“Crunchy con� Rod Dreher called CPAC “white kids on dope.� As for Rush, he just called him a dope.

So, some conservatives aren’t in the Corner, or any corner, on either Rush or the current state of the GOP

As I’ve noted before may want to run this idea past Harry Reid Senate barons such as Robert Byrd first.

That said, this could be a reverse triangulation, where Obama plays bad cop to Senate Dems’ good cop, but I doubt Obama or Orzag had that type of a bank shot lined up.

Steve, Obama is not reversing a big Bush problem, and I would like to know why. He is still sticking with the state secrets privilege, and stating it is beyond review.

What the hell is going on?

Why is Obama giving "Buy stock now" advice?

This seems wrong on several levels.

Investment advice from a man who's never purchased a share of stock in his life. Terrific.

I kinda agree it's dumb that Obama is giving "Investment advice from a man who's never purchased a share of stock in his life"

However, it's no dumber than those who are stock hexperts who once told us it was a good time to buy Bear Stearns (Cramer) or Goldman Sachs (Buffet) or told us the economy was sound and it was all in our heads (McCain, Gramm, Santelli.)

Speaking of Bush era wrongdoings, remember Sibel Edmonds? Here's a fairly thorough (52 minute) documentary of her ordeal:

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2009/03/just-in-case-youd-forgotten-about-sibel.html

* President Obama sees some value in buying stocks now, with their prices so low.
That's part of the paradox of stock prices. They're only worth buying when most people want to sell them. As I've said before, we can't build everything up dependent on people buying and selling things from each other. If a stock costs a dollar more, I can sell it for that much more but a buyer pays that much more for it - it's a zero-sum game. We can't get wealthier on average by trading them to each other anymore than a bunch of card players can raise their total wealth.

I loved Letterman's comments on Bush and Rush last night during his initial stand-up and again as he chatted with Katie Couric. Check it out. Letterman is really going all out for Obama again and again--and it's a really 'good thing' (as Martha Stewart used to say).

James Buchanon was pretty close to the highest openly gay official in US history. The press at the time had a hay day on his effeminate mannerisms and his 'special friend'

Steve, you're a brilliant blogger and all, a very smart guy. So why no posts on Obama's awful start on civil liberties? Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think I've seen you even recognize his continuations of Bush's abuse of power.

Wow...Democrats shaming Republicans in public? Forcing them to own up to their own leaders?

Nice to see Dems finally on the giving end of what Josh Marshall called "bitch-slap" politics, rather than the receiving end of it.

Actually, cybersophist, it was Buchanan's long time friend and probably lover Sen. William R. King who was ridiculed for his effeminacy, with John Q. Adams, I think, being the one to start the nickname "Miss Nancy King." King comes in second on the list, since he was elected Vice-President, but was in Havana for his health, and was sworn in on the way back to the country, but died on the trip home.

King wasn't Buchanan's VP, btw, but Franklin Pierce's, so we weren't voting in a gay couple -- not that we'd be that proud of the least competent President and a fierce pro-slavery advocate.

* Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) defended Rush Limbaugh from criticism levied by his own party chairman. Natch.

The lowly apprentice demon always comes to the aid of his Master. Talk about your "Education for Death" moment....

Kaptur's an idiot.
"Democrat party" isn't insulting. It's just wrong.

I'm not offended if a foreign visitor calls me an Americ.

I simply assume he is woefully unprepared to use the English language exclusively for communication.

Anyone calling me by the wrong name is either ignorant of the correct term or making pathetic attempts at humor by changing the sound of the name. To say that "Democrat Party" is derogatory or worthy of offense is to claim offense when someone calls you a Democrat.

I've no idea why so many Democrats take offense rather than roll their eyes at this pathetic transparent primitive baiting.

Grow up, Kaptur. You're a big girl now. The rest of you, don't coddle her.

* John Berry, the new Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel, is apparently the highest-ranking openly gay official in American history.

Does that make him the new Director of OPP? Just axin'. (Yeah, you know me.)

I'm trying to piece together your outrage tooweary. Let me try and follow it.

It's wrong, of course, but not insulting, because it's hard to be offended by pathetic, transparent, primitive baiting by those foreigners who are woefully unprepared to use English when using pathetic jokes about things that are totally not degrogatory, even if they are pathetic baiting Congressmen and not non-native Americ speakers. And we shouldn't encourage it.

