Reviews are in: Geithner clears the bar

[BrooksBearLives]

Reviews are in: Geithner clears the bar
By: Eamon Javers
March 23, 2009 03:32 PM EST

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner – who hasn’t had many winning days in his short tenure on Pennsylvania Avenue – scored a big political victory Monday, as Wall Street traders breathed new life into his career with a stock market rally of nearly 500 points

The morning began with Geithner briefing reporters on his new bank bailout proposal, which would use $75 billion to $100 billion in taxpayer dollars, plus money from private investors, to generate $500 billion to buy so-called toxic assets from troubled banks. That amount could increase to $1 trillion over time.

For the day at least, the debate in Washington shifted from whether Geithner should keep his job to an argument over the merits of his proposal. “They have a second chance right now and it’s good that they’re seizing it,” said one Wall Street executive. “The fact that anybody would be willing to participate in this program is a real testament to Geithner.”

Here’s how the key constituencies reacted to Geithner.

WALL STREET

Geithner’s plan got an early and important endorsement from The Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group for the nation’s largest financial institutions. The group said the plan will help fix a value on the damaged securities, give flexibility to potential buyers and provide enough government-backed financing to make the plan work.

“Combined with other on-going efforts, the plan will help strengthen the economy,” the Roundtable said in a statement immediately after Geithner’s announcement.

And Richard Baker, CEO of the hedge-fund trade group the Managed Funds Association, welcomed Geithner’s proposal. “We share his commitment to promote efforts that will stabilize our financial markets and strengthen our nation’s economy,” Baker said.

Of course, not everybody on Wall Street was thrilled with the proposal. Lynn Tilton is the CEO of Patriarch Partners, a $6 billion private equity fund that has done several deals to buy toxic assets off bank balance sheets, is skeptical that the idea will work. She argues that the plan doesn’t give the potential sellers of the toxic assets enough incentive to take part. They will be reluctant to sell if it looks like someone else will make a windfall from their misfortune, she believes.

‘This should have been set up so the banks can share in the upside,” Tilton said. “This is very enticing for the private sector buyers, and taxpayers’ concerns are quelled, but they’ve left out the third part, which is getting these guys to sell.”

CAPITOL HILL

On the Hill, meanwhile, the reaction was predictably split, with Republicans offering withering criticism, and Democrats largely holding firm in support.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement that he backs the plan, though in less than fulsome terms. “Like any investment, this plan carries the potential for both risk and reward,” Reid said. “But above all, we must act – one risk we will not take is standing on the sidelines and doing nothing while a bad situation gets worse.”

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) argued that the plan provides little incentive for private investors to participate unless they’re given a significant subsidy – money that will come at taxpayer expense.

“In its current form, Secretary Geithner’s plan is a shell game that hides the true cost of the program from the taxpayers that will be asked to pay for it. Six months after Congress debated the first TARP, it is inexcusable that taxpayers still have not been told their true exposure,” Cantor said in a statement.

THE “CHATTERING CLASS”

Many pundits were initially skeptical, but seemed persuaded by the market rally that he plan was already having a positive effect.

Time magazine economics columnist Justin Fox called Geithner’s proposal “logical but not sufficient,” writing that his first concern was that “it’s too complicated and might not work.”

On CNBC.com, BMO Financial Group Global Finance Strategist Andrew Busch wrote, “It’s complicated, it has a lot of moving parts, it attempts to involve the private sector, and no one is sure whether banks will sell these assets to create the program. Other than that, the markets are loving it early.”

And in POLITICO’s Arena, Peterson Institute economist Gary Clyde Hufbauer raved over the plan: “Hooray for team Obama! … The team showed a friendly face to Wall Street and ignored advice to nationalize the financial sector. Can’t do better than that.”

Geithner was partially boosted by savvy stagecraft at Treasury. He spoke without television cameras present, and attracted a group of policy-wonk reporters who seemed far more interested in the details of the plan than they were in the cable news chatter over Geithner’s woes. As a result, Geithner was not asked a single question about the controversy surrounding his handling of the AIG bonus mess, or the speculation over his future in the Obama cabinet.

