Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Happy indictment week to all who celebrate!

American History and Black History Cannot Be Separated

Let’s finish the job.

They were going to turn on one another at some point. It was inevitable.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

“And when the Committee says to “report your income,” that could mean anything!

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

You are here: Home / Along Similar Lines, If I Take A Dump And Call It Prosciutto, I Have A Tasty Sandwich

Reader Interactions

101Comments

  3. 3.

    El Cid

    I’m getting the feeling that Geithner et al are rather surprised and frustrated by the mere notion that they have to actually explain and publicly justify their plans. They don’t understand why their will just isn’t being done, and all in confidence, like Federal Reserve chairs are often accustomed to.

    They’re supposed to just work behind the scenes, doing whatever they want, secure in the knowledge that they are among the elect few qualified to tinker with the hidden yet grand machinery which runs the real world we peons experience and live in, and the clockmakers can no more explain their art than could we comprehend it.

  4. 4.

    schrodinger's cat

    I don’t think there is any easy fix to the current financial mess, Obama has been in office for a little more than two months. I would give him and his team including Geithner some more time before passing judgment.

  5. 5.

    Shawn in ShowMe

    I think it’s brilliant. Every time he makes this reference , its links this garbage right back to where it came from — the Bush legacy. I wouldn’t be surprised if this rebranding strategy came out of a White House pow-wow.

  8. 8.

    Shygetz

    Bullprosciutto, Tim. You don’t just rebrand crap, you rebrand anything that has a bad image. "Toxic assets" is a terrible image, so regardless of what plan the government used to take control of them, they would want to rebrand their new assets to make them more palatable to both the voters and prospective private buyers. It might seem Bush-league to you, but remember, Bush got re-elected. The Republicans have long been good at branding–why are you bitching now that the Dems are trying to learn the trade?

  10. 10.

    Zifnab

    Hey, the first step to a good marketing overhaul is re-branding. I mean, I don’t know what you want. It’s silly, but its hardly Bush-league. At least Geithner isn’t running around on national TV telling everyone who will listen that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" and peddling the pre-valued financial risk alteration vehicles to little old ladies and the disabled.

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    I would give him and his team including Geithner some more time before passing judgment.

    We'll pass judgement whenever we damn well please. March 20th, 2003 the nation set aside its petty concerns over what Hans Blix said about WMDs and whether the Patriot Act was in any way grossly unconstitutional. We needed to just give Bush and his team a little more time before passing judgment on their efforts to wage a War on Terror effectively. :-p That worked out well.

    If Geithner's plan is a disaster, let's hear people warning about it today, least we get another round of "no one could have predicted..." bullshit a year from now.

  11. 11.

    Winston Smith

    Legacy can mean something you inherited or it can mean something passed down to future generations. In this case, both meanings are true, so the word applies, technically.

    Speaking of "technical," in the software development biz, when we say, "legacy code" we usually mean "incredible mess created by idiots who shouldn’t have been allowed out of the house unmedicated" so I interchanging "toxic" and "legacy" seems perfectly natural to me.

  12. 12.

    vishnu schizt

    Well "legacy" does have a certain catchiness to it. Kinda like herpes has catchiness as a "legacy" of a night of whoopie. Both have the same life span, individually of course. I’ll end the allegory there as we can go on about casinos and bookmaking and long nights of blow, hookers and cash machines, but everyone gets the point. Reagan said deficits don’t matter, so did Dick Cheney. So why would this matter? It’s just debt, right? Shit man, haven’t we pissed this much into a hole in the deserts of Iraq? I’m fully convinced this is the largest ol’ fashioned stick up job in history. OTOH: Why is everyone so pissed off about the bonuses? I mean this little piece of precision fuck up cost 10 times that much:


    Industrial Military Complex my ass

  14. 14.

    Comrade Stuck

    I kind of like "wilted flowers". I mean, if your going to crawl up Karl Roves ass, a little perfume might be advised.

  15. 15.

    passerby

    If I Take A Dump And Call It Prosciutto, I Have A Tasty Sandwich

    That’s just gross. Yuck.

  16. 16.

    schrodinger's cat

    @Zifnab

    I was expressing my opinion. If you want to set your outrage meter to maximum and say that Bush and Obama are equivalent, please be my guest.

  17. 17.

    sparky

    i have a stupid question–because either i am missing something really obvious OR everyone else is–

    let’s assume all goes as planned and the 1% end up owning 75% of the assets of the US, as opposed to the 65-70% they own today. ok, fine, and the banks are "sound". who, exactly, are they going to be lending to? on what basis? consumers drive the economy and they have no borrowing basis for the foreseeable future.

    none of this makes any sense at all because they are solving the wrong problem.

  18. 18.

    Comrade Dread

    Treasury Department Confidential Memo:

    Please note: Toxic assets are now to be referred to as "not-not-not valuable holdings" which can be sold at a much higher price.

