Brad DeLong leaves his putt an inch short:
Maggie Sue? Come on! You want public support, call it Peggy Sue. In fact, maybe Geithner and Bernanke could cut an album. Can't you hear it? "All of my loans, all of my TARP funds, you don't know what we two have done...". OK, maybe not. But John Edwards can be appointed to set up the consumer protection entity meant to guard us from Peggy Sue, which we presume he will name "So Sue Me."
BUT SERIOUSLY: Krugman bashing Team Obama yet again. However, his description of the motivation of press leaks is comical:
A paragraph later Krugman nods to what I would guess is the main motivation for Washington leaks, which is to advance the agenda of the leaker.
It's late September and I really should call Barack a fool.
Posted by: Spake Mulligan | May 05, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Where would we be without Krugman's wise counsel?
I think John Edwards is going to be too busy for a while. (Do you suppose he's engaged a food taster yet? )It's hard to decide who I like leaset, him or his wife.
Posted by: clarice | May 05, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Peggy Sue, Peggy Sue, pa pa pa pa pa Peggy Sue...
No no no no no....
You keep me singin' TM....
Posted by: bad | May 05, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Him, clarice; she's not much of a hypocrite.
Posted by: Bums, both of 'em | May 05, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Clarice, check your gmail.
Posted by: DrJ | May 05, 2009 at 11:17 AM
"There comes a point when the right thing to do will be to set up a Maggie Sue--a manufacturing, transportation, services, and other business loan-guarantee authority owned by the government, a financial GSE alongside Fannie, Freddie, and Ginnie--to guarantee "conforming" loans to operating companies, and let the major banks wither."
Isn't that kinda like instituting communism to save capitalism? Or something?
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 05, 2009 at 11:20 AM
-Brad DeLong leaves his putt an inch short:-
Hmmm, I'd say he shanked one out of bounds.
After Fannie and Freddie cook their books to the tune of tens of billions, essentially without punishment enrich those who cooked the books with scores of millions of dollars, sleep with their congressional regulators and above all contribute perhaps more than any other institutions to the housing debacle this pinhead comes along and suggests we do the same for the rest of the economy.
In a just world this guy would be servicing the ball washer not golfing.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 05, 2009 at 11:20 AM
You have to give it to John Edwards, sleeping with his documentarian, while your wife is in remission from cancer, than arranging your aide to pretend he was the father; I thought Newt had perfected the sleaze course with his first wife in the hospital, and then cheating on his second wife, while denouncing Clinton. Is there any wonder why almost all my illusions have been dashed
Posted by: narciso | May 05, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Ignatz,
Brad DeLong is Obama's ball washer. Sounds about right.
Funny it was not to long ago that Obama & DeLong were ridiculing the "teabaggers".
Posted by: william | May 05, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Elizabeth had the perfect excuse to not participate in the Edwards presidential run.
She could have asked for privacy and received it, no questions asked.
Posted by: bad | May 05, 2009 at 11:40 AM
In a just and sane world, a Marxist, anti-American, pro-Muslim, black separationist like Obama would never have been elected President of the United States of America.
Alas, we live in Alice's world.
Posted by: fdcol63 | May 05, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Narcisco:
You put that perfectly. :)
Posted by: Joan | May 05, 2009 at 11:45 AM
What did Freud call the definition of insanity;" doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result"
Posted by: narciso | May 05, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Look, John Edwards hired Riehl to be his cameraman and videographer, so if he overpaid her, it's still legit. Don't you think this investigation is a misdirection for what was the campaign finance law violation of the freakin' millenium in allowing the Obama campaign to remove all credit card controls from its website so that hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal foreign money could be put in the coffers? Edwards, you dun' been punked by Chicago politics. Or do the kids say powned? or how about "all of our silky pony base are belong to us now?"
Posted by: peter (quarto de tequila) | May 05, 2009 at 11:57 AM
"Bearded Spock universe" or possibly the Bizarro Universe, fdcol, not anything as nice as Alice's world. In a sane world, who would be reaffirming free market principles,
pushing for nuclear and oil expansion, signing a free trade agreement with Uribe,
providing a common cause with Klaus in Prague against the AGW promoters, telling
Putin, not to dabble in Georgia; I have some ideas who would be doing all these things
Posted by: narciso | May 05, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Investor's Business Daily Poll:
"We found that there is much more support for a socialist economy among the ranks of nontaxpaying voters, whereas taxpayers, by far, prefer a capitalist economic system. The poll asked:
"Which of the following do you think is a better economic system: A or B?
"A: A system in which the public or the state has ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
"B: A system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth are privately owned and controlled rather than state owned or controlled with the state regulating them.
