Koster claims Larsen’s vote on Wall Street reform means ‘permanent bailout culture’
Koster
Koster previously had been criticized by Rep. Larsen’s campaign for not having issued any kind of statement for or against the reform measures.
In the letter today, Koster says that the bill will “likely open the door for permanent taxpayer-funded bailouts for Wall Street.”
I’ve already blogged on here that the truth is far different, that the verbatim language of the measure sets up mechanisms for the institutions themselves to pay for any restructuring (not taxpayers). The New York Times also has a good, in-depth piece on how that restructuring works, too, over here.
Here is Koster’s press release:
Arlington, WA. - July 22, 2010 - Rick Larsen recently voted for the Dodd-Frank Act, an over-reaching, big-government regulatory law that encroaches in every aspect of the financial sector and will likely open the door for permanent taxpayer-funded bailouts for Wall Street and limit consumer’s access to credit.
John Koster commented, “Rick Larsen is at it again. The Dodd-Frank Act is a bill drafted by career politicians who have never created a job. This legislation will hurt hard-working Washington families and small businesses because it over-reaches and fails to adequately reform the main cause of the housing meltdown-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Also, instead of addressing the problems of the big banks that Rick Larsen already bailed out, this bill makes all financial companies, even local regional banks who have responsible business practices, shoulder the costs of increased burdensome regulation.”
Koster continued, “This bill is bad for our economy and does not help our hard-working families at all. It will hurt access to credit for our small businesses who want to expand and hire new people. It also increases the likelihood of future bailouts and it gives the same bureaucratic regulators that failed to oversee financial markets, and subsequently oversaw the consequential financial meltdown in 2008, unprecedented power.”
Koster concluded, “Rick Larsen bailed out the big banks, increased our debt, ballooned the deficit, and has destroyed our economy. Throughout this recession, Rick Larsen has proved time and again that he is more interested in growing government than he is in growing jobs.”
Facebook Fan page
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Too bad he just decided to adopt the talking points rather than giving us a peek into what ever mind exists behind that rugged, attractive exterior. Is that what passes for conservative leadership?
Maybe the peek is there is nothing behind the talking points except more talking points…
Well Palin endorsed him, so if another vacuous, but good looking conservative backs him he must be…what….good looking? Vacuous?
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:08 AM
As President Obama today signed into law the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, two words were left unspoken: Fannie and Freddie. Yet they not only played a major role in creating the housing bubble that led to the meltdown of 2008, they stand today as the primary remaining bailout debtors to the U.S. treasury.
…. the two bankrupt mortgage giants owe almost half — 45% — of the outstanding bailout money from the federal treasury.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/21/dodd-frank-lets-fannie-and-freddie-deadbeats-slide/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
This new 2000+ page law is not only going to make things worst but has completely missed the target of what/who has & is responsible for the housing meltdown.
Bad law by a bad congress soon to be booted out on their butts!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Sam: “I’ve already blogged on here that the truth is far different”
Yes, but you’re wrong, as is Politifact, as is (as usual) the NYT.
“the verbatim language of the measure sets up mechanisms for the institutions themselves to pay for any restructuring (not taxpayers)”
Yes, but you’re ignoring the many loopholes. It’s simply false to say that this ends bailouts: we know from experience that if there’s a way for them to exploit “emergency” provisions, they will do so, especially when we have a cascade of failures like we had last time, such that these “funeral plans” won’t work (you can’t liquidate easily when everyone’s trying to do it at once, for example).
Did you say Obama was wrong when he said that this bill means that the taxpayers will never again pay for Wall Street’s mistakes? That’s entirely laughable.
The only rational way forward is to get out of the boom/bust cycle by allowing companies to fail. Even aside from the loopholes, the reason it makes sense to call this a “bailout” is because government is still (significantly) reducing liability for failure, which destroys the market system, which creates perverse incentives, which gives us this awful boom/bust cycle we’ve unfortunately grown accustomed to.
Rick Larsen said once this about Wall Street versus Main Street. As you probably know, most of Wall Street backed this bill. That should tell you something about its true nature (and Larsen’s honesty).
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:24 AM
the new banking accounting rules that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) are proposing are astonishing - and that’s no hyperbole. It is a lesson in How to Kill Main Street 101.
The FASB is a quasi-private institution that writes accounting rules. Seems obscure and mundane, and I doubt that 95 percent of Americans know about it. But it wields enormous power. Its proposed new rules will create widespread fear among bankers, and fear is the cancer of capitalism. If bankers are scared to make loans, the free market will wither and Americans will become poorer.
