If a tree falls in the woods and John McCain lies about it, will the press report it? Jon Chait finds that the answer is no/
« Magic: Vote for Kareem | Main | Predictions Thread »
Straight Talk
18 Jan 2008 05:30 pm
Comments (15)
Looks like today is "Matt's got a hard-on for McCain" day.
The funny/pathetic part is he actually believes McCain's worst traits are somehow unique among our republicratic Deceptofest08 candidates.
If reporters actually did "fact checking" of statements from just about anybody, they'd never have time to print any stories - and every single person who ever said anything would probably be established as wrong about whatever they said.
I remember the late zoologist and animal collector Ivan Sanderson once analyzing a short newspaper report about some mysterious animal washed up on a beach. He picked out maybe a dozen errors of background fact - not facts about the event - in a couple of paragraphs.
If you went further and actually questioned the LOGIC of what was being said by virtually all of the candidates, you'd find the lot are completely clueless about what they're talking about.
Which is why I find discussions of major issues so irritating - nobody ever gets down to the nitty-gritty of what does a statement really mean in terms of the reality on the ground.
It's all hand-waving.
The ignoring of significant developments is also universal. For instance, for the last couple of weeks or so, it's been reported in one or two places that the US and Pakistan have reached an agreement to deploy a "vastly" (the reports word) expanded number of Special Forces troops in-country, ostensibly for "training" purposes. Yet this obviously important development has been almost totally ignored in the blogosphere, by the candidates, and by the press.
When the first US Special Forces troops go into combat in Pakistan and get killed, however, it will become "news".
The implication is that Bush is extending the "WOT" into Pakistan from Afghanistan and Iraq - possibly in preference to Iran. What does that mean for the next President? Are their hands going to be tied down in Pakistan as they are in Iraq? Why isn't anybody asking?
Well, McCain gets special attention because he's the one selling honesty as his strong point.
But, but, but, ...it's scientifically proven that the media doesn't habitually fluff Mccain".
There, saved you the trouble, Al. You don't have to thank me.
What McCain should have said is that tax increases never yield the promised revenue. We've never balanced a budget in our history through tax increases alone. It always takes an equal measure of spending cuts, which sends a good message to the bond markets, which tends to result in an economic boom and balances the budget.
While supply siders need to get real and understand that tax cuts do not yield increased revenue, liberals need to understand that you can't get as much money from the public as you want simply by asking for it. Tax increases designed to close budget gaps almost never do so.
If Huckaby takes a shit in the woods and it resembles the Pope, will that help or hurt him with the catholic vote?
There is a last minute drive to take McCain down by Rudy supporters appealing to Romney and Thompson folks.
The thinking goes...that if McCain wins SC, the media hoopla and momentum will guarantee a FL win whereby Giuliani and everyone else loses. So, please, vote for Huckabee. It buys us time and we can deal with him later.
Rudy supporters? I don't think Maccamentum is going to be swayed by a dozen votes.
If you disagree with Jon Chait on the interpretation of economic statistics, will he call you a "liar"? The answer is yes.
We've never balanced a budget in our history through tax increases alone. It always takes an equal measure of spending cuts, which sends a good message to the bond markets, which tends to result in an economic boom and balances the budget.
Huh. The last balanced budget was in 1998. In 1993 Clinton raised taxes, but federal spending went up every year from 1992 to 1998. So I'd call that a budget that was balanced through tax increases alone. (The Heritage Foundation agrees that Clinton's deficit reduction package was almost entirely reliant on tax increases rather than spending cuts.)
If you have an analysis about how there was an equal measure of spending cuts involved, I'd like to see it. It has to be equal, though; no offsetting a $37b tax increase against a $5b cut somewhere in the budget.
Vote for huck? Guy wants to change the constitution to be more tlike the bible. Uh, separation of state and religion was very important to our fore fathers. Hopefully the bear will eat Huck while he is in the woods squeezing one out. GW's steerage directly into the iceberg, in my opinion, kills any chance a Republican gets back in the whitehouse. Due to the utter love our politicians have with the seven deadly sins will send this country to the brink of destruction.