The absence of television crews seems to have helped Geithner, who has been criticized for his sometimes-awkward on-camera delivery. Sipping from a tall bottle of water as he spoke to a packed room of reporters, Geithner did not seem to be a man whose job is on the line. Although the White House has been forced to issue repeated statements of support for Geithner, the Treasury Secretary appeared confident, spoke without a prepared script, and fielded detailed technical questions.

Lisa Lerer contributed to this article.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=34D1B47A-18FE-70B2-A8C1176CA1F42584

[LIQRinPU]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman said in remarks published on Monday that the latest U.S. Treasury bailout program is nearly certain to fail, triggering a sense of personal despair.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday unveiled a plan aimed at persuading private investors to help rid banks up to $1 trillion in toxic assets that that are seen as a roadblock to economic recovery.

"This is more than disappointing," Krugman wrote in The New York Times. ""In fact it fills me with a sense of despair."

"The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt," the Princeton University economist said, citing weekend reports outlining the plan.

"This isn't really about letting markets work. It's just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets," he added.

Krugman called it a recycled idea of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who later abandoned the "cash for trash" proposal.

"But the real problem with this plan is that it won't work," he says, adding that bad loans may be undervalued because there is too much fear in the current climate.

"But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus -- for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to -- will change that fact," Krugman wrote.

While the real economy is being hurt by the meltdown of the financial system itself, Krugman says this is not the first or the last time this has happened. And there are lots of roadmaps to get us out.

"It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books," Krugman said.

Time is running out on the Obama administration to take control of the banks - and the crisis.

"If this plan fails - as it almost surely will - it's unlikely that he'll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place," he wrote.

The White House strongly disagreed with Krugman's assessment, defending the administration plans on the morning talk shows.

"I think Paul's just wrong on this one," Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on ABC's "Good Morning America" show just ahead of the plan's release.

"This is really tails both the government and the private sector win, heads both the government and the private sector lose. We both are going to have, as the saying goes, skin in the game."

[BrooksBearLives]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman said in remarks published on Monday that the latest U.S. Treasury bailout program is nearly certain to fail, triggering a sense of personal despair.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday unveiled a plan aimed at persuading private investors to help rid banks up to $1 trillion in toxic assets that that are seen as a roadblock to economic recovery.

"This is more than disappointing," Krugman wrote in The New York Times. ""In fact it fills me with a sense of despair."

"The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt," the Princeton University economist said, citing weekend reports outlining the plan.

"This isn't really about letting markets work. It's just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets," he added.

Krugman called it a recycled idea of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who later abandoned the "cash for trash" proposal.

"But the real problem with this plan is that it won't work," he says, adding that bad loans may be undervalued because there is too much fear in the current climate.

"But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus -- for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to -- will change that fact," Krugman wrote.

While the real economy is being hurt by the meltdown of the financial system itself, Krugman says this is not the first or the last time this has happened. And there are lots of roadmaps to get us out.

"It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books," Krugman said.

Time is running out on the Obama administration to take control of the banks - and the crisis.

"If this plan fails - as it almost surely will - it's unlikely that he'll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place," he wrote.

The White House strongly disagreed with Krugman's assessment, defending the administration plans on the morning talk shows.

"I think Paul's just wrong on this one," Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on ABC's "Good Morning America" show just ahead of the plan's release.

"This is really tails both the government and the private sector win, heads both the government and the private sector lose. We both are going to have, as the saying goes, skin in the game."

People have lined up to say he is wrong. But we'll see.

You guys are the ones who've been using the market slide as proof that Obama is a failure. Is what's good for the goose no longer good for the gander?

[LIQRinPU]

So how has the market done overall in the last month or so? Surely you arent excited about one or two days.

[Bexar Fan]

Wouldn't a one day rally be termed as anecdotal?

[Khubi]

Wouldn't a one day rally be termed as anecdotal?

Unless it was used to color an argument. Then it would be a crayon.

[FunkyTownBear]

People have lined up to say he is wrong. But we'll see.

You guys are the ones who've been using the market slide as proof that Obama is a failure. Is what's good for the goose no longer good for the gander?
If we were waiting to see, then we can't say he has cleared the bar. Clearing the bar in the pole vault or high jump means you have safely landed in the pit and don't have to wait to see anything.

