you're giving some good talking points for my next visit. i wouldn't mind winning some more business from them.

Just doing my part to help the economy.

so this government has more money tied up in it then any other time in our history, and everything's getting so much better.......................................

 

how exactly is bigger government helping out here?

 

oh, if they wouldn't have all these ponzi schemes, unemployment would be at 95%. Right.

so this government has more money tied up in it then any other time in our history, and everything's getting so much better.......................................

If you factor in inflation I'm pretty sure that's not remotely true.

so this government has more money tied up in it then any other time in our history, and everything's getting so much better.......................................

 

how exactly is bigger government helping out here?

 

I can make things up too.

 

"Our economy is in the toilet because the Republicans took the House in 2010."

 

Where's my ":notworthy"? Just as factually true as his.

Peter Diamond, the Nobel Prize Winning economist who President Obama nominated to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has announced that he is withdrawing his name from consideration, after over a year of having his nomination sitting in the Senate without ever coming up for a vote.

 

Thankfully, since we're at full employment right now, there's no obvious need for a guy who won his nobel prize working on issues of unemployment and employer/employee mismatch in that organization.

 

That seat has now been unfilled for several years. Thankfully again, there has been no economic turmoil or major decisions made by the Federal Reserve Board over the last few years.

Peter Diamond, the Nobel Prize Winning economist who President Obama nominated to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has announced that he is withdrawing his name from consideration, after over a year of having his nomination sitting in the Senate without ever coming up for a vote.

 

Thankfully, since we're at full employment right now, there's no obvious need for a guy who won his nobel prize working on issues of unemployment and employer/employee mismatch in that organization.

 

That seat has now been unfilled for several years. Thankfully again, there has been no economic turmoil or major decisions made by the Federal Reserve Board over the last few years.

I'm kind of surprised that ObamaCo, and before him BushCo, when confronted with this sort of B.S., didn't do an end-around. If they won't nominate that person, fine. Hire them on in a non-nomination position to provide exactly the role he would have anyway, except without the specific constitutional authorities. Leave that authority with whatever figurehead is temporarily running that agency line, who just rubber-stamps everything.

 

I'm kind of surprised that ObamaCo, and before him BushCo, when confronted with this sort of B.S., didn't do an end-around. If they won't nominate that person, fine. Hire them on in a non-nomination position to provide exactly the role he would have anyway, except without the specific constitutional authorities. Leave that authority with whatever figurehead is temporarily running that agency line, who just rubber-stamps everything.

The response that they keep getting is "We'll shut down the entire Senate if you bypass us."

 

Which...one person can do.

Peter Diamond, the Nobel Prize Winning economist who President Obama nominated to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has announced that he is withdrawing his name from consideration, after over a year of having his nomination sitting in the Senate without ever coming up for a vote.

 

Thankfully, since we're at full employment right now, there's no obvious need for a guy who won his nobel prize working on issues of unemployment and employer/employee mismatch in that organization.

 

That seat has now been unfilled for several years. Thankfully again, there has been no economic turmoil or major decisions made by the Federal Reserve Board over the last few years.

 

They should have just fled to Illinois instead.

The response that they keep getting is "We'll shut down the entire Senate if you bypass us."

 

Which...one person can do.

If I'm Obama, I take that chance. Legislation is basically at a standstill anyway, so no big loss.

 

If I'm Obama, I take that chance. Legislation is basically at a standstill anyway, so no big loss.

And if they hold firm on the debt ceiling, for example?

They should have just fled to Illinois instead.

It'd be a more apt comparison if the legislators who did that never bothered to say why they were fleeing and never voiced an objection to any specific bill.

And if they hold firm on the debt ceiling, for example?

I'm not 100% sure that's a bad thing anyway, I'm sort of on the fence.

 

But still, that decision will be coming up in a month or two... if I'm in the camp that it has to be raised, I probably wait until right after that is done.

 

It'd be a more apt comparison if the legislators who did that never bothered to say why they were fleeing and never voiced an objection to any specific bill.

 

Honestly it isn't because they didn't hold up the business of an entire entity to stop the opponents agenda. That is way closer to holding people hostage than just not voting on a single bill/issue.

Honestly it isn't because they didn't hold up the business of an entire entity to stop the opponents agenda. That is way closer to holding people hostage than just not voting on a single bill/issue.