Check out Factcheck.org for how much these losers blatantly lie and embelish their positions. truly sad.
Matt W. nails it.
If the financial system collapses before their eyes will the media notice it? The silly schoolgirl crushes and mean girl hazing of the various candidates are irrelevant because the world as we know it is ending.
I'm thinking about the time Russert's hedge funds close their doors and take all his money with them or if he is luckier, freeze his ability to withdraw the 50% left will it be noticed.
The biggest story in the lifetime of most is now unfolding. The NY Times leads with a story about the debate over the quickest cure. There is no quick cure. Certainly there isn't painless cure. A $135 billion dollar plan to rescue trillions of dollars in fictitious capital isn't going to do it. The plan and the story are a joke. (Like Octobers Paulson lead Super SIV bailout 'plan'. A plan which got much press although the plan had no chance of success and even zero chance of launch. That plan quietly died after the new year. Did you hear about it? No, of course not) A couple of orders of magnitude further removed from reality than the victory in Iraq stories have been.
-----------------------------
"The Wall Street firms and many of the more sophisticated hedge funds run very complex “books” of securities and derivatives. The dilemma they face today is commensurate with the complexity of their strategies. Recent developments – in particular heightened marketplace illiquidity, rising probabilities of “monoline” defaults, dislocation in the CDS markets, and a breakdown in typical correlations between instruments/sectors/markets – makes the job of effectively comprehending, quantifying, analyzing and managing risk impossible. Do the managers, then, attempt the highly problematic task of recalibrating hedges based on current conditions (i.e. spiking hedging costs, likely counterparty defaults, and recent market correlations) and risk compounding the problem if market conditions begin to normalize? Is it feasible for these players to recalibrate hedges, knowing full well that our well-intentioned policymakers are destined to intervene clumsily in the marketplace?
It is difficult for me to believe the leveraged speculating community is not in serious jeopardy. It became all too commonplace to leverage illiquid (and difficult to price) securities, while even the previously liquid markets today barely trade. Few speculative Bubbles in history were as vulnerable to a “run.” None were remotely as gigantic or global in scope. This “community” today creates a systemic weak link on several fronts, certainly including the vulnerability to outsized losses and resulting redemptions instigating panic dynamics. Today, market illiquidity increases the likelihood that many funds will be forced to halt redemptions. This dynamic has commenced and it holds the potential to batter industry trust and confidence.
The leveraged speculators create various systemic risks. Their desire to hedge risk exposures – as well as seek speculative profits – during market turbulence has certainly exacerbated the Credit Crisis. During the cycle’s upside, their affinity for leveraging securities greatly amplified the liquidity bull run. Today, their selling/deleveraging/hedging foments liquidity crisis, fear and market dislocation. Importantly, the speculators are today keen to short stocks, sell futures, and purchase equity put options. The “hedge funds” have, after all, sold themselves as capable of minting money in any kind of market environment. This could prove a major systemic risk.
Leveraged speculator dynamics in concert with a Bursting Credit Bubble now places enormous stains on the stock market. Not only have faltering Credit Availability and Credit Marketplace Liquidity dramatically diminished the prospects for companies, industries and the general economy. Limited liquidity in the Credit market has also created a backdrop where those seeking to hedge (or profit from) heightened systemic risks have few places to go for relatively liquid trading outside selling stocks and equity index products. And sinking stock prices further aggravates the unfolding Corporate Credit Crisis, fostering only greater systemic stress and greater selling pressure. “Contemporary finance” is being exposed as a daisy-chain of interrelated weak underlying structures, unrecognized risks and acute fragilities."
http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/CreditBubbleBulletinHome
"If the financial system collapses before their eyes will the media notice it? The silly schoolgirl crushes and mean girl hazing of the various candidates are irrelevant because the world as we know it is ending."
Great post. The financial crisis bearing down on this country makes all the "right vs. left" prattle totally irrelevant. Soon, we'll look back and wonder WTF were we thinking.
Comments closed February 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Wouldn't be much of a story, I guess.
EXTRA: MCCAIN SPINS ARBOREAL YARN
. . . wouldn't sell too many papers.
Posted by southpaw | January 18, 2008 6:42 PM