This change would mean that even if a bank loan is being paid on time, the feds could simply tell a bank that they don’t like the underlying asset or they believe that the bank has too much exposure to a sector - like our hotels - and it must take a charge to capital. So anytime there is an economic downturn, this would be like putting the decline on steroids.
What sane entrepreneur invests and hires with a financial sword of Damocles hanging over his head?
The dirty little secret is that even if these rules are formally adopted, they are being informally applied now. One bank president I worked with said, “Mike, you have a great project but I’m scared they would write the loan down because they think I have too much exposure to hotels.”
The mark-to-market assassin is still hunting and hurting our recovery.
http://www.ncpa.org/commentaries/how-to-kill-main-street-the-washington-times
Bad law by a bad congress soon to be booted out on their butts!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Well, Pudge, unfortunately I’ll have to go with the experts who have written on the subject at PolitiFact and NYT. Generally the people writing that stuff, though journalists, also happen to have backgrounds, often times professional experience plus high-level degrees in the topics they’re writing about.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 PM
It appears to me that when something stinks to high heaven, to try to find out what stinks more or less within; is not really facing the magnitude of it’s stinkeeness!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:27 PM
“the verbatim language of the measure sets up mechanisms for the institutions themselves to pay for any restructuring (not taxpayers)”
Those costs are passed on to depositors and shareholders, so that, of course, the taxpayers, since almost all are one or the other, bear the cost.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:15 PM
[...] for supporting the Wall Street reform bill now signed into law. SAM TAYLOR with Politics Blog in Bellingham Herald – [...]
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:55 PM
A fair argument on the overall trickle-down of costs born by businesses who place them on customers to maximize profits.
However, in the discussion we’re having, I don’t think that’s what anyone claiming bailouts will be taxpayer funded later is actually talking about.
… now that you’ve brought it up, though …
You could be the next Frank Luntz, Dave!
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Thanks for the laugh! Truth, experts, in the same sentences with the NY Times….perhaps in the years to come you may, through experience, realize why that’s funny.
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:15 PM
This entry is so wrong on so many levels. How many people on here even understand what happened with the financial crisis, let alone could begin to understand the regulations it will take to restore balance and liquidity to financial markets? My “experts” agree on one thing at least: the TARP bailout system, under this bill, becomes permanent. The bill contains an “orderly liquidation” process that allows regulators to seize and liquidate any financial institution they believe is failing or . . . wait for it . . . “in danger of failing.” Does anyone remember that local institution named “WaMu”? Someone got a helluva deal on that one, didn’t they, courtesy of bureaucrats that were concerned that WaMu was going to fail. I’ll just sit here and hold my breath while I wait for something other than tax dollars to pay for it as well. Here’s a hint, Federal money IS tax dollars.
Now lets talk about what happens when Banks have to demonstrate higher capitalization rates to avoid being termed as “failure risk.” They keep taking deposits, but they don’t loan. See the problem? You’re taking money out of the economy, the same money you need to keep the economy running. Ever try to drive down the freeway while pumping gas OUT of your gas tank filler pipe? It doesn’t work so well.
And what started all of this? Freddie and Fannie, thank you very much. They aren’t even addressed in this bill!!! If you really want some conspiracy fodder, take a look at who Barny Frank was dating during the later ’90’s and compare that to the sudden loan activity for affordable and low-income home loans. Remember, Rep. Frank was a key congressional members on Freddie and Fannie during that period of time, but nobody said a word. And now Rep. Frank and this bill are our savior? I beg to differ.
Wake up people, before it’s too late and your life has been mortgaged by your representatives!! Thank you, John Koster, for stepping out, taking the media’s bait, and making a stand!
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:48 PM
“Remember, Rep. Frank was a key congressional members on Freddie and Fannie during that period of time, but nobody said a word. And now Rep. Frank and this bill are our savior? I beg to differ. ”
Actually, The Wall Street Journal has been all over the Freddie and Fannie moral-hazard issue for years. As for the subprime loan debacle, Freddie and Fannie didn’t dive into subprime until about 2004, as I recall, long after Bear Stearns and others had co-opted their mortgage underwriters and set up CDO shops to package and market mortgage-backed securities to investors in search of yield. Just the same, for all that time, they acted in the market in an advantaged manner, because of the implicit US government guarantee of their obligations.
F&F weren’t addressed in this bill because everyone in Washington is terrified of the overhanging liability of non-performing loans that F&F hold.
The Bush administration made a couple of abortive and timid attempts at reforming F&F, while at the same time using HUD regulations to expand homeownership to people who couldn’t afford to own homes. Changes and enhancements to the CRA, coupled with the elimination of the capital gains tax, for all practical purposes, on gains in the value of a principle residence held for two years, in 1997, accelerated the process.