Seriously...having 2 open seats on the Federal Reserve at a time of the deepest economic hole in a century because you won't vote to confirm any nominee Obama sends forward isn't holding something of value hostage?

Seriously...having 2 open seats on the Federal Reserve at a time of the deepest economic hole in a century because you won't vote to confirm any nominee Obama sends forward isn't holding something of value hostage?

 

Did I miss the shutdown of the Federal Reserve bank?

Interesting to note... Pat Quinn is calling the legislature back for a special session to fund summer construction projects. That funding was left on the table when they recessed, due to differences between the House and Senate. If funding isn't given, somewhere between 30 and 40 thousand jobs are lost. On the other hand, not funding means a nice chunk is taken out of the state's spending. This should be interesting to watch.

 

 

Seriously...having 2 open seats on the Federal Reserve at a time of the deepest economic hole in a century because you won't vote to confirm any nominee Obama sends forward isn't holding something of value hostage?

 

As I said earlier, there is another option, and the GOP'ers know that. They are reasonably sure that Obama doesn't have the balls to act against their obviously stupid tactics. And they are probably right.

 

Did I miss the shutdown of the Federal Reserve bank?

Well clearly you missed the jump to 9%+ unemployment.

So here's my prediction for the truly long term on this whole recession... I don't think there will be any governmental collapse, or even another depression. But I do think we are going to make our way through years mroe of flushing out individual problems. Financial markets regulation, OTC investment regulation, retail banking rules and protection, mortgages and loans, housing production, housing bubble, tech bubble, inflation snap-back, government debt, state and local gov't dependence on the feds, pensions, oil and gas prices... one hit after another, and as we get hit hard with each one, we make changes. Not great ones, but still some improvements. But these things have ALL been bad for a lot longer than since 2007. So think of this as a maturation process, call it the great flush. 10 years from now, we'll look back at this experience as having been good for the country. These were and are all needed, for the long term health of the economy.

 

Sucks for now, but will look like a necessary evil in a decade.

 

Well clearly you missed the jump to 9%+ unemployment.

 

I can see how two FRB governors would have totally made it down to the 7% unemployment that Barack promised us with the stimulus plan too. Damned evil Republicans.

I can see how two FRB governors would have totally made it down to the 7% unemployment that Barack promised us with the stimulus plan too. Damned evil Republicans.

Of course, anyone who paid attention to history might have noted that we'd already passed 7% unemployment before the stimulus itself was even passed. So clearly, the stimulus went back in time to cause the increased unemployment rise.

 

Because otherwise, having blown through the unemployment estimate made 2 months beforehand would suggest to an honest viewer that much more radical steps needed to be taken. A much larger stimulus, and much stronger action from the Federal Reserve. But that would of course require honesty and would invalidate belief in stimulus time travel.

Of course, anyone who paid attention to history might have noted that we'd already passed 7% unemployment before the stimulus itself was even passed. So clearly, the stimulus went back in time to cause the increased unemployment rise.

 

Because otherwise, having blown through the unemployment estimate made 2 months beforehand would suggest to an honest viewer that much more radical steps needed to be taken. A much larger stimulus, and much stronger action from the Federal Reserve. But that would of course require honesty and would invalidate belief in stimulus time travel.

 

So what huge policies would those two FRB governors have brought to the table that the other 17 members (including the FRB Chair and Vice Chair) did not?

It's not that in itself, it's that there have been vacant seets on the fed board that could have been filled with candidates more worried about employment issues and less concerned about keeping inflation at sub 2% at all costs.

It's not that in itself, it's that there have been vacant seets on the fed board that could have been filled with candidates more worried about employment issues and less concerned about keeping inflation at sub 2% at all costs.

 

So in otherwords, while being a great talking point, it wouldn't have made a difference. Selective Outrage indeed.

So in otherwords, while being a great talking point, it wouldn't have made a difference. Selective Outrage indeed.

 

No. You are implying that we are saying that these open seats would magically fix the economy. But, we have a fed board that clearly has the inflation hawks well represented. It's only fair those more aligned to fulfilling the employment mandates of the federal reserve also have a seat at the table. The fed matters, especially during these times, and there's no reason to have empty seats for probably obama's whole presidency.