"An overwhelming majority of taxpayers (76%) prefer statement B, a capitalist system — however, only a slim majority of nontaxpayers side with B (55%). In addition, nearly one-third of nontaxpayers agree with Statement A, which describes a socialist system, while only 12% of taxpayers prefer A."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 05, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Well, DoT, since only about half of Americans pay taxes, your numbers make it look like, once again, we are so screwed.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 05, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Is the Senate up for grabs in 2008?...contrary to the MSM narrative and conventional wisdom, depending on the candidate, Republicans are ahead in such unthinkable states such Connecticut (Simmons vs. Dodd), New York (Pataki vs. Gillibrand, Pennsylvania (Ridge vs. Specter), Illinois (Kirk vs.Burris or Schakowsky), New Hampshire (Sununu or Gregg vs. Hodes) and Delaware (Castle vs. Biden bigtime). If Democrats have to pour money to defend these seats it will be good news for Republicans in other competitive races. Some of these polls are available at www.hedgehogreport.com
Posted by: ben | May 05, 2009 at 01:32 PM
Make that 2010.
Posted by: ben | May 05, 2009 at 01:33 PM
Rielle is a big, fat liar 'cause John is so NOT hot. No JOM babes have dibbed him. What better proof is there? I mean, my goodness, even Dick Morris has been "claimed"...sort of... LUN
Posted by: bad | May 05, 2009 at 01:37 PM
'Look, John Edwards hired Riehl to be his cameraman and videographer, so if he overpaid her, it's still legit.'
Not quite correct. It depends what he "overpaid" her for. If it can be shown that campaign money was diverted from legitimate purposes (camara and video) to other purposes (hiding my baby) it is not legit. Hard to prove? Maybe, but that's another issue.
Posted by: ben | May 05, 2009 at 01:38 PM
"Piggy Sue" is more appropriate.
Posted by: Brad | May 05, 2009 at 01:43 PM
narciso,
Bizarro Universe, indeed. LOL
Posted by: fdcol63 | May 05, 2009 at 01:45 PM
Ben--
That idiot Chris Kennedy is planning to run for the Asses as well. Will he file his teeth first?
Posted by: Fresh Air | May 05, 2009 at 01:55 PM
So the dominos continue to fall due to fiscal imprudence.
Banks get up to their ears in red ink and have to cave to Soetoro's fiscal destruction.
Manufacturers get up to their ears in red ink and have to cave to Soetoro's fiscal destruction.
Soetoro has the Fed buying worthless US treasury bonds while China slowly sells off......
you feelin me? fiscal destruction of the USA is well underway and seemingly irreversible unless this Chucklehead gets removed from office.
Can someone please collect the million dollar reward for showing the real birth certificate?
Bear1909 out.
Posted by: bear1909 | May 05, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Elizabeth Edwards is . . . is . . . just another publicity hound. (That is as nice as I can put it and am only being nice due to her "terminal" illness.)
Posted by: centralcal | May 05, 2009 at 01:59 PM
I don't know if this is being discussed but there is corroboration on the Lauria story over at Hot Air LUN.
My favorate part is where two Obama voters said the President was acting like a "madman".
Ya think?
On a more fun note, today on FWDAJ I got to disabuse Dick of the notion that Scooter Libby was convicted of outing Valerie Plame. WE had quite a fight about it in fact.
Posted by: Jane | May 05, 2009 at 02:01 PM
"That idiot Chris Kennedy is planning to run for the Asses as well. Will he file his teeth first?"
I don't know how much mystique the Kennedy name will have in Illinois. If he is not an established party hack who has paid his dues in that cesspool he might not get the nomination.
Posted by: ben | May 05, 2009 at 02:04 PM
I liked this comment by some moonbat in Illinois..
"For Chris' sake, hopefully it's not that same Kennedy "magic" Caroline had..."
Posted by: ben | May 05, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Edwards told Winfrey how Hunter used a tawdry pick-up line to lure her husband.
What could that line have been? "I don't know why people think of you as a gay icon?"
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 05, 2009 at 02:19 PM
Jane: Interesting, thanks for the link.
Is there a podcast of today's FWDAJ show?
Posted by: centralcal | May 05, 2009 at 02:20 PM
"I don't know why people think of you as a gay icon?"
I'm laughing. But my gawd how naive is a woman who thinks her cheating husband is going to share with her what his mistress said to pick him up.
So I wonder, is the senator planning to marry Hunter when Mrs Edwards succumbs?
