John Boni's Blog

John Boni

John Boni
North Carolina, USA
July 03
Retired TV writer/producer, mostly comedy, but also soaps and children's programming. Blogging because, like everyone else, things are on my mind.


John Boni's Links

FEBRUARY 11, 2009 11:54AM

Why Are Liberals So Stupid!

Rate: 5 Flag

Just taking a lead from a "Why Are Republicans So Mean?" thread.  Demonizing is always good.

Been reading what is essentially liberal circle jerking here about the stimulus plan, much of it excoriating Republicans for being against it and cheering the three Republicans who voted for it.

You won't hear Obama say "I screwed up" over this thing when it's all over because it will be a world class, Olympic screw up, not like the throwaway, easy one over Dashchle that has everyone swooning over his "honesty."  Wow!  He said he screwed up because his vetting people screwed up.   Not like admitting you screwed up The Bay Of Pigs. 

It takes so little to please the Kool Aid Krew.  They see what they want to see.

So, stimulus bill, bailout, whatever, the Obamamaniacs will buy anything.   Let's start with the bailout and the only man who could handle it, despite his tax cheating.

 From that hard core, right wing blog called HuffPo, people who suck at the teat of Rush Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Haliburton and mean Republicans everywhere,, we have three articles, by three different writers, on the same day, all warning your asses about the mendacity of the Obama administration.  

From  William K. Black, a guy who helped engineer the S&L bailout

The Audacity of Dopes

"We are being played for chumps. The Bush and Obama plans could only have been designed by failed bankers -- for their principal beneficiaries are failed bankers. We already know enough to confirm that the Bush administration made us the "fool" in the market by massively overpaying for assets. The Obama administration is about to compound that scandal with a "guarantee" program. ...

"Worse, Mr. Geithner, the senior public official who, with former Treasury Secretary Paulson, designed the failed Bush plan is the architect of the disastrous Obama plan. Indeed, as the New York Times has just revealed, it should be called the Geithner plan. He overcame intense opposition within the Obama administration and designed a plan that is even worse than the failed Bush program. Geithner's gifts to the bankers that caused the crisis include: a unnecessary taxpayer bailout of "risk capital," a massive coverup of their banks' insolvency, gutting the proposed limits on executive compensation, and devising a "guarantee" mechanism designed to hide the expenses of the unprincipled bailouts from the American public. Remember, executive compensation is not "merely" a fairness issue. Executive compensation and the compensation systems used for appraisers, accountants, and rating agencies were designed, and served, to create the perverse incentives and ethical rot that caused the ongoing financial crises by producing a "Gresham's dynamic" in which fraudulent and abusive lending and accounting practices drove good practices out of the marketplace ...

"What a delicious irony this is--last week, just as President Obama was publicly bashing the stupidity of the banks ... his economic team [was] privately begging for input from Wall Street. The administration was conducting around-the-clock discussions and interviews with senior Wall Street executives, including many from the same firms he was theoretically appalled with, about how to fix the lingering financial crisis."

Ahhhh, well, it's just too depressing.  Here's the link, if you want to read more.

Or this piece from Robert L. Borosage

Or From Ryan Grim on HuffPo

New Treasury Plan Weakens Critical Wall Street Accounting Rules

The financial plan announced today by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appears to have accomplished, through a backdoor path, one of the top priorities of Wall Street bankers: ending so-called 'mark-to-market' accounting rules that many economists consider essential...(Mark-to-market accounting requires banks to value assets at current market prices, rather than by historical purchase price.)

Now, economists say, it appears that Wall Street has won out. Geithner's plan would give a federal guarantee to toxic assets. That guarantee increases their value, mitigating the relevance of mark-to-market.  ..."

Read on if you can.  It's just too depressing.

And a little tidbit from noted arch Republican, Maureen Dowd, in today's Pravda.

"Despite the touting, the Treasury chief unveiled a plan short on illumination, recrimination, fine points and foreclosure closure. The Dow collapsed on its fainting couch as Sports Illustrated swimsuit models rang the closing bell.

"It wasn’t only that Geithner’s own tax history — and his time as head of the New York Fed when all the bad stuff was happening on Wall Street, and when he left with nearly a half-million in severance — makes him a dubious messenger for the president’s pledge to keep the haves from further betraying the have-nots.

"It wasn’t only that Americans’ already threadbare trust has been ripped by Hank Paulson’s mumbo-jumbo and the Democrats’ bad judgment in accessorizing the stimulus bill with Grammy-level “bling, bling,” as the R.N.C. chairman, Michael Steele, called it. ...