Chait's idea for scamming the rich sounds like it might work for a while, but the accountants doing the rich people's taxes might catch on before too long.

wait a minute, all we need to get russia's help in stopping iran's non-existent nuke program is to give up our non-working missile defense system. um, OK?

I am thankful every day that you are working for The Washington Monthly. I enjoy your comments and insight on the news. I especially look forward to the mini report and the god machine. I also look forward to reading Hilzoy. She makes ideas so understandable. I've missed her the last few days.

Would the White House pursue healthcare reform and energy legislation under budget rules to prevent GOP obstructionism?

Unfortunately, my computer can't read Socratic Gadfly's (Social Democrat) website (or many others), so forgive me if I duplicate his argument.

1) I called Byrd's office last week and asked an aide whether this omnibus bill would be subject to cloture or a budgetary point of order, either of which would require 60 votes, and I was told they would both be applicable.

2) The Budget Reconciliation Process only applies to mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws). To use this process my reading is that Biden would have to declare these items to be "mandatory spending".

3) A budget resolution must be passed (simple majority) allowing use of the budget reconciliation process. If one does not pass they use last year's instructions. It appears that that resolution requires the 60 votes (page 134/147) for increasing the deficit.

4) Even if last year's resolution does allow the reconciliation process to be used, the Blue Dogs, who were a problem in getting last year's resolution passed, could join with Republicans to force a new resolution that would forbid this process.

The chance of Harry Reid allowing major bills to come up under budget reconciliation rules is about equal to the chance of the sun coming up in the west.

Oh, how nice it would be to have a Democrat as Senate Majority Leader.

--Larry

toowearyfor[intelligent thinking] - you're kind of mixed up. Words get associated with insinuations through histories of usage. "Democrat Party" is a term long used in derision. Would you consider "nigger" OK because hey, it's just a sloppy pronunciation of a Spanish word for "black"?

This is a gem of a comment from Dreher's CrunchyCon's comment thread at http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/03/cpac-white-kids-on-dope_comments.html

TTT
March 1, 2009 11:03 AM

Republicans fell very much into Obama's trap. He was the one who began to elevate Limbaugh and equate the surviving Republicans with him. He knew this would happen. They swallowed the poison with a grin, and think THEY won. Obama is like the Matrix Architect, accurately predicting his opponents' reactions because they've already forgotten he defeated them before.

Pbama!

BTW Jindal needed to commiserate in someone else's humiliation ...

I wish Johans and his family all the best, but that press release doesn't really wash. They don't take out part of your lung for nothing. Here's hoping whatever it was was resolved by the surgery.

Insanity,

"Why is Obama giving 'Buy stock now' advice?"

Strikes me as a mistake.

He should be concentrating on MAIN street and Wall Street will follow. Trying to talk stocks up is a sucker's game. We haven't hit bottom yet and Obama will look foolish when stocks go lower.

Watching the Rush (da fo real man!) v. Steel (da pussy boy) kiss-down: We be munchin' da popcorn!

About Chait and the tax bracket thing: clearly for regular income it's a matter of marginal rates, but his victim is still complaining:

sspruiell said:

Jonathan: Stephen Spruiell here. Is it really your understanding that capital gains and dividends are taxed at the margins like ordinary income? Because that is definitely not my understanding.
If you have time, could you clarify for me how you think capital gains and dividends are taxed in this country? How do you think Obama's plan would change that structure?
March 3, 2009 7:52 PM

Do capital gains work just like regular income, or is there a rate "for that kind of income" as Spruiell implies? Who here knows the details? Can't you just run it up on available tax SW and see (no time for me now)?

Do capital gains work just like regular income, or is there a rate "for that kind of income" -- Neil B, @20:51

I'm pretty sure it's a different rate -- "fixed" (rather than progressive). But I won't swear to it; only had to pay capital gains taxes once (in '01) and none since then.

I tend to agree that political people shouldn't comment about the stock market.

BUT, isn't he pretty much right. I mean, unless the market is going to zero, this does seem like one of those "blood in the streets" moments when buying stocks (at least non-financials) seems like a good idea.

Is the stock market going to close up shop and leave us all wondering where to invest? Doesn't seem likely.

Neil B, I don't know enough about how capital gains taxes work to explain it in detail, but I can say that Stephen Spruiell had it wrong.

A simple example should clarify it. The capital gains tax rate is currently 0% for anyone in the 10% or 15% brackets on regular income. Does Stephen really think that someone who made a million dollars in capital gains but had no other income would pay no taxes?

Paragraph of the day...