I took profits this afternoon. You'd be a fool not to.

[LIQRinPU]

"Overall, among all adults, 24% have a favorable opinion of Geithner, 44% have an unfavorable opinion, and 33% are not sure. Twenty-one percent (21%) of adults say Geithner is doing a good or an excellent job while 40% say he is doing a poor job."

Rasmussen Reports

[BrooksBearLives]

If we were waiting to see, then we can't say he has cleared the bar. Clearing the bar in the pole vault or high jump means you have safely landed in the pit and don't have to wait to see anything.

I took profits this afternoon. You'd be a fool not to.
No. "Clearing the bar" means you "clear the bar." I dated a pole vaulter. You can fall right on your *** or impale yourself on the pole. But if you went over the bar and didnt' knock it down, it still counts.

"Overall, among all adults, 24% have a favorable opinion of Geithner, 44% have an unfavorable opinion, and 33% are not sure. Twenty-one percent (21%) of adults say Geithner is doing a good or an excellent job while 40% say he is doing a poor job."

Rasmussen Reports
Polls work well for you now, when they back up what you think, but the public is dumb when they put President Obama in the 60% + approval?

Personally, I believed experts when they called this a depression and said it would last a year at least. I'm not expecting miracles. I'm tightening my belt and saving and waiting to invest before the rebound.

Geitner is a smart man who is understaffed at the moment trying to clear up a **** storm HE INHERITED. Personally, I think he deserves a little patience, not the stored up fear-fueld ire of the last few months.

[LIQRinPU]

I just threw that in because I know you sport wood over polls and stats.

Isnt he the guy that couldnt figure out how to pay his taxes and now oversees the IRS?

[FunkyTownBear]

No. "Clearing the bar" means you "clear the bar." I dated a pole vaulter. You can fall right on your *** or impale yourself on the pole. But if you went over the bar and didnt' knock it down, it still counts.

My point is that there is no waiting to see if one has "Cleared the bar". You either have or you haven't. If you are waiting to see, that would imply that the bar has not been cleared as of yet. You are the one that said we will have to wait and see what happens. That statement implies that the bar has not been cleared yet. Do you understand or should I get out my MSPaint and draw a picture? :D

[cowboycwr]

No. "Clearing the bar" means you "clear the bar." I dated a pole vaulter. You can fall right on your *** or impale yourself on the pole. But if you went over the bar and didnt' knock it down, it still counts.



Incorrect. If you clear the bar but miss the mat then it is a scratch. If you clear the bar, land on the mat, but your pole knocks the bar off it is a scratch. If you clear the bar and bring your pole with you (some how) instead of throwing it back it is a scratch.

[ChipOC]

Geitner is a smart man who is understaffed at the moment trying to clear up a **** storm HE INHERITED. Personally, I think he deserves a little patience, not the stored up fear-fueld ire of the last few months.
Yeah that Trillion dollars spent was the right answer. Sheesh.

[Texas Golfer]

Excuse me for not wanting to pin a gold medal on someone who, finally, cleared the bar after more than a dozen failed attempts and is not sure he can clear the bar in his next dozen attempts.

[BrooksBearLives]

Excuse me for not wanting to pin a gold medal on someone who, finally, cleared the bar after more than a dozen failed attempts and is not sure he can clear the bar in his next dozen attempts.

YOu have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

name the DOZEN things he's done wrong.

Go ahead... I'll wait.

[LIQRinPU]

Can I play?

1. He cheated on his taxes.

2. He knew about the mistakes and waited 3 or 4 years to pay his owed taxes. In fact, he waited till the Obama courted him for the job to finally pay up.

3. He was in charge of the New York Federal Reserve, an entity that should have prevented lots of the shady things going on in his district.

4. He screwed up his job and the economy in Indonesia.

5. He has never run a private business.

6. He lied or was incompetent in dealing with the AIG bonuses and when he knew about them.

7. With all of his tax problems he is now overseeing the IRS. He doesnt understand the IRS well enough to figure out his taxes or hire someone that does. Remember the old bumper sticker, "4 yeers ago I coldnut even spel kollege and now I is a stoodent"?