    If the public gets catches on that this is another transfer of a trillion dollars, please add two more "Nots" to this term to buy time until the escrow on our house in Zurich completes.

  19. 19.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    Uh, if we are going to ask institutions with capital to buy assets, isn’t it reasonable to label them with some handle that sounds like they might be worth something?

    Would you have approved more if he had suggested calling them Worthless Shitpiles?

    What exactly is the point of this top post other than just checking off a cheap blogshot by making an inapt Bush comparison?

    Did you guys have a meeting last week and decide that your audience is all just a bunch of hayseeds and you might as well abandon all pretense of saying anything useful?

  20. 20.

    JM

    Toxic now, yes, but according to DeLong:

    The Geithner Plan is a trillion-dollar operation by which the U.S. acts as the world’s largest hedge fund investor, committing its money to funds to buy up risky and distressed but probably fundamentally undervalued assets and, as patient capital, holding them either until maturity or until markets recover so that risk discounts are normal and it can sell them off–in either case at an immense profit.

  22. 22.

    Napoleon

    @SGEW:

    Mmmmm. Prosciutto.

    Legacy prosciutto sandwiches for everyone!

    I am more in the mood for mortadella, myself

  23. 23.

    Comrade Stuck

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Would you have approved more if he had suggested calling them Worthless Shitpiles?

    I knew yesterday wouldn’t last. My guess is that most of us have had it up to here with Orwellian horseshit. I know I have.

  24. 24.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    My guess is that most of us have had it up to here with Orwellian horseshit.

    I’d wager that most of us are tired of the adolescent hyperbole, pitchfork waving, and dumbass comments.

    There’s nothing Orwellian about this. It’s fucking common sense.

  25. 25.

    Comrade Stuck

    There’s nothing Orwellian about this. It’s fucking common sense.

    Yea right. "Legacy Loans" brought down the US Economy and caused all the attendant hoopla we are going thru. Just like Bush’s plan to increase air pollution was dubbed the common sense "Clear Skies Initiative".

    They are toxic in my book, and calling them something more palatable for political expediency is a disservice to the truth.
    But feel free to call em what you want.

  26. 26.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    They are toxic in my book, and calling them something more palatable for political expediency is a disservice to the truth.
    But feel free to call em what you want.

    Oh by all means, advancing a critical stopgap program to prevent a disaster should rest on labeling things in a way that satisfies your rage-fu.

    Absolutely, that is the most important consideration here. What was I thinking? Duh. Stupid me.

    Like I said yesterday, government by pitchfork is just stupid, no matter which side you are on.

    But hey, that handle feels good in your hand, doesn’t it?

  27. 27.

    Hyperion

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    I’d wager that most of us are tired of the adolescent hyperbole, pitchfork waving, and dumbass comments.

    Have you considered a CDS to hedge that wager?
    The comments are running heavily against your POV.

    But like you I remember when the intertubes were full of reasoned discourse and informed comment. ;=)

  29. 29.

    kay

    Shocking, I know, but IMO Tapper isn’t being fair.

    1. Headline of op-ed in WSJ: "My Plan for Bad Bank Assets"

    2. "Market prices for many assets held by financial institutions — so-called legacy assets — are either uncertain or depressed. With these pressures at work on bank balance sheets, credit remains a scarce commodity, and credit that is available carries a high cost for borrowers."

    "Bad Bank Assets" is crystal clear, and Geithner himself call them "so-called legacy assets".

  30. 30.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    The comments are running heavily against your POV.

    Gosh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that BJ comments represented your entire universe.

    My "us" is a little broader than yours. Not content to think that a couple dozen misanthropes with computers are the entire world, I actually get out there and visit real senior centers with a wider variety of inmates.

  31. 31.

    kay

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Geithner calls them "Bad Bank assets" and "so-called legacy assets".

    I just don’t think this is "re-branding". If it is, they suck at it.

    This is pulling out a paragraph, and attributing motive, again.

  32. 32.

    Comrade Stuck

    Like I said yesterday, government by pitchfork is just stupid, no matter which side you are on.
    But hey, that handle feels good in your hand, doesn’t it?

    Build your strawman somewhere else, I’m not interested. I supported Obama thru most everything that’s come up and I still do. But I will not become a reflexive toady on everything he proposes. Geithner is a wingnut, I am now convinced, and he will sell the farm if Obama doesn’t reign him in. I am for doing what is necessary to fix this crisis, but not for coddling the asshats who have caused it. That is, at least in part, what it seems Geithner is doing, and giving the public the false impression that what happened is anything less than an amoral attempt by some to get rich is not a good idea. And toxic is exactly the right word to call it.

  33. 33.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    @sparky:

    How is not following essentially this plan going to prevent a disaster? In other words, what is the preferable plan, and who says so?

    Nationalization? "Let-em-fail?" Tax Cuts Here, Tax Cuts Now? Faith Based Initiatives?