"Geithner is not even requiring the banks to lend in return for the $2 trillion his program will try to marshal, mostly by having the Fed print money out of thin air, thereby diluting our money, or borrowing more from China. (When, exactly, can China foreclose on us and start sending us toxic toys again?)

"There’s a weaselly feel to the plan, a sense that tough decisions were postponed even as President Obama warns about our “perfect storm of financial problems.” The outrage is going only one way, as we pony up trillion after trillion......"

Ay, yes.  things are looking up now that the Democrats are in charge.



Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
While I quite agree with almost everything said here, I wonder if you were equally vociferous in your denouncement of "deregulate and let greedy bastards have free rein" free-market follies, billion-dollar no-bid sweetheart contracts for cronies, and insane "spend but don't tax" fiscal policy perpetrated by w, cheney, et al and the rubber-stamp Republican congress?
Chucky S of N.Y. called us the "Chattering Class" who don't care about the PORK. Well I do care about the insanity of the "Other White Meat" Barney Frank being in charge of my money. Very good write her my friend. We can use more like you here....

Thanks for your comment, but it follows an argumentative pattern so many here engage in and that's the so-called "consistency," or what did I say or feel about the other side of an issue argument.

It's irrelevant. For all of us. What I may or may not have screamed about in the past doesn't change the reality of what's happening now, does it?

Either NOW is wrong, awful, misguided, criminal -- whatever, or it's not. It's as if vociferous "outrage over no-bid sweerheart contracts" etc., validatetes the above outrage.

Would my saying I'm a free rein, free market guy suddenly make the above Obama Administration bailout/stimulus bullshit any less deceitful on its face?
FYI--I'm a liberal and I have problems with both the bailout and the stimulus. You might want to consider the opinions of liberals like me--who are more numerous than you'd like to believe--when you're painting with such a broad brush.

That being said, I think Tom's point was that it's real hard to take seriously the opinions of those who were lustily cheerleading the Bush deregulation/tax cut efforts over the last eight years that put us into this mess; only to become the sarcastic outsiders jeering from the back of the class now that their Dear Leader is gone. Not that you're one of those people. ;)
Blake ....Thanks ...

I take your point, but Tom's notion is meaningless here. You're (maybe) creating a straw dog by assuming that I cheered the Bush tax cut policies, and if I did, the above post is hard to take seriously. How does he (or anyone here) know one way or the other what I thought? Let's talk about what's on the table before us at the moment and discuss that on the merits. That's my point.
Yes, I did create a straw man. A straw man to answer your straw man.

You might find folks here who will seriously debate someone who refuses to own his past, but I'm not one of them.
Vitriol and obfuscation. Bush and his supporters have done so much damage to this country (and the world) it may be a lifetime before it all shakes out. I won't dignify it by calling it "conservative", but the political ideology which he emerged from is standing on cracked, cracking, and submerged ice.

State a coherent response to Tom if you are to engage in real dialoge.
It seems to me when dealing with opinion, which is what you've offered, readers put more credence in those writers that the readers can value than in those writers who suggest that only they know the reality. There is much in what you wrote that is more arguable than fact. Don't be surprised that you get it (the argument). While the Dems are not perfect, they have never reached the level of the GOP in the category of fucking up the country.
I don't know, John. I've been reading a lot of opinions from Republicans lately, in the op eds and in letters to the Editors. Much hate is heaped on Democratics for their politicians with tax-problems and apparent love of pork. But, when approached (I ask my Mother-in-law this a lot), none of them can recognize that Republicans love the government-trough as much as Democratics, and there have been many, many, many Republican operatives with tax problems, too.

Politicians, being wealthy, are prone to the same tax issues as other wealthy folks. Buffet said it best when he let everyone know that he paid less in taxes than his secretary. And, politicians, being politicians, are addicted to pork. We are, too. The most successful pols are the ones that bring the most money home to their states. Tax problems and pork are red herrings. Lets focus on the real issues, here.

As for the amount of the stimulus, I can't wrap my head around the idea that many Republicans are okay with spending trillions of dollars in Iraq, but not on our own people.
Jon Henner wrote: "I can't wrap my head around the idea that many Republicans are okay with spending trillions of dollars in Iraq, but not on our own people."

There's only one answer, Jon: it's because they hate America, right?
Howdy, John.