More later. Its getting dark and I have to ride/feed Princess. This is fun though.

[Texas Golfer]

YOu have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

name the DOZEN things he's done wrong.

Go ahead... I'll wait.

In your mind, nobody who disagrees with you knows what they're talking about.

Thanks, LIQR. Great list and I'm sure that's just off the top of your mind.

You cited the article of yesterday's stock market increase as "clearing the bar". I merely pointed out the several declining market days as "not clearing the bar".

[BrooksBearLives]

Can I play?

1. He cheated on his taxes.

2. He knew about the mistakes and waited 3 or 4 years to pay his owed taxes. In fact, he waited till the Obama courted him for the job to finally pay up.

3. He was in charge of the New York Federal Reserve, an entity that should have prevented lots of the shady things going on in his district.

4. He screwed up his job and the economy in Indonesia.

5. He has never run a private business.

6. He lied or was incompetent in dealing with the AIG bonuses and when he knew about them.

7. With all of his tax problems he is now overseeing the IRS. He doesnt understand the IRS well enough to figure out his taxes or hire someone that does. Remember the old bumper sticker, "4 yeers ago I coldnut even spel kollege and now I is a stoodent"?

More later. Its getting dark and I have to ride/feed Princess. This is fun though.
Dude, that is a horrible list. You double-dipped on some of those, manufacturing 3 or 4 out of the Tax dust-up WHICH HE FIXED.

And then some of the others are cheap or debatable at least. "Shady stuff at the Fed." Really? People IN THE KNOW largely lauded his work there. Just because he was in charge of a place that handled some of the bail outs, doesn't mean he's a bad guy or incompetent.

As a matter of fact, people who really DO know anything about Geitner say -across the board- that he possesses nearly genius level intelligence and is a workaholic. But keep on hating. I guess we'll have to let history decide.

"He has never run a business" does NOT count as a failure. You swing. You miss.

In your mind, nobody who disagrees with you knows what they're talking about.

Thanks, LIQR. Great list and I'm sure that's just off the top of your mind.

You cited the article of yesterday's stock market increase as "clearing the bar". I merely pointed out the several declining market days as "not clearing the bar".
It was a nice try of your friend to bail you out, though he failed miserably.

I'm still waiting on you to name the dozen things Geitner has failed at doing. (He hasn't climbed Mt. Everest yet, so you can start there.)

[Texas Golfer]

Dude, that is a horrible list. You double-dipped on some of those, manufacturing 3 or 4 out of the Tax dust-up WHICH HE FIXED.

And then some of the others are cheap or debatable at least. "Shady stuff at the Fed." Really? People IN THE KNOW largely lauded his work there. Just because he was in charge of a place that handled some of the bail outs, doesn't mean he's a bad guy or incompetent.

As a matter of fact, people who really DO know anything about Geitner say -across the board- that he possesses nearly genius level intelligence and is a workaholic. But keep on hating. I guess we'll have to let history decide.

"He has never run a business" does NOT count as a failure. You swing. You miss.


It was a nice try of your friend to bail you out, though he failed miserably.

I'm still waiting on you to name the dozen things Geitner has failed at doing. (He hasn't climbed Mt. Everest yet, so you can start there.)

The market goes up one day and you call him a success. But, the market goes down more than a dozen days and you refuse to call him a failure.

And I don't think my friend failed at all. You just refuse to open your eyes.

[LIQRinPU]

"Dude, that is a horrible list. Opinion
You double-dipped on some of those, manufacturing 3 or 4 out of the Tax dust-up Which ones?WHICH HE FIXED. Yes, but it took several years and the Obama couting him for job. I think I mentioned this

And then some of the others are cheap or debatable at least. Right"
Shady stuff at the Fed." Really? People IN THE KNOW largely lauded his work there. I bet I can find just as many people "in the know" (whatever that means) that think he is an idiot
Just because he was in charge of a place that handled some of the bail outs, doesn't mean he's a bad guy or incompetent. Of course not. He couldnt have been responsible in his role as NY Fed Reserve boss to know what was going on.
As a matter of fact, people who really DO know anything about Geitner say -across the board- that he possesses nearly genius level intelligence and is a workaholic. Again, the "in the know". Why dont you just say, "socialist and Dems think he is a great guy to carry out the Obama's agenda. And why do you say "as a matter of fact" when it really isnt?
But keep on hating. I guess we'll have to let history decide.