From the NY Times:

For now, at least, few investors expect any such good news. The S.&. P 500 fell 18.6 percent in the first two months of 2009, even before Monday’s fall. That was its worst start, exceeding the 18.2 percent fall recorded in the first two months of 1933, another year when a new president took office during an economic and financial crisis. In 1933, the stock market soon turned, and nearly doubled over 12 months.

Steve: "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) doesn't want the White House messing with congressional earmarks."

Well, then, perhaps the Obama White House should instead start messing with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

bluewave: "They don't take out part of your lung for nothing."

But they will if the price is right ...

There is not a uniform capital gains tax rate, because the rate depends on the mix of long term v short term gains, or the net of long term gains and short term losses gains.

It's complicated for a reason. Accountants charge a lot of money to use the available combinations to reduce the client's tax rate to as low as possible.

While there is no one rate, the rates overall range from 0% to 25% with most people falling into a 15% tax rate.

Here's a short explanation if you want a little more in the way of an explanation.

here

that should be:... net of long term gains and short term losses. Mea Culpa.

MarkH,

"I tend to agree that political people shouldn't comment about the stock market. BUT, isn't he pretty much right. I mean, unless the market is going to zero, this does seem like one of those "blood in the streets" moments when buying stocks (at least non-financials) seems like a good idea."

The problem is, the 'investment advisor' types and the 'stock broker' types have been giving the same advice all the way down:

* When the DJIA went under 11,000, they said it was a buying opportunity.
* When the DJIA went under 10,000, they said it was a buying opportunity.
* When the DJIA went under 09,000, they said it was a buying opportunity.
* When the DJIA went under 08,000, they said it was a buying opportunity.

Now that the DJIA has dropped below 07,000, they are saying it's a buying opportunity.

Yes, even experts have trouble knowing what the market is going to do in the future, especially when it is as volatile as it is now. The question is just how low the market will go before it turns around. However low that is, it will almost certainly be below the level that reflects the true value of the stocks and it will at some point make back most or all of the recent losses.

Unless the economy implodes completely and the DJIA continues dropping for the next 2 years or more (it seems unlikely to me, but who knows), anyone buying into an index fund now would probably do quite well over a 5+ year period.

" John Berry, the new Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel, is apparently the highest-ranking openly gay official in American history." Do you mean appointed official? Because I think that Congressman / Chairman Barney Frank would more likely fit that bill.

tanstaafl,

"Unless the economy implodes completely and the DJIA continues dropping for the next 2 years or more (it seems unlikely to me, but who knows), anyone buying into an index fund now would probably do quite well over a 5+ year period."

Actually, there was a study recently released (don't ask, I don't remember. Try Google), that because, as they say, there is no bell that rings at the market bottom, found that those who got back into the market six months after the market bottom did MUCH better than those who got back in six months before the bottom.