(Now that's just rude)
Posted by: Jane | May 05, 2009 at 02:21 PM
LOL Captain
Posted by: bad | May 05, 2009 at 02:29 PM
Centralcal,
It should be up by tomorrow nite at FWDAJ (LUN) and also on Itunes.
Posted by: Jane | May 05, 2009 at 02:30 PM
But my gawd how naive is a woman who thinks her cheating husband is going to share with her what his mistress said to pick him up.
If my life depended on trusting anything that came out of the mouth of Elizabeth "Lady McBeth" Edwards, I'd take the easy way out and shoot myself to make it quick. Of all the things I'd call that manipulative shrew, naive isn't one of them.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 05, 2009 at 02:31 PM
So I wonder, is the senator planning to marry Hunter when Mrs Edwards succumbs?
I reiterate my call for proactive strategery on the part of Elizabeth:
Welcome that baby into the family and shower it with love in hopes that Rielle will do the same to Elizabeth's children in the event she ends up step-mommy to them.
I shared this strategery with my mom who said it would be pointless because he probably has someone new by now.
But the reccomedation still stands because Elizabeth's children will be adults one day and will wonder why their mother would let spite keep a child seperated from her father and half-siblings.
Elizabeth obviously cares about her legacy. She just needs to think it through more carefully.
Posted by: bad | May 05, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Ben, to a Dem, "hard to prove" = legit.
Posted by: peter quarto de tequila | May 05, 2009 at 03:01 PM
Other tawdry lines:
"Do you spend as much time on foreplay as you do on your hair?"
"I've always had a weakness for guys whose daddys worked at The Mill."
"Interested in something besides stem cells that could get Christopher Reeve to stand up?"
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 05, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Here's the Kansas City Star:
"Obama cracks down on illegal overseas tax evasion
"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to change tax policy is certain to be unpopular with corporations with international divisions and individuals who use tax havens.
"Obama’s two-part plan, which he announced today at the White House, also embraces 800 additional federal agents to enforce the tax code.
"The president’s proposal eliminates some tax deductions for companies that earn profits in countries with low tax rates, as well as consider U.S. citizens who use tax havens in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands guilty of violating U.S. tax laws. If Obama wins congressional approval for the changes — and he faces a challenge on Capitol Hill — the new enforcement initiative could yield $210 billion in tax revenue over the next decade."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 05, 2009 at 03:11 PM
Here's CBS News:
"Obama cracks down on illegal overseas tax evasion
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to change tax policy is certain to be unpopular with corporations with international divisions and individuals who use tax havens.
Obama’s two-part plan, which he announced today at the White House, also embraces 800 additional federal agents to enforce the tax code.
The president’s proposal eliminates some tax deductions for companies that earn profits in countries with low tax rates, as well as consider U.S. citizens who use tax havens in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands guilty of violating U.S. tax laws. If Obama wins congressional approval for the changes — and he faces a challenge on Capitol Hill — the new enforcement initiative could yield $210 billion in tax revenue over the next decade."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 05, 2009 at 03:14 PM
Po, it is bad enough that half the population is in that group and thinks that way about the (current) American economic system. What makes it worse is that we are importing and manufacturing new members of that group every day, suggesting 50% is just for today.
Posted by: Old Lurker | May 05, 2009 at 03:15 PM
Elizabeth Edwards and Silda Spitzer need to get together.
Posted by: Fresh Air | May 05, 2009 at 03:15 PM
"Is that a half a pack of subway tokens in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"
Posted by: Fresh Air | May 05, 2009 at 03:27 PM
Jane--how grand. I'd start playing poler for money with Dick before the shows now.
Capt..at your very best. I'm sitting here roaring.
DoT is there any difference between the two AP stories? If so, I missed it.
bad, you think the way I do.
For those with little sympathy for Elizabeth, let me say I agree. Her husband's whole campaign was a fraud and she was a definite part of it, milking her illness for all it was worth, and forcing every aide to compromise himself/herself. I watched the story as Kaus broke it and covered it, She knew early on what was up.
Posted by: clarice | May 05, 2009 at 03:28 PM
I want to remind everyone that Edwards went for public financing in the primaries, and charged the US taxpayer about $8.5 million. So think of how Elizabeth and John were willing to waste our money for their egos, and what would have been in store for us had they won.
Posted by: MayBee | May 05, 2009 at 03:42 PM
today on FWDAJ I got to disabuse Dick of the notion that Scooter Libby was convicted of outing Valerie Plame.
It shouldn't have been too hard considering he was never charged with it.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 05, 2009 at 03:56 PM
Po, this is Dick we're talking about. Logic and facts aren't his strong suit.