"He has never run a business" does NOT count as a failure. OK. But I would think a man in charge of the treasury and the IRS would have at least a little first hand knowledge of business in America

You swing. You miss. Is that what people that "really do know" say?


I was looking for facts in your rebuttal. You disappoint.

[BrooksBearLives]

"Dude, that is a horrible list. You double-dipped on some of those, manufacturing 3 or 4 out of the Tax dust-up WHICH HE FIXED.

And then some of the others are cheap or debatable at least. "Shady stuff at the Fed." Really? People IN THE KNOW largely lauded his work there. Just because he was in charge of a place that handled some of the bail outs, doesn't mean he's a bad guy or incompetent.

As a matter of fact, people who really DO know anything about Geitner say -across the board- that he possesses nearly genius level intelligence and is a workaholic. But keep on hating. I guess we'll have to let history decide.

"He has never run a business" does NOT count as a failure. You swing. You miss."

I was looking for facts in your rebuttal. You disappoint.

All I had was facts.

You double-dipped.

What "facts" you DID have in your list were debatable. ("Shady stuff in the fed" isn't a fact. It's an inference. "He never ran a business." may be a fact, but what it has to do with the price of tea on Wall Street, I have no idea.)

Even the IRS mess-up was a problem blown out of proportion. It's not like the guy was too dumb to add up numbers. His accountant (or whomever does his accounting, it may be him) was confused by a tax law that has apparently confused a LOT of people on both sides of the aisle. He fixed the problem and paid his taxes back with interest.

That's one mistake. One.

You swung. You missed. (fact... and fact)

[ChipOC]

All I had was facts.

You double-dipped.

What "facts" you DID have in your list were debatable. ("Shady stuff in the fed" isn't a fact. It's an inference. "He never ran a business." may be a fact, but what it has to do with the price of tea on Wall Street, I have no idea.)

Even the IRS mess-up was a problem blown out of proportion. It's not like the guy was too dumb to add up numbers. His accountant (or whomever does his accounting, it may be him) was confused by a tax law that has apparently confused a LOT of people on both sides of the aisle. He fixed the problem and paid his taxes back with interest.

That's one mistake. One.

You swung. You missed. (fact... and fact)
Did he pay back the taxes that the statute of limitations had expired on?

[cowboycwr]

All I had was facts.

You double-dipped.

What "facts" you DID have in your list were debatable. ("Shady stuff in the fed" isn't a fact. It's an inference. "He never ran a business." may be a fact, but what it has to do with the price of tea on Wall Street, I have no idea.)

Even the IRS mess-up was a problem blown out of proportion. It's not like the guy was too dumb to add up numbers. His accountant (or whomever does his accounting, it may be him) was confused by a tax law that has apparently confused a LOT of people on both sides of the aisle. He fixed the problem and paid his taxes back with interest.

That's one mistake. One.

You swung. You missed. (fact... and fact)


This really seems like an opinion not a "fact"

[BrooksBearLives]

Did he pay back the taxes that the statute of limitations had expired on?

Would you have?

[BrooksBearLives]

This really seems like an opinion not a "fact"

That was a different point from a different response. Keep up.

[LIQRinPU]

Your "facts" involved saying "people in the know say....."


I am not sure how you applied the term "double dipping". Please explain.


Why did Mr. Geithner not voluntarily correct the earlier nonpayment of self-employment taxes after the 2006 I.R.S. audit identified the problem for 2003 and 2004. Instead, he waited till the Obama started courting him for the treasurty job. BBL, you really dont think thats pretty shady for a guy that now oversees the IRS? Is that the way you handle your personal affairs?

[ChipOC]

Would you have?
I guess that means no.

[BrooksBearLives]

I guess that means no.

Honestly, no, I probably wouldn't have.

I dare say I'm not alone.

[LIQRinPU]

Well if you arent alone that certainly makes it right. Come on, I expect better from you.