“Now lets talk about what happens when Banks have to demonstrate higher capitalization rates to avoid being termed as “failure risk.”
The banks are terrified of the power of the regulators, and this bill only makes that problem exponentially worse. Since they (the banks) can go to the Fed window and borrow for half a point and buy ‘risk-free’ Treasuries that yield three and a half, they engage in the carry trade. This keeps their balance sheets clean and helps the Fed, because it acts to clear the Treasury auctions, which otherwise might be an embarrassment for the Treasury. Never mind that the money used to purchase the bonds was printed by the Fed. What a scandal!
The gospel is that Bernanke, when the need arises, can raise the Fed Funds rate, but there’s a little problem with that: The megabanks, Wells Fargo, BofA, and Chase, hold about a trillion and a half dollars of nominally non-performing second mortages. With the Fed Funds rate at fifty basis points, they can negotiate these loans down to very low rates to lower the required payments and retain them in the ‘performing’ column. Any increase by the Fed is going to result in colossal writeoffs by these banks, in some cases, perhaps, sufficient to result in failure.
Are you feeling better now?
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:05 PM
All of this unbelievable financial wreckage began with the Fed policy of maintaining below-market interest rates and an excessive money supply.
What resulted was the tech bubble and then the real estate bubble. We are now into a Fed-created money bubble.
It won’t end any better.
Alan Greenspan and his successor, Ben Bernanke, will be seen to be the two most destructive money managers in the history of the world.
A while ago, I posted a photo, published in the New York Times, that I had seen of Bernanke giving his speech when he was confirmed as Chairman of the Fed.
Bernanke is wearing an ill-fitting suit. His sleeves are too long, the jacket is wrinkled and a little too tight, and it has three buttons. He’s wearing a cheap shirt. He needs a haircut.
Greenspan is sitting behind and to Bernanke’s right. He is sitting on a thousand dollar chair. He wears an impeccable bespoke suit of clothes and six-hundred-dollar shoes. I could go on, but I won’t.
The look of disdain on Greenspan’s face was palpable, but his scorn was misplaced: Bernanke had been nominated to clean up Greenspan’s mess.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Just to repeat the trouble in this bill, quoting Perry E:
“This entry is so wrong on so many levels. How many people on here even understand what happened with the financial crisis, let alone could begin to understand the regulations it will take to restore balance and liquidity to financial markets? My “experts” agree on one thing at least: the TARP bailout system, under this bill, becomes permanent. The bill contains an “orderly liquidation” process that allows regulators to seize and liquidate any financial institution they believe is failing or . . . wait for it . . . “in danger of failing.” Does anyone remember that local institution named “WaMu”? Someone got a helluva deal on that one, didn’t they, courtesy of bureaucrats that were concerned that WaMu was going to fail. I’ll just sit here and hold my breath while I wait for something other than tax dollars to pay for it as well. Here’s a hint, Federal money IS tax dollars.’
This comment repeats my opinion, stated elsewhere on this blog, that the rule of law is being replaced by the rule of men in this country.
This is the critical phrase in his post: “…courtesy of bureaucrats that were concerned that WaMu was going to fail. I’ll just sit here and hold my breath while I wait for…”
You’ve already been screwed, haven’t you?
How was the ‘rule of law’ on your side?
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:07 PM
“John Koster commented, “Rick Larsen is at it again. The Dodd-Frank Act is a bill drafted by career politicians who have never created a job.” That’s rich since Republican-Koster must be aware that the Bush Administration never created one net job during its entire 8 years of borrowing money and flushing it down the toilet of bloating government and wars of occupation. I want to remind you that Reagan, Greenspan took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history. That is the republican way while trying to lay the lie of wasteful spending on the Democrats. From Kosters website:” “The Economy I believe in the free market and free enterprise. Excessive regulation and taxation suppresses the private sector’s ability to create wealth. Our economy works best when our citizens are allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor. With lower taxes, businesses have more money to invest and create jobs. I have been a fiscal hawk in the State Legislature and County Council, opposing bigger government, higher taxes and wasteful spending. Excessive tax rates result in decreased revenue. That’s why I have pledged to vote against any new or increased tax, and against increases in the regulatory burden on business. We must stop handicapping American companies through one-sided international trade agreements that favor foreign companies.”” What a load! Republicans have proven that they have been anything but “fiscal hawks” The one sided trade agreements have been geared to screw the American labor force. Outsourcing jobs for the cheapest labor possible. Many of you who are out of work are starting to figure out that wall street and the banks as well as the Free Market “freepers” Are just wrong and it’s systematically taking the middle class apart.These banks are sitting on our money to forstall any real economic recovery until the next election cycle when they hope to get the Democrats who are actually trying to help the American worker out and get more “tax cuts for the rich” spew’rs in those posts.