    I think you have 180 days to prevent widespread small business failure due to lack of credit flow. Or less.

    What do you suggest?

  34. 34.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    Build your strawman somewhere else, I’m not interested.

    Dude, you are running a pitchfork brigade. That’s not a strawman, it’s calling a pitchfork a pitchfork.

    I don’t care how you got to the stupid place. It’s still stupid.

    Own it.

  35. 35.

    Comrade Dread

    There’s nothing Orwellian about this. It’s fucking common sense.

    If you’re trying to rebrand something to appeal to buyers, yes.

    However, if truth in advertising laws applied, the preferred term would be ‘taxpayer backed gamble’.

  36. 36.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    giving the public the false impression that what happened is anything less than an amoral attempt by some to get rich is not a good idea.

    Yeah, there you go again. As if putting out a fire is about sending a message about safety with matches.

    Putting out a fire is about hooking up a hose and pouring all the water you have on the fucking fire, man.

    You can preach about playing with matches later.

  37. 37.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    If you’re trying to rebrand something to appeal to buyers, yes.

    Call me batshit poke-out-my-eyes-with-a-pen, run naked through the Safeway store, taser my ass crazy …. but that is exactly what he is doing. It would be stupid not to do so.

    But, the BJ crowd apparently thinks that asking institutions to rush to buy something called Giant Turds is a better idea because, you know, it’s all about truth in advertising.

  38. 38.

    Comrade Stuck

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    What is stupid, is blindly backing every single idea that the Obama administration comes up with. He is not perfect and makes mistakes. Not many, but some. And if your a supporter, the smart thing is to speak up and let him know.

    And BTW, If you know anything at all about the dude, you would know that he would fully agree.

  39. 39.

    Comrade Dread

    You can preach about playing with matches later.

    Except once the fire is out, I doubt there will be the necessary level of public rage and motivation necessary to force changes through Congress and the Executive.

    More likely than not, our leaders will be pushing hard to move on and forget the past and we’ll just go right back to business as usual and government in bed with Wall St.

  40. 40.

    Comrade Dread

    But, the BJ crowd apparently thinks that asking institutions to rush to buy something called Giant Turds is a better idea because, you know, it’s all about truth in advertising.

    Or perhaps we simply object to the fact that rebranding something doesn’t change its nature and, in all likelihood, the US government (and therefore, you and I) will get raped again for at least some of that trillion dollars, while a few hedge fund managers make out like gangbusters.

    I understand the justifications for it, but it doesn’t make me like it, and it doesn’t make me agree with the plan.

  41. 41.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    but it doesn’t make me like it, and it doesn’t make me agree with the plan.

    Mr. Geithner called and said that your objection is noted.

    And, thanks for the support.

    ( rolls eyes )

  43. 43.

    Comrade Stuck

    Putting out a fire is about hooking up a hose and pouring all the water you have on the fucking fire, man.

    but you would not call it a fire. You would call it legacy smoke and hand the arsonist a bucket of money to put it out, instead of water.

    I’ve changed my mind on the whole matter. I am fully adopting the Gonzo plan.

    https://balloon-juice.com/?p=18966#comment-1184055

    https://balloon-juice.com/?p=18966#comment-1184080

    There is a clearly viable alternative that has been put forward by all economists, including Krugman: put the insolvent banks into receivership, fire the management, insure the small depositors, and sell off the pieces to new investors.

    Economically, this is the only sane choice. Politically, how is shoveling even more taxpayer guarantees to the idiots who got us into this mess more politically viable than the receivership option?

    There is more than one way to skin a banker.

  44. 44.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    Except once the fire is out, I doubt there will be the necessary level of public rage and motivation necessary to force changes through Congress and the Executive.

    You know, that’s arguable. But me, when I am in front of a raging fire with my firetruck and my hose and everything … I am reaching for the fireplug and hooking up and getting water on the thing pronto and asking questions later.

    That’s my platform as I ask for your vote on the council, to make me Fire Chief.

    My opponent says that he wants Putting Out Fires With Honor, a more faith-friendly approach to fire extinguishing, where the values of the property owner are considered before deciding how much water to employ on the call.

    There ya go. It’s me, or him.

    Oh, and if you vote for me, I will take your kids for a ride on the firetruck.

  45. 45.

    Comrade Dread

    Mr. Geithner called and said that your objection is noted.

    And, thanks for the support.

    ( rolls eyes )

    Sweet f***ing Buddha, are you laboring under the assumption that I (an anonymous poster on the Internet) am not cynical enough to realize that no one in Washington DC (or really anyone outside of my family and friend circle) really gives a shit about what I have to say?

    Do you really think that I labor quietly posting my opinion on a daily topic under some gross delusion that President Obama happens to read BJ and happens to think my thoughts are brilliant and worthy of following?

    Maybe if I had a few million to dump into someone’s campaign war chest, or if I knew some of the right people, but come on… really?