[cowboycwr]

That was a different point from a different response. Keep up.

That doesn't matter. You accuse him of not using facts but then you respond by not using facts.

And it wasn't from a different point considering the IRS mess up was one of the 12 things LIQR pointed out he did wrong, to which you replied it was blown out of proportion and I responded that is not a fact but an opinion.

[BrooksBearLives]

Well if you arent alone that certainly makes it right. Come on, I expect better from you.

Meh. I'll try and learn to live with your disappointment.

I'm not sure I'd give back my AIG bonus, either, to be honest. I think that whole "outrage" is mostly a lot of hooey. Those people worked their way up and "earned" their compensation. I'm sure they worked really hard and put in a lot of hours and used a lot of their own resources. I work my butt off, personally, and I wouldn't give back a dime if I felt like I earned it and wouldn't blame those who feel the same way.

I'm not even sure I blame the government for not wanting to hold up the time-sensitive bail-out over an amount of money that ended up being less than one tenth of 1% of the whole caboodle.

I'm getting tired of grandstanding in congress on both sides, to be honest. It's just getting in the way of doing the real work.

[Bexar Fan]

On TV Geithner doesn't look like he could clear a ladies tea room.......much less a bar.

I call BS.

[BrooksBearLives]

That doesn't matter. You accuse him of not using facts but then you respond by not using facts.

And it wasn't from a different point considering the IRS mess up was one of the 12 things LIQR pointed out he did wrong, to which you replied it was blown out of proportion and I responded that is not a fact but an opinion.

Your inability to see nuance is frustrating.

I asked SOMEONE ELSE for 12 examples of how Geithner has failed and LIQR came up with 7 and most of those are NOT fact-based.

When you're trying to prove a point like that, you need facts.

When you're responding to a response of a response, its different. You should be able to grasp the idea. Think of the difference between the burdens born by two boxers. If you're the challenger, you have to beat the champ. If you're champ, you need to simply retain your status.

Its a difference in burdens.

Besides, I was pointing out the flaws in his argument. Those aren't always going to be fact-based.

[BrooksBearLives]

That doesn't matter. You accuse him of not using facts but then you respond by not using facts.

And it wasn't from a different point considering the IRS mess up was one of the 12 things LIQR pointed out he did wrong, to which you replied it was blown out of proportion and I responded that is not a fact but an opinion.

yes it WAS a different point. Opinion can be added to fact, but opinion can't replace fact. What he said wasn't fact. And what facts he DID use were weak.

There IS a difference.

[Khubi]

Did we really need to get to twelve to show he is a failure? The guy has been treasury secretary for less than two months.

[ChipOC]

Meh. I'll try and learn to live with your disappointment.

I'm not sure I'd give back my AIG bonus, either, to be honest. I think that whole "outrage" is mostly a lot of hooey. Those people worked their way up and "earned" their compensation. I'm sure they worked really hard and put in a lot of hours and used a lot of their own resources. I work my butt off, personally, and I wouldn't give back a dime if I felt like I earned it and wouldn't blame those who feel the same way.

I'm not even sure I blame the government for not wanting to hold up the time-sensitive bail-out over an amount of money that ended up being less than one tenth of 1% of the whole caboodle.

I'm getting tired of grandstanding in congress on both sides, to be honest. It's just getting in the way of doing the real work.
I agree.

[LIQRinPU]

The less the government does the better.

[cowboycwr]

Your inability to see nuance is frustrating.

I asked SOMEONE ELSE for 12 examples of how Geithner has failed and LIQR came up with 7 and most of those are NOT fact-based.

When you're trying to prove a point like that, you need facts.

When you're responding to a response of a response, its different. You should be able to grasp the idea. Think of the difference between the burdens born by two boxers. If you're the challenger, you have to beat the champ. If you're champ, you need to simply retain your status.

Its a difference in burdens.

Besides, I was pointing out the flaws in his argument. Those aren't always going to be fact-based.

and when you are trying to prove something you need facts, which you failed to do but instead use anecdotal evidence.

[cowboycwr]

yes it WAS a different point. Opinion can be added to fact, but opinion can't replace fact. What he said wasn't fact. And what facts he DID use were weak.