It amazes me how anyone trying to make a living in this country would subscribe to the Republican parties Ideology of tax cuts for the rich when the rich are the ones sending your jobs out of the country and for you republicans who are trying to make a living off the middle class in this country, YOUR potential customers, you won’t get because they won’t have the financial means to buy your goods and services. The Democrats for that matter are systemically getting their campaigns underwritten by these same corporations who are giving the American worker/consumer the shaft! Outsourcing AMERICAN JOBS is about the most UNPATRIOTIC ANIT AMERICAN thing I have seen in my lifetime.
Larsen is just an inch better than Koster as far as a candidate but they both drink from the same trough. We need representatives who are not beholding to and party Ideology or corporate master but an advocate of the American Public.
Vote for anyone but Koster or Larsen!
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 PM
How about a pragraph or two?
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:49 PM
The New York Times was once widely regarded as among the finest newspapers in the world. However, many conservatives have been led to believe that it is no longer a trustworthy source of information. Indeed, those who persist in citing the New York Times these days risk losing credibility with conservative readers.
According to many members of the right wing spin machine, the New York Times and the Washington Post, along with other members of the mainstream media, are all part of some conspiracy between “the liberal media elite” and academics to advance a “leftist agenda.” Some have even gone so far as to claim that the “liberal elite” seeks to undermine the constitution of the United States, by supporting a “socialist regime” in the White House.
To cite some recent examples, Bill O’Reilly recently claimed onair that “NBC News has become the most liberal TV news organization in history,” and Glenn Beck said on his cable show that “the mainstream media . . . is engaged in open propaganda for [the Obama] administration.” Furthermore, many of the hosts and pundits on Fox News, along with some conservative talk radio personalities, frequently claim that they are the only sources for “fair and balanced” coverage, because the rest of the media is obviously slanted and biased. Fox News consistently conveys the messages that, because they really truly take viewers’ interests to heart, they are among the very few sources of accurate news. In short, only the likes of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh can be trusted.
Perhaps, a few recent clips will help illustrate these points:
Beck says of the media: “You’re either with them or against them. … They’ll destroy anyone who gets in their way”
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007210075
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007210070
O’Reilly claims “Fox News was actually cautious” in reporting on Sherrod story, accuses NBC of being “character assassins”
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007220065
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Todd,
With respect, your whole post is OT.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:02 PM
Here are a few more examples from our friends are Media Matters:
Rush claims emails between liberal journalists proves “mainstream coordination with the left” [Sounds a lot like "climategate." I just hope it doesn't drag on for nearly as long.]
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007200039
Beck: The media helps the liberal 20% of the country “control the rest of it” [Incidentally, Beck here is repeating a claim made somewhat earlier by Limbaugh.]
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007080043
Murdoch: Fox is having best quarter because it is “very balanced” and most other media “are all on one side — the liberal side”
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005040046
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Tood2, what is your take on Journolist? Innocent journalist collaboration?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Dave,
This thread began with comments alluding to the credibility of the NYT, which is what prompted my response.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Bellinghammer,
All in all, I suspect it’s much ado about nothing. Besides, given what little I’ve actually read about it, I tend to agree with the liberal columnists and academics.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Sam: You say Koster’s statement, that the bill will “likely open the door for permanent taxpayer-funded bailouts for Wall Street,” is not “the truth.” But your own link to the New York Times says: “The bill will still allow the government to fashion ad hoc remedies in the case of a failing financial institution. … it appears there is enough wiggle room in the bill and elsewhere in the laws that the government will still be able to structure unique one-off solutions in any financial crisis.”
Do you still say that Koster’s statement is not “the truth,” even though your own “experts” agree with him?
Frankly, I think you should retract your claim that Koster’s statement is not “the truth.”
As to experts in general: saying you accept what they say because they are “experts” is the appeal-to-authority fallacy. In argument, we accept evidence, facts, and reason, not degrees or work experience, else I would begin every crticism of journalists by noting my degree in journalism, just so people would weight my claims more strongly (of course, some people would do so for that reason, but they would be wrong to do so for that reason: people should believe you should retract your claim because of the force of my argument, not what degrees I may have). Also, I could counter your experts with other experts, obviously; however, I prefer to discuss the actual facts rather than play my-expert-is-better-than-yours.