Of course, I'd shed the "liberal" word here, as it applies to all Americans.
However, if anyone is interested on an Us - v - Them level, note how the so-called "liberals" are able to be critical of a Democratic administration. It's called "reality based critical thinking."
I include that definition here for our "conservative" friends, who won't see it in their own media, and therefore probably don't know what it is. They could try it on for size, but would be shunned by their peers. Use at your own risk.
Of course, those articles above can be "conservatized."
The Marxist liberal socialist neo-communist Kenyan born fraud Obama is getting in bed with the thieves!!
(Sorry about the correct spelling, but I can't do "conservative" well.)

My politician is less more corrupt than yours is! I win!!!!

How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
One to attempt the bulb change, the other to drive the first one to the emergency room to get the burns treated.
No wonder they hate change.
Everyone ...

How the heck did this become a liberal/conservative, Dem/Repub, Iraq/hate America thread.

The above comments were from Americans from the left. What Obama is doing is not good for the country and good for insiders, Wall Streeters and the idiots who got us into this mess.

That the thread has ventured so far off its intended purpose suggests to me most you are in denial about how bad it is because none of you are actually defending the nature of the bills themselves.

Okay by me.
I thought we were all operating on the assumption that there's nothing to defend....
John wrote: "How the heck did this become a liberal/conservative, Dem/Repub, Iraq/hate America thread[?]"

Ummm, I dunno... maybe from the flame-bait title of your post? Obviously the "why are Republicans so mean" bit stuck in your craw or you wouldn't have led with it in the first place. On some level, every commenter agreed with the crux of your post, but also had issues with your cheap shot at the beginning.

ps--I was actually kidding about the "hate America" stuff.... you know, just like all the Republicans who must have been kidding about it over the last 8 years. Like Saxby Chambliss, Anne Coulter, Karl, Rush and Sean certainly must have been. The leaders of the party, as it were. "Freedom Fries" wasn't all that long ago.
Blake ..

Flame bait, huh?

What about Paul Levinson's recent title, 'Why are Republicans so mean?

That's what I said I was taking the lead from. His hasn't been accused of flame baiting. Why should mine?
"none of you are actually defending the nature of the bills themselves." ==== John Boni

Actually John, I think we don't take you serious enough to put the defensive team on the field. To me you are just one more conservative looking at the U.S. Treasury with big tears in your eyes saying, "I can't believe we ate the whole thing!"
Working Class ...

You don't know who or what I am politically, so hold your counsel.

The defense isn't on the field because you have none. Instead, you choose to demean me because of your perceived opinion of my politics, which, you don't know.

Come back to me, WorkingClass, when you can justify the bailout terms described above, or defend them. YOu can't, can you. Because it's easier to quip about me than make a serious counter argument about what Obama's people are doing.

Isn't it!

Give me the leg YOU stand on, on the issues. Iif you have one. If you read the above pieces, they are actually Democrat and Liberal legs, not conservative or Republican. But it's easier to whine about Republicans while the Democrats are stealing the pots from under your butts.

I attack you because I see you as an antagonist attacking the one party that has given hope to working people. I don't worry about Dems stealing the pot. The GOP has already done that. You still stuck on that "Chicken in every pot?" It seems every decade or two, let's see, 1933, 1961, 1977, 1993, 2009, that Democrats have to return to power to give working people a chance. Keep on singing the praise of the rich and preaching the politics of personal destruction John. I don't give a gnat's ass what your politics are, on OS we only judge each other by words.

For me, yours are the words of wealth worship and the fear of responsible taxation. I see the Obama administration as trying to raise a ship sunk by greed and it is going to cost a lot. Get out your wallet Johnny boy! ;)
Working ... if all you're going by are words, then you can't read.
Hey Working why don't you tell us all what your working class job is. I don't ask disrespectfully. I really want to know what you define a working class. Are 60 hour weeks of high stress with no union, no overtime and daily competition with your colleagues not working. Always seemed like work to me. Tell me about how hard your job is. And tell me about responsible taxes. How much do you want. I pay about 40% of my income in total taxes. How much do you want? My company just laid off a huge number of people. Where is their union? Where is their bailout. what to they get for their 40% taxes? They get to find another job and take care of themselves. No Obama help needed.
Tom - do you just like to spew stupidly. Since when are sweetheart noe bid deals the sole providence of Bush, conservatives or any administration for as long as politicians have been around. Do you think Obama and them dems are clean on this. Did you miss that minor thing the senate republicans did? That little thing about requiring bids on spending. I wonder how speaker Nancy and the gang missed that fine point. Duh?