to get a bunch of press, make some points with the right, and maybe start to win back a close district.

The stories pratically write themselves.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

To be serious for a moment, difficult as it is with fox -- I think their lax journalistic standards make them an easy mark. Every political professional in dc spends lots of time trying to spin the media or create a story. Some lower-tier blue dog staffer who wants to keep his job with a committee or a new member drafts up a letter, feeds it to fox, fox circulates it for him, maybe it takes off, maybe it doesn't, but now he's got some fox reporter who owes him.

The stories pratically write themselves.

you were the one who claimed McCain staffers were selling the racists button right? I'm a dumb nuisance sock and I'm happy there.

sometimes I think you want to be more, but you can't be stupid and then respected.

I can, but most socks can't.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by hank chinaski

you were the one who claimed mccain staffers were selling the racists button right? I'm a dumb nuisance sock and i'm happy there.

Sometimes i think you want to be more, but you can't be stupid and then respected.

I can, but most socks can't.

dnftt

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

dnftt

your first answer was better

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't see businesses looking for loans. But my info on that is as much anecdotal as empirical, and I have seen many articles saying lending is up, so I'll defer to you on that. The question then becomes, what kind of loans? I highly doubt any to expand and take on new hires.

I have a few clients who are actually back to fighting over good credits (read: dropping protective covenants and lowering rates and fees in order to win business). That's a good sign, but most of these deals are being done to replace the loans entered into over the last 2 1/2 years where the Borrowers were getting smashed on pricing.

TM

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I have a few clients who are actually back to fighting over good credits (read: dropping protective covenants and lowering rates and fees in order to win business). That's a good sign, but most of these deals are being done to replace the loans entered into over the last 2 1/2 years where the Borrowers were getting smashed on pricing.

TM

Pricing, sure, but dropping covenants is stupid.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Pricing, sure, but dropping covenants is stupid.

You will be pleased to know that Fox is very excited today that there is a groundswell of Republican support for eliminating earmarks, though some of the establishment Rs are not yet on board. This is what deficit reduction is all about!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You will be pleased to know that Fox is very excited today that there is a groundswell of Republican support for eliminating earmarks, though some of the establishment Rs are not yet on board. This is what deficit reduction is all about!

Did I call this motherfucker or what?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Did I call this motherfucker or what?

You and everyone else in America with an IQ over dull normal.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

You and everyone else in America with an IQ over dull normal.

But conservatives are worried that Rand Paul may be softening on earmarks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

You and everyone else in America with an IQ over dull normal.

No... The specific PR approach. They had a smorgasbord of choices (cutting pieces of HCReform, cutting the Dept of Education, cutting various programs and fluffing the numbers on the resulting savings...). But they went for the simplest, dumbest, most tired angle: Earmarks. And now watch - they're going to use Limbaugh's silly argument I described above.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No... The specific PR approach. They had a smorgasbord of choices (cutting pieces of HCReform, cutting the Dept of Education, cutting various programs and fluffing the numbers on the resulting savings...). But they went for the simplest, dumbest, most tired angle: Earmarks. And now watch - they're going to use Limbaugh's silly argument I described above.

If the Dems have any sense (note: feckless idiots, so obv. counter-factual), they'd propose and push thru in the lame duck session a statutory ban on earmarks. Read into the record *exactly* Limbaugh's explanation for why it will work and avoid any temptation to add in statements about needing to restrain the next Congress. Fast track it, do everything to get it enacted, even give credit to the Rs, if necessary. Just end the conversation about it *now*, so that they can force the Rs to move onto their next deficit reduction proposal--which is ... nothing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

If the Dems have any sense (note: feckless idiots, so obv. counter-factual), they'd propose and push thru in the lame duck session a statutory ban on earmarks. Read into the record *exactly* Limbaugh's explanation for why it will work and avoid any temptation to add in statements about needing to restrain the next Congress. Fast track it, do everything to get it enacted, even give credit to the Rs, if necessary. Just end the conversation about it *now*, so that they can force the Rs to move onto their next deficit reduction proposal--which is ... nothing.

I'm on board with this. Good approach. Next thing they should do is tie any extension of the Bush tax cuts (any of them, for anyone) to an extension of the debt ceiling to accomodate the cuts. Any other approach is irresponsible.