[Somewhat related note: I was listening to an Olympia On-Call this week, that you participated in, from March 2007. Rep. Dan Kristiansen said we needed to work hard to deal with a looming recession and the housing bubble being ready to burst. Too bad Olympia didn't listen to him, eh?]
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:14 AM
Davesix: yes, the problem is many people in government hate the rule of law. This is not to be confused with saying they hate the law: many of them love it, especially loving to twist it to suit their needs. But they hate being ruled by it. They hate the idea that their own government power is restricted, and many of the people who support them hate the idea that the power of the people they support is restricted.
Which is why you see, for example, the incredible logic-twisting of Justice Stevens’ dissent in the McDonald v. Chicago. It boiled down to “I personally don’t want guns to get the same protection as things I think are more important, like religion and speech, so therefore I dissent.” He rejects the rule of law, like many people do.
And of course, this brings us to this bill in this way: it doesn’t really matter what the law says, we know the Federal Government — under Obama and the Democrats, or under many Republicans, such as those under the Bush administration — will do whatever it wants to in a “crisis.” And as we also well-know, the threshold for whether something is an “emergency” or “crisis” is dependent primarily on how much you want to ignore the law or take power out of the hands of the people.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Pudge - I think you’re mis-reading the NYT piece. What it says is that it makes any type of bailout nearly impossible, but doing this, in and of itself, is basically impossible.
Koster and other Republicans talk about a “permanent bailout culture” and I believe experts who have delved into this believe that’s not the case.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 PM
Perry, with all due respect, that’s been a standard practice in this country since at least the Great Depression when the FDIC was created. We already have a system in place that allows these institutions to be handled in this way. This Wall Street reform bill addresses corporations that are much, much larger than the average bank like WaMu or even, well, large banks. We’re talking the gargantuan entities that people have nicknamed the “too big to fail” and they didn’t have the same type of mechanisms in place for the type of business they were doing.
In essence, this is the exactly same type of system we’ve had in place for the average bank for 80 years but it’s a different set of rules because it’s a different set of institutions.
Even the general way the banks are restructured is the same, in that there are actually funds provided by the institutions themselves that are designed to pay for the liquidation.
Really, probably one of the biggest debates that could be had about whether or not bailouts will ever happen again is if the $50 billion fund set up to deal with the orderly liquidations is large enough. I’ve read quite a few pieces questioning that, but nobody is sure without seeing the system in action (a system that is designed in such a way that we’re technically not supposed to end up to that phase).
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Only because someone else started it and he was addressing it. I say “play on.”
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Sam: “What it says is that it makes any type of bailout nearly impossible”
No, it does not say that at all, Sam. You’re the one misreading it. What the author actually says is that there is “enough wiggle room” to do whatever the government wants, including bailouts. You’re hyperfocusing on the structural issues of receivership, but as the article points out, those can just be bypassed.
He defines government deal-making as “the government assistance and special arrangements for the financial sector that were provided during the financial crisis.” i.e., bailouts. And after describing the receivership rules and saying how good they are, he adds, “However, **there are provisions that would still encourage government deal-making.** … Even if it is not money, backdoor federal assistance in one form or another may arguably still be provided to other parties to permit them to arrange a private deal.”
He adds, “The bill thus sets up a regime that will allow for some **deal-making** to encourage boards to accept the receivership. And while the bill forbids the use of taxpayer money to ‘prevent the liquidation of any financial company,’ there is always latitude in times of crisis to stretch the law as was done during the financial crisis.”
“Koster and other Republicans talk about a “permanent bailout culture” and I believe experts who have delved into this believe that’s not the case.”
The New York Times article you selected disagrees with you, as I’ve detailed.
And if you can’t actually defend your point other than to just handwave at “experts,” then you have no business asserting that Koster is saying something that is not “the truth.”
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:19 PM
No teacher I’ve ever had would term me hyper focused. :S
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:50 PM
And yet, you still falsely accused John of saying something that is not “the truth.”
Does this mean you won’t issue a correction?
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Pudge - Koster’s campaign is arguing this created a permanent culture of bailouts, which is what we’re addressing, and it seems pretty clear from what I’ve linked to that no such permanent culture of bailouts is true. The closest one could get is to something around “half true” (If we’re taking the PolitiFact measurements) in that there is a potential for it to possibly happen, if several mechanisms fail, but that nobody can at all know unless another financial crisis like this happens. The NYT piece also states the legislation is well-written and its design makes sense for seeking to end taxpayer-funded bailouts.
No, I don’t think anything on here is correction worthy at all, I’m sorry you don’t feel that way.