    Far as I knew, we’re all just venting our own ideas about random shit here because this is one of the few places where we have that opportunity.

  46. 46.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    What is stupid, is blindly backing every single idea that the Obama administration comes up with.

    Excuse me? Suggesting that you support the plan for putting out a fire is blind support for every idea they come up with?

    Fuck you. At least try to make a rational argument. If you are going to play that, I am going to play it back, and I am better at it than you are.

    You are talking about a situation in which millions of jobs hang in the balance in the next few months, and you want to bitch about what we call a piece of paper in a financial portfolio that everybody in the banking business already fully and completely understands anyway? Because your pitchfork-sensibilities are offended?

    That’s the best you can do today?

  47. 47.

    Comrade Stuck

    I am fully adopting the Gonzo plan.

    though maybe we should change the name to "The Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Plan

  48. 48.

    kay

    @guest:

    It’s further proof of Geithner’s evil intent. As if any was needed!

    So-called Tim Geithner. Our common enemy.

  49. 49.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    @Comrade Dread:

    Far as I knew, we’re all just venting our own ideas

    Indeed. So what is so scary about me saying that your idea is crap?

    I’m just another obscure poster on an obscure blog.

    I’m afraid I don’t get your point, unless it’s "how dare you argue with me so much?"

    Actually, my argument is a little broader than yours, although we have gotten snagged on your hurt feelings. My argument is that this blog has turned into a Stupid show, run by a guy whose bottom line is "I don’t understand all this, but damn, we are so fucked!"

    Great. Good for him. I have a different idea. I try to understand it as best I can, I don’t think we are fucked if we do something, and I don’t think the world revolves around the tiny collection of favorite blogs I read and tell everybody I read every fucking day to show how seriously I take the blog world.

  50. 50.

    Comrade Stuck

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Suggesting that you support the plan for putting out a fire is blind support for every idea they come up with?

    Are you so arrogant to think you and only you know best how to put the fire out. Bullshit, arrogant fuck. And your first order of business is to start a stink war that it shouldn’t be called a fire at all. We discuss options here, not the best ways to fluff anyone, including a president we all support and admire and will continue to, in spite of constructive debate other options.

    You should quit while your behind.

  51. 51.

    Comrade Dread

    You know, that’s arguable. But me, when I am in front of a raging fire with my firetruck and my hose and everything … I am reaching for the fireplug and hooking up and getting water on the thing pronto and asking questions later.

    That borders on an either-or fallacy.

    Yes, I do want a fire company putting out the flames. I also would like an investigator to determine the cause of the fire, a city council who gives a shit to pass more ordinances to strengthen the fire code, and a fire inspector with the power and the will to fine and punish violators.

    There’s absolutely no reason why some under deputy in Treasury (or the SEC) can’t be pouring over the collapse data now and proposing new regs for Congress’ consideration that would address the abuses.

  52. 52.

    Comrade Stuck

    Far as I knew, we’re all just venting our own ideas

    comrade Dread

    You sure don’t need to explain or justify yourself to TZ. Just tell him to kiss your ass and move on. Only way to be sure.

    He will spittle an blather about how long he’s been here and how he’s so much better than you. Then sputter out and lick his wounds.

  54. 54.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    Are you so arrogant to think you and only you know best how to put the fire out.

    Again, fuck you. I am only arrogant enough to suggest that complaining about the wording of a press release in the manner suggested by this thread is stupid.

    That is my claim, and I am sticking to it. What you are doing at this point, I have no idea.

    The wording of the statement is sensible and useful. If this is really the biggest thing you have on your mind today, then I would say that you are a fucking idiot.

    As for putting a fire out, yeah, I think I know how to do that. You turn on the water, you don’t stand around arguing about what to call the hose attachments.

    If you don’t get that, then you deserve all the scorn and ridicule I can and will pile on your head.

  55. 55.

    Comrade Dread

    Indeed. So what is so scary about me saying that your idea is crap?

    Absolutely nothing. Except that you didn’t really say that in the addressed post. You just dismissed it outright by pointing out the rather obvious fact that no one gives a shit. :)

    Hence the sarcasm.

    If you can accept the justifications from the administration that this is a better option than all of the other proposals put out by economists, then more power to you.

    I disagree and before I see one more penny go to helping out these institutions want some form of regulations going through Congress to correct the fundamental issues in the system.

  56. 56.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    Yes, I do want a fire company putting out the flames. I also would like an investigator to determine the cause of the fire, a city council who gives a shit to pass more ordinances to strengthen the fire code, and a fire inspector with the power and the will to fine and punish violators.

    While I agree with your overview, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

    The topic at hand is that idiots are standing here bitching about what labels we put on the gadgets on the fire truck, and then suggesting that it’s just awful to suggest that they are idiots, and ask them to get out of the way while we put out the fire.