Jane, As much as I love you, listening to you and Dick makes me wonder if maybe you should be prosecuted for child abuse.
He is a total baby and you really do knock him around.
Posted by: bad | May 05, 2009 at 04:07 PM
"I think of you as Silky Stallion"
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 05, 2009 at 04:07 PM
Clarice--My bad. On the second one (it was supposed to be from CBS News) my cut-and-paste function didn't work, so it just re-posted the AP story I had just put up.
Here is the real CBA:
"President Obama today announced 'a set of proposals to crack down on illegal overseas tax evasion, close loopholes, and make it more profitable for companies to create jobs here in the United States.'"
My point is that I'm quite sure I heard him use the word "illegal" in making his announcements, and these two news organizations had the same take on it. But I have yet to see any specific thing identified as illegal.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 05, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Ah--yes. Well "illegal" oin the sense that soon they'll be checking the seams of our coats for industrial diamonds just to be sure nothing of our property escaped the Obama-maw.
Posted by: clarice | May 05, 2009 at 04:48 PM
" ... soon they'll be checking the seams of our coats for industrial diamonds just to be sure nothing of our property escaped the Obama-maw ..."
And yanking our gold fillings before they send us to those FEMA "re-education" camps in the desert.
Posted by: fdcol63 | May 05, 2009 at 04:56 PM
if the tax havens have been heretofore legal, how did they become illegal? loopholes are legal as far as I know. They open and close with some regularity, and I''m sure with the pristinely civic minded Congress we have, they will all magically fall in line with Obama's desires.
Besides, they will just create new tax havens anyway. There's too much profit in it not to. Anyone for Austria? Belize? Nauru?
Posted by: matt | May 05, 2009 at 04:57 PM
Tapper is reporting:
There is no mention of to whom proceeds are being donated, which I assume would be trumpeted loudly if they were being donated.
So, who do you suppose is going to get rich from Ann Dunham's 14 year old manuscript? It's a great way to funnel money....LUN
Posted by: bad | May 05, 2009 at 05:23 PM
if the tax havens have been heretofore legal, how did they become illegal? loopholes are legal as far as I know.
Bingo; an administration top-heavy with *real* tax cheats demonizing those who follow the law. Nothing Orwellian here to see, nope...
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 05, 2009 at 05:29 PM
Legal and illegal immigration, legal and illegal tax shelters, what's the diff? We laughed by Joe Biden got it right. Illegal is Obama code for unpatriotic. It's all part of the doublespeak:
When it's Democrats, it's a grassroots movement.
When it's Republicans, it's a conspiracy.
The middle class get tax credits.
The wealthy get loopholes.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 05, 2009 at 05:48 PM
And Geithner gets to speak about tax cheats with a straight face.
Posted by: clarice | May 05, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Bitch set him up again (this is rich):
"WASHINGTON -- After the D.C. Council voted unanimously to recognize same-sex marriages Tuesday morning, Councilman Marion Barry asked for his vote back, according to Washington Post reporter Tim Craig.
"Apparently Mayor for Life, an opponent of the legislation, voted yea without knowing what he was voting on, but he woke up in time to ask that the bill be reconsidered, and the debate that was expected took place, to the relief of all the council members who wanted their two cents on the matter on record."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 05, 2009 at 06:31 PM
Let's just say BHO must have been working with that fool in California who writes books on political wordsmithing. He's so memorable I can't remember his name.
The Won:The ultimate in form over substance.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | May 05, 2009 at 06:46 PM
Even the New York Times knows how dumb the tax proposal is:
"The Obama proposals oversimplify the challenge, both technically and politically. . . .
"In practice, applying the matching principle to overseas operations could put American companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies that do not face United States tax laws. It could even impede job creation in the United States--exactly the opposite of what the Obama administration intends."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 05, 2009 at 06:59 PM
JimRhoads: Surely you are referring to the estimable Prof. Dr. George Lakoff, rhymes with--oh, never mind.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 05, 2009 at 07:01 PM
O/T: LUN for LOL
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 05, 2009 at 07:15 PM
-But I have yet to see any specific thing identified as illegal.-
Get with the program DOT.
Here in Oceania "illegal" is a rather elastic term.
Corporations, especially ones with overseas operations, have been declared doubleplusungood and hence any action they undertake may, (or may not, depending on their level of patriotism) be declared illegal.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 05, 2009 at 07:22 PM
It was kind of nice to see all these Sues Tom was writing about. So sue me. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | May 05, 2009 at 09:49 PM
Not Peggy Sue, but Mary Sue.
Does that not describe this concept near perfectly?Posted by: Annoying Old Guy | May 08, 2009 at 12:17 PM