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Sam: “Koster’s campaign is arguing this created a permanent culture of bailouts”
Incorrect. Let’s take pains to be accurate, shall we? First, you’re referring to the headline, and as you well know, headlines don’t always well-reflect editorial content. You should, to be responsible, look at the content of the release, not merely a shortened summary phrase of it. The text of the press release explains the meaning: that the bill will “**likely open the door** for permanent taxpayer-funded bailouts,” which is different from saying the bill itself created such a thing.
Also, even the headline said that Larsen voted to create that culture, **not that the bill itself did so.** That is, that Larsen voted for a bill that is likely to open the door for permanent bailouts — that will **result in** creation of that culture — and not that he voted for a bill that itself directly creates permanent bailouts.
If you’re going to condemn Koster based on a parsing of the headline, then at least do a good job of parsing it, along with the rest of the release, eh?
“The closest one could get is to something around ‘half true’ (If we’re taking the PolitiFact measurements) in that there is a potential for it to possibly happen”
Which is what the text of Koster’s release said: that it is LIKELY TO OPEN THE DOOR. So what the release said is not half-true, it’s **actually true.**
“The NYT piece also states the legislation is well-written and its design makes sense for seeking to end taxpayer-funded bailouts.”
Except that piece ALSO said that it WOULD NOT end such bailouts, as I’ve clearly demonstrated.
“No, I don’t think anything on here is correction worthy at all, I’m sorry you don’t feel that way.”
That is a pity, since I’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt that you’re wrong, and you’ve refused to even recognize the points I’ve made, instead continuing to rely on “experts” who — as I’ve clearly demonstrated — agree with what Koster said in his press release.
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Pudge - I appreciate you telling me what to do, and it appears you are used to getting your way. However, you’re wrong (he discussed permanent bailouts elsewhere in the release as well), and so you won’t be. Thusly, this will be the last response from me to you on this topic.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:57 PM
““The NYT piece also states the legislation is well-written and its design makes sense for seeking to end taxpayer-funded bailouts.”
Except that piece ALSO said that it WOULD NOT end such bailouts, as I’ve clearly demonstrated.”
Wull, I guess that you’d best not suggest that the NYT, the ‘Newspaper of Record,’ would ever color a news story with opinion, even when they do.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:32 PM
I love this:
“Here are a few more examples from our friends are Media Matters:”
With respect, again, they’re not my friends, for certain.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:17 PM
Sam: “I appreciate you telling me what to do”
Where did I tell you what to do? Not that I expect a rational answer: you can’t even respond to any of the points I made about your post, let alone this ad hominem you throw out here.
“and it appears you are used to getting your way”
More pathetic ad hominem. But no, it does not seem any such thing. This is not about “getting my way,” it is about the fact that I proved you are wrong — so convincingly that you didn’t even attempt to respond to my points — and you therefore, according to journalistic ethics, should post a correction.
“However, you’re wrong”
You cannot demonstrate that, Sam. Asserting it doesn’t make you right. You have provided NO evidence to make your case.
“he discussed permanent bailouts elsewhere in the release as well”
Yes, as I quoted. Did you even read my comment? It doesn’t seem like it. He said the bill would LIKELY OPEN THE DOOR to permanent bailouts (again, as I quoted, and explicitly referenced). And this is a perfectly reasonable statement, based on your own evidence of the NYT article, which said that bailouts were going to continue under this bill.
“Thusly, this will be the last response from me to you on this topic.”
Pity.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:19 PM
Davesix: I honestly don’t care from where an article comes, as long as it is well-written, well-sourced, fair, and so on. Sam, however, by his own words, falls prey to the common fallacious misconception that an argument has more weight depending on who says it, and in which publication it is printed. I cannot fix this flaw in his reasoning, but I can use his own evidence — the NYT story — against him.
Although, he won’t even consider that evidence, failing even to read my arguments. He’s wrong, I proved it, and he owes his readers and the Koster campaign a correction.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:09 AM
Pudge proves nothing. Besides, he’s boring.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:13 AM
“Arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
July 24th, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Todd2: then I presume you will respond to my points and show how they prove nothing? Yeah, didn’t think so.
And that entry in Wikipedia does not disagree with me. Sam is doing precisely what that snippet you quoted said is fallacious: claming that the authority is exempt from criticism by me, simply because it is an authority. He chooses it over me and ignores any point I have against it: that is precisely what the fallacy IS.
July 24th, 2010 at 9:11 AM
If you’re arguing that I said it’s more valid because it’s from the NYT or PolitiFact, than you are twisting what I said, Pudge. What I said was that those publications employ experts who write for them who likely understand these things far more than us fine folks way over here in beautiful northwest Washington.