    It’s BJ 101. Make a stupid remark, and then spend the rest of the day calling any refutation of it "spittle" and declaring yourself the winner of the argument.

    Tim made a bone stupid post, I called it, and here we are.

    The three guys running this blog have descended into figuring out what their choir likes and preaching to it every day. It’s a good act, it made Rush Limbaugh rich.

  57. 57.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    If you can accept the justifications from the administration that this is a better option than all of the other proposals put out by economists, then more power to you.

    Nice try. But the thread is about a whinge over the wording of what amounts to a press release, and calling it like "Bush."

    It’s not about the technical arcana of every possible solution to the current crisis.

    The whinge is a cheap shot, it’s dumb, it’s inapt, it serves no purpose, and it flies in the face of common sense. That is my position here.

    I believe that position was spot on when I first said it, and I still think it is spot on.

    If you want a fire chief who picks labels for his equipment because they are pleasing to the the Baby Jesus, vote for my opponent. If you want a fire chief who will get the truck to your house and put out the fire as fast and best as he can and ask questions later, vote for me.

  58. 58.

    Comrade Stuck

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    If you don’t get that, then you deserve all the scorn and ridicule I can and will pile on your head.

    LOL. eeww that’s so scary. Like I said, your idea is to not ask any questions and do what yer told. First by Bush when TARP came out, and again now. How did that TARP thingy turn out that you claimed would stop the bleeding?

    I respect your opinion on most things, but when it comes to economic matters, your more full of shit than I am. But at least I know it, and am willing to consider alternatives. All you seem to want to do is hand more money to thieves and hope they will do the right thing this time. You know "big boys and girls who have a tough job".

  59. 59.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    Hence the sarcasm.

    Sarcasm has no place in a situation where the labels we put on failed financial assets are at stake, sir!

    I mean, what could be more important than those labels?

    People might cry if we choose the wrong ones.

    Real tears, even.

    Wet, salty tears of hurt and shame.

  60. 60.

    DougJ

    I think this is kind of bullshit. Everyone promotes their plans in ways like this and a lot of people believe that these things are undervalued.

    Put me in the “not ready to hang Geithner camp” yet.

  61. 61.

    Comrade Dread

    While I agree with your overview, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

    As said before:

    perhaps we simply object to the fact that rebranding something doesn’t change its nature and, in all likelihood, the US government (and therefore, you and I) will get raped again for at least some of that trillion dollars, while a few hedge fund managers make out like gangbusters.

    That is, it appears to be a rather cynical effort to take something which is worthless, pretty it up, and then try to justify the transfer of another trillion dollars of taxpayer money to the investment banking industry to us American serfs.

  62. 62.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    but when it comes to economic matters

    Nice try, but this isn’t about our relative grasp of economic matters.

    It’s about the words used in a press release (or whatever that statement is being called, I had to switch machines and I lost the link to the document).

    The words are sensible and useful. That’s all there is to it.

    Our bloghosts, apparently having no stomach for saying anything useful today, decided to grab a phrase out of there and turn it into The Return of Bush and Orwellian Hell.

    I ain’t buyin it.

  63. 63.

    Comrade Stuck

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Sarcasm has no place in a situation where the labels we put on failed financial assets are at stake, sir!

    Okay. You call it "legacy loans" and we’ll call it what it is a "toxic clusterfuck". I’m sure the public will discern wisely.

    Oh, and fuck you too.

  64. 64.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    That is, it appears to be a rather cynical effort to take something which is worthless, pretty it up, and then try to justify the transfer of another trillion dollars of taxpayer money to the investment banking industry to us American serfs.

    It’s not the assets which the taxpayer should care about in terms of the value of the purchase. It’s the effect of buying them up. Right? Buying them up and defusing their toxic potential.

    To address the challenge of legacy assets, Treasury – in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve – is announcing the Public-Private Investment Program as part of its efforts to repair balance sheets throughout our financial system and ensure that credit is available to the households and businesses, large and small, that will help drive us toward recovery.

    To repair balance sheets. Not to give the taxpayers a swell investment at bargain rates.

    There’s no deception here. It’s simple and straightforward. That does not say anything about whether we agree or don’t agree with the strategy. This thread isn’t about that, and my argument is not about that.

  65. 65.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    Okay. You call it "legacy loans" and we’ll call it what it is a "toxic clusterfuck".

    You must be very proud of yourself, mister Shiny New Republican. Palin 2012! To the gates!

    Oh, and fuck you too.

    Now you’re negotiating!

  66. 66.

    Comrade Stuck

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    You must be very proud of yourself, mister Shiny New Republican. Palin 2012! To the gates!

    Not quite. Your the one embracing Mayberry Machiavellism, or as DougJ puts it. "promotes their plans"

    "legacy loans" ROTFLMAO

  67. 67.