So, keep your powder dry.

~~~

Oh, and I should have also mentioned in my earlier post, the DJIA would need to be over 16,000 just to get back even with where it was in 2000 (when President Clinton was still in office), in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Joe Friday, Re: Obama giving stock advice to buy now:

Yeah, it does seem like a mistake that Obama recommended that--I guess I keep wondering if there is any upside or reason he may have said it, because most of what comes out of his mouth is fairly calculated.

It just sounded weird for the President to be giving out a "Buy now" recommendation when as you point out, no-one really knows where the market is going to bottom out--and the whole thing is just un-predictable...everything is so unstable..

Maybe he is hoping it will help assuage fears/panic? Or perhaps offer up some hope for those who can invest long-term?

President Obama sees some value in buying stocks now, with their prices so low.

Somebody is buying them, in fact there are billions of purchases every day.

However, Obama is trying to borrow a lot of the money that might otherwise be used to bid up the prices. There is going to be so little money left over for investment, that most of the companies listed in the stock exchanges won't be able to make any money any time soon.

Re: the David Brooks criticism:

It's rather amazing to me that Obama has been this productive in such a short period of time. Just reading Steve's re-cap for today, I am overwhelmed by the positive and hugely important movement forward Obama is making.

He's awesome! Sorry if I sound like a dork, but I am in awe. No, he's certainly not perfect, and we will hold his feet to the fire, but damn--he's really awesome.

(I'm reminded of Rachel Maddow's "Best Month Ever" episode, and many of her subsequent shows seem to now outline in detail the progress he is making).

What a silly criticism from David Brooks--I think Republicans are simply at a loss right now-- at how much change Obama is implementing, how true to his campaign he is being. I think they're all in shock at how effective, how bright and bold he is shaping up to be. And they're clearly feeling threatened as they don't have a firm or clear place from which to stand.

So they grasp at straws and say stupid stuff like this comment from Brooks--one that implies the President is on some sort of ego trip and has envisioned (incorrectly, per Brooks) that history is calling upon him to tackle things all at once.

Well guess what?! History has been SCREAMING at us for a long time, and it's call has not been headed. The shouts of history have fallen upon deaf (and indifferent) ears for a long, long time.

So instead of praising how gracefully and expertly Obama is dealing with a multitude of high crisis issues, ones that have piled up and grown in scope and severity thanks to such severe neglect, Brooks instead indulges in 'Lucy style five-cents psychological advice' and accuses Obama of somehow mis-reading history, and in a way that is 'self-flattering'.

Save your nickels I say!
==================================================
The Onion headline had it right after Obama won the election: 'Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job'

Anyone else think they can do any better with what is sitting before this man? Ha!

marketeer,

President Obama sees some value in buying stocks now, with their prices so low.

"Somebody is buying them, in fact there are billions of purchases every day."

Ah, but there are even more SELLING.

those who got back into the market six months after the market bottom did MUCH better than those who got back in six months before the bottom. - Joe Friday

Wouldn't that be because prices tend to drop at an accellerated rate, while they rise cautiously?

If the Obama admin wants to push the budget thru with a 51-vote majority instead of the usual 60, I say go for it. The battle lines will be drawn, and so I think it will look 58-41 with Franken in abstenia. Basically party lines vote.

As far as David Brooks goes, why is anyone even paying attention to him? We WON, he LOST. He needs to go crawl back into the Freetard closet and stay there.

Steve:

Last night on Hardball Tom Delay was providing revisionist economic history such as the economy was humming right along until 2007 and that the biggest and perhaps sole reason for the collapse was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rules that "forced them to make loans to people who coudn't pay them back." Is there an "Economic Collapse History for Dummies" or some other entry that could summarize what happened in a succinct and objective way?

marketeer wrote: Obama is trying to borrow a lot of the money that might otherwise be used to bid up the prices.

So did Bush, and that didn't stop anybody.

Egad, but you're an idiot.

Your analogy is exceptionally poor, Neil B, and your own changing of my moniker is transparent baiting that I won't take offense to. (Though I do find it quite surprising.)

Both "negro" and the N-word are seen as derogatory (by different magnitudes, of course.

Negro had been preferred at one point thus the "United Negro College Fund" is historically a estimable name.

Still, today, someone using it hoping others will take offense or expecting comradeship from fellow racists will be hard pressed to use it in a polite circumstance.

The term Democrat is the correct and respectful term for a member of the Democratic party. It would seem odd for someone in the party to be offended by its use. Combining it with the word "Party" produces a hybrid malapropism that remains inoffensive. Merely wrong. The person butchering the name is either unfamiliar with the name of the party (like our tourist friend) or making a feeble attempt to ridicule a member of my party. Given that these are elected officials, it is safe to assume the latter.

Taking offense implies there is a reason to dislike the word Democrat. Taking umbrage feeds the beast. "See! Not even the Democrat party likes the word "Democrat"! They know people don't like them!"

They do this because they admit that being Democratic is a positive thing and the word "Democrat" has a vague similarity to the word "bureaucrat". They're playing trite word games that could severely backfire if we'd simply point out the nature of their sophomoric taunting that I'd thought we'd left behind in grade school.

Instead, we get a pointless show of (hopefully feigned) emotional distress. Does she believe she's gotten through to him? Mission accomplished? She gives these infants more credit than I.

Danp,

"Wouldn't that be because prices tend to drop at an accellerated rate, while they rise cautiously?"

Not having access to the underlying data and methodology of the study, my propensity would be to agree.

OK weary, you've got a point. The misuse of "Democrat" isn't downright horrible, but the flip side is: no point in being so hard on Kaptur either. She's not an idiot, she doesn't deserve the big dumpon. You have your opinion, she has hers and many Democrats do want the party referred to by its correct name.

As usual, adding a comment to a thread everybody else is through with. The "Democrat" Party thing is more insulting than a lot of you realize, because of its origin. It was a "McCarthyism" a neologism by "Tail Gunner Joe" who used it to deny that the party was truly 'democratic' since, in his supposed view, it couldn't be because it was filled with Commies, ConSymps, ParlorPinks and other 'non-Democratic' types.