July 24th, 2010 at 9:14 AM
It wasn’t a newspaper story, it was expert analysis on one of their many blogs.
July 24th, 2010 at 9:53 AM
The problem with expert analysis of this sort with this bill is that it allows the commenter to project his own preconceptions and preferences into the analysis.
Here’s a comment from Steve Forbes, in a column about dirigiste economics: “…The closest the U.S. came to adapting dirigiste economics was during the first two years of FDR’s New Deal with the National Recovery Administration. The NRA had businesses set up industrywide cartels to regulate prices, wages and the rules of competition. Thankfully the Supreme Court threw out this fascist edifice early on.
Now, in the midst of another economic crisis (and one not nearly as severe as that faced three-quarters of a century ago), Washington is at it again, this time with a far more ideologically rigid President than FDR. Incrementalism and the velvet glove over an iron fist are Obama’s preferred methods. Thus, it will take several years for surviving health care companies to become full-fledged vassals of the federal government, which will dictate what policies are offered and at what prices. The new financial “reform” bill is taking the same approach–its language is intentionally vague in order to give bureaucrats enormous discretionary powers.” (Bold mine)
“Rhetoric and smiles to the contrary, this Administration remains resolutely statist and, when it comes to free markets, clueless.”
Would this administration allow the market to work and institutions to fail? I’d suggest that the government, mindful of the enormous repercussions resulting from the failure of Lehman, might blink and engage in more bailouts.
Sadly, I don’t think we’re going to have to wait long to find out. All it will take is for Bernanke to start raising the Fed funds rate, a step that is going to be forced on him before too long.
July 24th, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Sam: “f you’re arguing that I said it’s more valid because it’s from the NYT or PolitiFact, than you are twisting what I said, Pudge.”
Yes, you did say that. You specifically referred to “going with” experts at certain publications, even though other experts at other publications have a different view.
“What I said was that those publications employ experts who write for them who likely understand these things far more than us fine folks way over here in beautiful northwest Washington.”
First, again, other publications have other experts who have even greater understanding, and disagree with you.
But that’s incorrect anyway, it’s not what you said. You said not merely that they “likely” understand better than you or I, but that you will “go with” what they say because they are experts who write for certain publications that employ experts … instead of the logically and rationally correct thing, which is to point out where they have better arguments.
Your words speak for themselves:
Of course, you don’t do that: when the NYT article disagrees with your assertion that bailouts will not continue under this legislation, you don’t “go with the experts,” which implies you are just selectively picking and choosing expert testimony that agrees with your preconceptions.
July 24th, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Boooring…….Pudge is like the super glue of single minded propagandists…. and not an entertaining, amusing or even challenging one at that….
July 24th, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Shaun: you, like Todd2, are violating the policies of this forum. Please address the points (if you are able), and not merely make personal attacks. Besides violating the policies here, you just make yourself look bad when you have no substantive response.
July 24th, 2010 at 7:27 PM
pudge,
“Shaun: you, like Todd2, are violating the policies of this forum.”
It’s pretty routine, actually.
“Please address the points (if you are able), and not merely make personal attacks.”
I’ve asked for that, several times.
July 24th, 2010 at 7:29 PM
Davesix: noted.
July 25th, 2010 at 5:05 PM
Say it isn’t so pudge, picked on and abused..?
Come on zealot, it’s a debate. I can’t believe you, of all energizer bunny right wing propagandists, Can’t stand the heat? Or does crying about those disagreeing with you when you can’t get the argument to go your way work?
The only personal comment was calling you not challenging…I was wrong, …you are very challenging…..
And Dave, ………… get out and get some sun. You have a vitamin Sun/Fun deficiency……your FOS level is just fine…
July 25th, 2010 at 5:48 PM
“Come on zealot, it’s a debate. ”
Nobody would guess that from reading your contributions, in my humble opinion.
July 25th, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Here’s an interesting column about the consequences of allowing the banks to fail, by Daniel Hannan, MEP: “Would letting the banks fail have led to economic collapse? Nope: just look at Iceland
“A banking collapse wipes out paper fortunes; but it doesn’t wipe out hard assets. The króna has lost 60 per cent of its value, and Iceland has slithered down the global wealth tables accordingly. But the sheep are still lambing, the aluminium is still being smelted, the tourists are still wallowing in the Blue Lagoon, the trawlermen are still returning with their rich catches (richer than ever, apparently, as the seas warm).
Virtual wealth has evaporated; but, in the real world, surprisingly little has changed. After two decades of phenomenal growth, there has been a correction, and Icelanders are now living like Danes rather than like Kuwaitis. Their situation remains enviable by almost any standard.