    Comrade Dread

    To address the challenge of legacy assets, Treasury – in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve – is announcing the Public-Private Investment Program as part of its efforts to repair balance sheets

    Right. So how is this different from what I’ve said:

    We have something we’re calling a public-private ‘investment’ program which will take taxpayer dollars and hand it over to banks in exchange for assets of dubious value.

    It’s another bailout with a bit of smoke and mirrors and the relabeling of toxic assets to legacy assets just seems rather cynical to me, as a way of trying to obscure this bailout of investment banks to the average taxpayer, and present it to him as less another goddamned handout and more of a ‘long term investment’.

  68. 68.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    "legacy loans" ROTFLMAO

    There you have it, my friends. My opponent laughs while your house burns down.

    Vote for me, the best choice for Fire Chief.

    I’ll douse your flames, and then you can all sit around with my opponent and tell jokes.

    Put The Fireman Hat on My Cat! Vote Cat!

  69. 69.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    @Comrade Dread:

    Sure, but as I threw in earlier … what’s the alternative?

    On my scorecard, I got

    1. nationalization
    2. do nothing
    3. tax cuts

    Not lookin good here.

  70. 70.

    Comrade Stuck

    There you have it, my friends. My opponent laughs while your house burns down.

    More strawmen, you must be exhausted with all the building.

    Laughing cause we’re calling it "legacy smoke" instead of a house fire. Don’t you read my brilliant snark names?

  71. 71.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    Mayberry Machiavellism

    Sheriff Andy would know what to do, put out the fire.

    Meanwhile Barney is over in the corner complaining that we gave the fire truck the wrong nickname.

  73. 73.

    Comrade Dread

    I’ll take nationalization, a structured bankruptcy, and selling off the remnants of these mega-banks to investors for 1,000, Alex.

    Couple this with a new federal agency/bank/or subsidy to encourage private banks to make short-term stop gap loans to small businesses,

    Repealing much of the banking de-regulation steps which happened over the last twenty years,

    Heavier regulation of the loan industry,

    Limiting the future size of banking institutions through laws or through encouragement of smaller local banks,

    And a restructuring of the way ratings agencies work (possibly throwing on strict oversight provisions).

  74. 74.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    @Comrade Dread:

    How long does that take, and how soon does credit flow to the entities that are credit starved?

    But that’s just an academic argument at this point. And I am not qualified to analyze that right now anyway.

    Fact is, Geithner is driving your fire truck. So until this fire is either out, or burns the town down, my response is to get behind him.

  75. 75.

    Comrade Stuck

    Sheriff Andy would know what to do, put out the fire.

    Barney says not to worry, it’s just legacy smoke so the fire department doesn’t show up. Meanwhile the house burns down.

  76. 76.

    El Cid

    My guess is that any of the private investors into these publicly backed items don’t really give a crap what they’re called.

    The name is for the public, i.e., us. Investors won’t care.

  78. 78.

    Comrade Dread

    Fact is, Geithner is driving your fire truck. So until this fire is either out, or burns the town down, my response is to get behind him.

    Yeah, no thanks.

    I didn’t escape the Republican collective just to go and join a Democratic hive.

  79. 79.

    Shawn ins ShowMe

    Cat = Gore
    Stuck = Nader

    The purity gnome in me sympathizes with Stuck but ultimately purity is a losing strategy that just allows the house to burn to the ground.

  81. 81.

    Comrade Stuck

    @Shawn ins ShowMe:

    The purity gnome in me sympathizes with Stuck but ultimately purity is a losing strategy that just allows the house to burn to the ground.

    And how does calling something what it is some kind of purity letting the house burn down? I basically support doing whatever is necessary to fix the economy. Calling it Legacy loans is only a means to dupe the public. That is all it is, and doesn’t change one bit of the action that will occur. You and TZ ought to start a business making strawdudes. You could make a fortune.

    This is my final word on the topic save responding to insults.

    And I didn’t author this post thread, nor the majority of commenters that feel the same as I do.

  82. 82.

    Shawn ins ShowMe

    And how does calling something what it is some kind of purity letting the house burn down?

    Nader told us in 2000 that there was essentially no difference between the two parties. And he was right, when it came to perpetuating American corporate hegemony. But the difference that did exist is the difference between a sane Administration and a bat-shit crazy one. And the country burned to the ground.

    You tell us that calling these assets anything but what the MSM coined them, "toxic assets", is a means to dupe the public. So now we’re letting the MSM determine what language Obama’s Treasurer Secretary must use? We’re going to allow them to associate Geithner and the word "toxic"? And continue to feed into their narrative that Obama’s Treasury Secretary is a failure before he’s even gotten a chance to address the problem?

    If word games allow the most criticized man in America some breathing room to fix this clusterfuck, I mean economic malaise, then so be it.

  83. 83.

    Comrade Stuck

    We’re going to allow them to associate Geithner and the word "toxic"?

    Oh please, what bullshit. And who knows who coined the term "toxic assets". It could have well been a federal prosecutor, or more likely, someone on Wallstreet.