There IS a difference.

No it was not a different point. To me they were the same point.

the strength of the facts does not matter. a fact is a fact is a fact. YOu call it weak but what do you even mean by that?

If Opinion CAN'T replace fact why do you so often use your opinion to replace facts. Like when you said the IRS mess us was blown out of proportion?

Lets see the facts: he broke the law. Opinion: not a big deal. hmmm which is more solid and provable.... The first.

[BrooksBearLives]

No it was not a different point. To me they were the same point.

the strength of the facts does not matter. a fact is a fact is a fact. YOu call it weak but what do you even mean by that?

If Opinion CAN'T replace fact why do you so often use your opinion to replace facts. Like when you said the IRS mess us was blown out of proportion?

Lets see the facts: he broke the law. Opinion: not a big deal. hmmm which is more solid and provable.... The first.

I feel like I'm talking to a child.

I HATE that I have to explain this to you.
The fact: LIQR used the "IRS thing" multiple times. He double-dipped it. He manufactured more than one thing out of something that was really one mistake.
The opinion that it wasn't a big deal was added onto the fact, to add flavor or color to my argument still based on fact. You really can use both. You can use either-or, but it makes your argument weak to use only opinion. But then again, that is based upon the strength of your ethos. (If your ethos is strong, most tend to take your opinion as fact.)

You should probably move on. Dissecting arguments is obviously not your thing.

[cowboycwr]

I feel like I'm talking to a child.

I HATE that I have to explain this to you.
The fact: LIQR used the "IRS thing" multiple times. He double-dipped it. He manufactured more than one thing out of something that was really one mistake.
The opinion that it wasn't a big deal was added onto the fact, to add flavor or color to my argument still based on fact. You really can use both. You can use either-or, but it makes your argument weak to use only opinion. But then again, that is based upon the strength of your ethos. (If your ethos is strong, most tend to take your opinion as fact.)

You should probably move on. Dissecting arguments is obviously not your thing.

And you come back with another opinion that is not FACT.

Interesting how you changed your response. The IRS thing was not one mistake. It was one mistake which lead to another mistake which lead to another. The fact that you cannot come back with anything other than opinion shows how the rules do not apply to you.

You cannot read or comprehend what people say and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong so yes I am moving on but simply because I am tired of you.

[BrooksBearLives]

And you come back with another opinion that is not FACT.

Interesting how you changed your response. The IRS thing was not one mistake. It was one mistake which lead to another mistake which lead to another. The fact that you cannot come back with anything other than opinion shows how the rules do not apply to you.

You cannot read or comprehend what people say and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong so yes I am moving on but simply because I am tired of you.

translation: "you use big words and stuff and I'm tired of looking them up."

[cowboycwr]

translation: "you use big words and stuff and I'm tired of looking them up."

Nice job of avoiding the subject. But you did come back with an opinion. IN fact your response was even another opinion of why I am through with you.

[Texas Golfer]

I rather enjoy a good debate. I just don't like it when it gets personal.

[LIQRinPU]

The fact: LIQR used the "IRS thing" multiple times. He double-dipped it. He manufactured more than one thing out of something that was really one mistake.


1. In 2006 G. was audited and found to owe 17,000+ on a mistake on his taxes from 2003-2004.
2. He learned of the mistake in 2006, he made his paymeny in 2008. Two years?
3. The Obama's team learned he had made the same mistake for his 2001 taxes but hadnt paid it bacause the statuate of limitations had expired. Once the Obama started courting him for the new job he paid up.
4. He hired an illegal worker to work for him. This is the same thing that Dems used to block Pres. Bush's first choice for labor sec. (Linda Chavez)
5. He tried to claim dependant expenses for his kids summer camp.
6. He filed the taxes late for his household employees in 1996 for years 1993 to 1995.
7. He incorrectly calculated Medicare taxes for his household employees in 1998 and received an IRS notice.
8. He received notices from the Social Security Administration and the IRS after not filing 2003 and 2004 forms for his household employees.

You can lump all this as one IRS problem if you want. To me it seems like several points. He has had continuing problems with his taxes so lets put him over the IRS.