There are lessons for us in all this. I was one of a tiny number of commentators who opposed the bail-outs in Britain. It seemed to me outrageous for taxpayers to rescue some very wealthy men from the consequences of their errors. Ever since, sophisticated people have been telling me that, if I had had my way, the entire banking system might have collapsed.”
Would letting the banks fail have led to economic collapse? Nope: just look at Iceland – Telegraph Blogs http://bit.ly/amQasQ
Finreg is a solution in search of a problem, and its 2000 pages of turgid prose will go nowhere near a solution, nor even a favorable tradeoff.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Koster’s campaign manager is a real piece of work….
There are some pretty regressive pockets of humanity around Arlington it would seem…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012274482_2nddistrict04m.html
July 25th, 2010 at 10:44 PM
Why would we want to elect a certifiable wing nut to an elected government post who thought it was a great idea to carve his own county out of Snohomish County and name it Freedom County with Arlington as it’s county seat? Koster, Stickney, Nandor, …these guys are a carnival show….
http://www.examiner.com/x-481-Snohomish-County-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m5d31-The-KosterStickney-campaign-2009
July 26th, 2010 at 6:56 AM
[...] LarsenLast week, we discussed claims by Republican John Koster that U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, and other Democrats voted to [...]
July 26th, 2010 at 7:20 AM
Davesix: indeed. There’s a reason I’ve not responded directly to Shaun, except to admonish him: there’s literally nothing there to respond to. He provides no substance of any kind.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:23 AM
Todd2 and Shaun are such awful meanies; they hurt pudgy’s feelings.
How could they have been so insensitive to that tenderhearted little feller?
July 26th, 2010 at 7:40 AM
Oh Ouch, that hurt….I was a little less enamored last night, but the more I look into the Pudge phenomenon, the more I am entertained by him. Come back ole Pudge-er…..
July 26th, 2010 at 7:49 AM
Camille: Todd2 and Shaun are such awful meanies; they hurt pudgy’s feelings.
Really? When?
And how did I miss it?
Camille, I wonder if you really misunderstood what I said, and really think my feelings were hurt. I have very few feelings about such discussions, except for my disappointment in Sam. Shrug.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:58 AM
Todd and Shaun are Awful Meanies, or Hurt Pudgy’s Feelings? Ha!….sounds like titles to me…..
July 26th, 2010 at 9:45 AM
My wife and I drove to Seattle this past weekend and passed a number of signs attached to Koster campaign signs, saying in effect that “Larsen’s legacy is a 13 trillion dollar deficit.”
We literally laughed out loud! That is preposterous. To suggest that one congressman is responsible for the federal deficit is an insult to the intelligence of the voters and a clear sign of desperation.
I hope it backfires on Koster; it should.
July 26th, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Well, think about it this way, what was the deficit when Larsen got in, what is it today, if he had spent half his time voting for things that decreased the deficit instead of most of his time following the leadership of Pelosi and supporting the spending that has now got us to 13 trillion & growing, could he had made a difference?
If you like the way things are, keep sending the same people back who got us to where we are, if you want a change, vote for someone different.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 26th, 2010 at 10:48 AM
“Camille, I wonder if you really misunderstood what I said, and really think my feelings were hurt. I have very few feelings about such discussions, except for my disappointment in Sam. Shrug.” - pudgy
Alright then Sam’s the meanie.
July 26th, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Thanks for the link, Shaun. I didn’t realize that guy Stickney (of Ref 71 infamy) is his campaign manager, but now fully understand how Koster got the endorsement of Sarah, Queen pf the Tea Party: he is a right wing extremist on every issue.
July 26th, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Koster, Freedom County, Stickney ad nauseum, pudge, (I hope you read some of my earlier links about Stickney) quite a little ‘community’ in Arlington…
July 26th, 2010 at 12:49 PM
[...] Rep. Larsen’s) that taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street being ended ‘barely true’ Last week, we discussed claims by Republican John Koster that U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, and other Democrats voted to [...]
July 26th, 2010 at 7:11 PM
Bill, for some reason this link doesn’t work, but are you familiar with the voluminous takes on Stickney at a blog called Pam’sHouseBlend? Interesting stuff..
July 27th, 2010 at 3:45 PM
BhamBill:
… is obviously not what the sign did. No one person is etirely responsible for pretty much anything at all that happens in government. But Larsen did vote for trillions in new debt. This absolutely is his legacy, and I find it interesting that you’re trying to convince people that Larsen isn’t responsible for votes he cast.
Sorry, but that just made me laugh out loud.