    But the difference that did exist is the difference between a sane Administration and a bat-shit crazy one

    So now your going to use the same misleading manipulative playbook the "Batshit Insane" administration used for 8 years. Why not call them Victory Assets, Assets on the March, or my fav "Freedom Loans"

    Thanks, but no thanks. The public is tuned in to this shit and efforts to wingnuttize the debate will only blow back on the Obama Administration, and I suspect Obama knows this and will have Timmy drop this stupid idea pronto.

  84. 84.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    I didn’t escape the Republican collective just to go and join a Democratic hive.

    Brilliant, really, if you think this is all about you.

    It’s really about a huge swath of small businesses that are on the verge of going out of business unless we get credit flowing. So while you are making gang signs and representing, others are trying to throw enough water and dirt on the flames to get us through.

    Thanks for the help. Really. It’s greatly appreciated.

    ( shakes head )

  86. 86.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    The public is tuned in to this shit

    The public will be tuned in to the unemployment rate before the year is out.

    That’s the only thing that matters here. The only thing.

    Everything else is just theater. We either peak and plateau that rate and start it down sooner rather than later, or we don’t.

    If we don’t, nobody will care what they called these assets. They will be scared to death.

    If we do, nobody will care what they called these assets. They will be breathing a sigh of relief.

  87. 87.

    sparky

    @TheHatOnMyCat: How is not following essentially this plan going to prevent a disaster? In other words, what is the preferable plan, and who says so?
    Nationalization? "Let-em-fail?" Tax Cuts Here, Tax Cuts Now? Faith Based Initiatives?
    I think you have 180 days to prevent widespread small business failure due to lack of credit flow. Or less.
    What do you suggest?

    a. i disagree with your premise that the banks need cash to funnel into the economy. evidence? TARP money has been spent by banks to buy other banks and like AIG pay off CDS. loans aren’t being made because banks don’t want to make them. giving them more money isn’t going to change that. also there are PLENTY of banks that are not in trouble and doing just fine. we are talking about handing cash over to a certain set of money center banks that screwed up; there’s a non-trivial distinction here.

    b. nothing wrong with nationalization. US govt does it all the time–see FDIC, S&L crisis. resistance to it is just a boogeyman–unless of course you happen to hold shares of C. do you?

    c. there is NO WAY the UST plan is anything other than a way to shore up existing bad decisions and hope for the best. in other words, the same people who gambled and lost now get to gamble again–with the EXACT SAME ASSETS but with NO risk. what is to prevent them from creating even more CDS ON THESE NEW OLD ASSETS that will benefit them no matter what? answer: nothing.

    whistling in the dark can, sometimes, work.

    but this isn’t even whistling in the dark. this is doing the same thing all over again and hoping that it turns out differently this time.

  89. 89.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    @sparky:

    Your entire item "a" seems to say that since we shot some money into the thing and the problem didn’t go away, then spending more money won’t help either.

    TARP was just a sandbag operation.

    The fact sheet linked in the top post describes the administration’s current position on the question you suggest.

    The entire document is an explanation of their view of the problem set, and what is needed.

    If this approach does not unplug the credit pipes, then we are screwed. If it does, then we are a lot less screwed. Whether it will or not … that’s material for a good round of bets in Las Vegas, I’d say. I’m an optimist, and betting that it will. I’m also a pragmatist, knowing that the scheme is the only one we are going to get, so we might as well hope it works.

    This thread is about whether it’s useful to troll the blog and get the pitchforks waving over the "legacy assets" moniker.

    I say no, some agree with me, others say yes. Take yer choice.

    And remember, a vote for Cat for Fire Chief is a vote for a whole lotta water on your fire. If you like water, vote Cat.

  91. 91.

    TenguPhule

    If this approach does not unplug the credit pipes, then we are screwed.

    I think that’s what people are worried about.

    That they’ll throw the money, and it won’t work.

  92. 92.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    @TenguPhule:

    Lyndon Johnson used to say that everybody is worried all the time. Men worry about heart attacks and women worry about cancer of the tit. His exact words IIRC so don’t shoot the messenger.

    So there you go.

    He had me pegged, I already had one heart attack, so hell yeah, I worry.

    So the worry is reasonable. But I say again, what is the alternative? I still got

    1. nationalization
    2. do nothing
    3. tax cuts!
    4. help me Baby Jesus

  93. 93.

    TenguPhule

    1. nationalization
    2. do nothing
    3. tax cuts!
    4. help me Baby Jesus

    5. Media Pundits gets sent to a mandatory work camp and learn the value of hard work building bridges. At least this way we don’t have to hear ignorant shit about it all the time.

    6. Just shoot the current and former bank executives and explain to the guys underneath what you want done. Repeat as needed.

  94. 94.

    sparky

    look, as i said before, this is a solution to the wrong problem. and you still haven’t answered my question–who, exactly, in this consumer economy, is going to borrow money at this point? nobody, that’s who.
    this plan is just disguised asset reinflation. my point is that it can’t work. oh, and incidentally, the premise behind TARP was the same as this one–unfreeze liquidity. didn’t work so well, did it? so i am having a hard time understanding why doing the same thing except with the extra bonus of letting vulture investors pick over the bones of SIVs that they already made money on WITH NO RISK is somehow a better thing.

    my point is really pretty simple: we can’t inflate our way out of this mess by simply playing a shell game with bad bets, which, at the end of the day is the Geithner plan.
    i see no reason to be optimistic about a plan like that. wishful thinking (eg that housing prices would never fall) is part of the reason we find ourselves in this mess. optimism is for progress, not cleanups.

    as for the thread point, i think it’s fair to vent a little frustration in a blog post after 8+ years of being treated to cynics thinking if they change the name the public thinks the essence of the program is somehow different. i don’t think it means anything one way or the other–because surprise surprise the Executive doesn’t have to put this to a vote– but i can certainly understand being frustrated with the continued abuse of the language.

  96. 96.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    and you still haven’t answered my question—who, exactly, in this consumer economy, is going to borrow money at this point? nobody, that’s who.

    I have said it 3-5 times in this thread, the Geithner plan says it, it’s all over the place.

    Small business lives on credit. Without it, small business closes its doors. You are 120-180 days away from a small business collapse without freeflowing credit.

  97. 97.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    @sparky:

    Your thing here, then, is to advance nationalization?

    What does that have to do with the topic of the thread, which is a word choice in a press release?

    Nationalization is a political and policy choice, it seems to me. I am not prepared to argue it one way or the other, but it looks to me as if the government you have isn’t going in that direction. So, what’s the point?

    If nationalization is off the table (let’s say it is, for the sake discussion), then …. what?

    I’d be inclined to go with Baby Jesus. Nothing else on my list looks any good.

    If Geithner’s plan fails, then …. what? Nationalization? Presumably under a Republican administration?

    Hey, good times.

  98. 98.

    Comrade Dread

    It’s really about a huge swath of small businesses that are on the verge of going out of business unless we get credit flowing. So while you are making gang signs and representing, others are trying to throw enough water and dirt on the flames to get us through.

    Thanks for the ad hominem. First, I don’t think it’s all about me.

    It is just as ludicrous to demand unquestioning allegiance to Obama’s policies on the economy as it was to demand unquestioning loyalty to Bush’s policies on Iraq. Just trade economic collapse with Mushroom clouds over New York or our daughters wearing burqas and it’s the exact same rhetoric.

    Aside from which, you’re falling into an either/or fallacy: Either we do everything the administration wants to do in lockstep, or the economy fails (or we want the economy to fail.)

    This is the exact kind of thinking which has led us into mistakes in the past.

    As to how to get credit flowing, why not focus on getting capital to smaller, regional banks to invest in their communities?

    Or hell, make this new public-private partnership a defacto bank in itself designed to make short term loans to small businesses? We’d probably end up with more money in return out the deal and it would probably do more for the economy than buying these assets.

    Or take direct control of these banks, then let the tax dollars flow and get it into the hands of people who need it, while you start the process of dismantling the conglomerates.

  99. 99.

    sparky

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Nationalization is a political and policy choice, it seems to me. I am not prepared to argue it one way or the other, but it looks to me as if the government you have isn’t going in that direction. So, what’s the point?

    since when is being off-thread on a most-assuredly related topic a no-no here?

    incidentally, if you want me to link it back to this thread, such as it is, here’s how–
    if we call nationalization pre-privatization, can we do it then?

  100. 100.

    Comrade Stuck

    @sparky:

    since when is being off-thread on a most-assuredly related topic a no-no here?

    That’s the response you get from TZ, when he doesn’t have a decent retort to your point. Of course, he is always free to accuse you of caring only about what the mess is called and letting the house burn. Call it, ‘bait and switch just for me’. But he is right that the public is glued onto the employment numbers, which will be the signpost of their pleasure/displeasure. If the job market stabilizes, then Obama has at least a temporary reprieve, and what it’s called won’t matter all that much, except in the sell/soul/devil department.

    But if the "good time’ boys and girls of money town fritter away the good graces of the AMerican taxpayer, and keep doing the never ending Roullete Wheel, then it’s lights out for Obama and dems. Me, I don’t have a lot of faith in our captains of industry/greed at the moment. So it’s time to cut our losses imho, and buy em out for survival sake, and let the reform chips fall where they may. And I don’t have any illusions that nationalizing a few banks will bring economic Nirvana, because it won’t. And I suspect the rotting corpse will go far beyond the AIG’s, Citigroup, BOA’s of the world, and we will have to buy them all to keep the Golden Goose alive. It’s the difference of buying a pig in- a -poke, or just the poke with a lick and promise of a pig.

Comments are closed.