"Standards for membership"?
OK.

"would want the rules of the road to be set by the US and like-minded countries, not by China."

China has fully adopted the US version of crony capitalism in all respects except one... China occasionally prosecutes their criminals to keep them in check.

In any case, once again you are presenting China as a boogeyman despite the reality that our criminal class of Free traders has been willingly collaborating with them for decades.

The whole notion that Americans should be swayed to support the TPP because "the Chinese are coming!!!" (when the real problems are much closer to home) is simply a fear based tactic of manipulation. A tactic beneath the educated and informed. A tactic devoid of ethics and integrity and divorced from reality.

A

The standards here are different but, in time and with US leadership, this agreement could be complimentary to the TPP and together could form a simplified but wide-ranging free trade zone across the entire Indo-Asia Pacific region.

And, that is precisely the point of why the TPP is so important, geopolitically speaking.

I should think that anyone who believes in free and fair trade and opening up global markets would want the rules of the road to be set by the US and like-minded countries, not by China.

The TPP forces China to continue with its own political and economic reforms to meet the high standard of the TPP and join the party only when and if it does so.

Trotting out the Chinese (non)boogeyman to try to help sell a dead trade deal when China was publicly leaning towards joining the TPP seems very odd to me.

Why even mention China if you're not concerned?
Why ignore their statements that break that reasoning asunder?

A

"It is good enough that the TPP is a good step in the right direction."

Not even close.
Funny that you ask questions, but don't even acknowledge the answers.

And you weren't coining a phrase.

"an effective geopolitical strategy toward a more sustainable, prosperous and peaceful world"
"a very good tool for promoting and facilitating progressive change in our world"

There's nothing like trying to sell crony capitalism with catch phrases.
The reality is that progressives in the US do not believe that dreck and do not support the TPP.

A

Hear hear. If we are really concerned about Chinese hegemony, which I'm not, the TPP is our best tool for the next couple of decades.

Not ratifying the TPP was China's big win from the 2016 election.

It is good enough that the TPP is a good step in the right direction.

I think the problem here in discussing the TPP is one of perspective.

The TPP is not merely a trade deal. It is so much more than that in terms of, to coin a term, geopolitical economics. It is about improving the economic standing of America's allies in the Asia-Pacific region as a prerequisite to an effective geopolitical strategy toward a more sustainable, prosperous and peaceful world.

My fear of US failure to ratify this agreement is one of geopolitical strategy and seeing the US give up leadership and its strategic position to China.

As I said previously, I am not anti-trade and as with all trade deals there is plenty to like and some to dislike in the actual trade portion of the TPP.

Unfortunately there are alot of special interest clauses in the ISDS that make the deal on the whole for me unsupportable.

One such example would be a carve out for pharma that would allow them to sue countries ( mostly developing or least developed ones) that currently use compulsory government-use licences to gain access to patents to enable the manufacture of generic versions of a drug for distribution to the populace.

On the one hand pharma argues that the high drug prices in the US are required to offset these use licenses and the cost of developing the drug and on the other they are now empowered to sue these countries for perceived future loses from the use of a patent for genric drugs (which they do receive compensation for). Which is it?

At what point does the greater good trump profit? Where should society as a whole draw the line in support of corporate profits over the health and well being of developing and least developed countries where the use of these licenses has improved quality of life and averted the potential for epidemics and pandemics?

So again I ask, should we not be changing our approach to these agreements of passing and fixing after the fact (which really has not happened). Instead should we not be taking our time and getting it right the first time?

Absent a bad ISDS, do you think the TPP is a good idea? What are some of the benefits?

And, I ask that question in the sense of how it will benefit America's partners and not from an American or even a North American perspective ...

Not many have heard of the TPP...

For those that have it is a mixed bag that much like here there are people who dislike the TPP on the face of it just because it is a trade deal. There are others more in liking with me that do not support the deal due to the ISDS that goes beyond the ability of the mechanism to resolve disputes for discriminatory and or expropriative damages (which means damage has happened, and is a solution that should be there) and ventures into the relm of future/precieved damages.

Ha.
Nice anticipation of where my follow-up questions were headed.

I believe the future you envisage is possible and probable, but may be more distant than some imagine.

When the first tele-presence robot that can ONLY clean toilets as well as a human, cost effectively, without damaging the floors and carpets and personal belongings that may be scattered about and without requiring an on site engineer for maintenance and repairs is actually in use, we should revisit the discussion.

Not sure if you're familiar with Jane's Addiction, but they have a great song about yearning for machines that can eliminate our need to work.
Don't take my doubts as opposition to the concept... I'm just expressing doubts about our current ability to advance the technology as quickly as some currently predict.

It's the same but for different reasons with self-driving cars... until the lawsuits from the first fatalities they cause are settled in court, we won't actually know the true costs of the tech, and if they actually offset the costs of human drivers.

There's a company in the US that makes a machine that makes and prepares hamburgers to order for fast food restaurants... supposedly eliminating three jobs at a cost of $60,000.
But the labor costs of loading it, cleaning it and maintaining it aren't mentioned in the sales pitch, nor the costs and odds of down time... and it doesn't make fries or shakes or clean the floors... and if somebody gets food poisoning there are other potential costs.

I just want all the details and possibilities discussed realistically.

A

No.
It's not a balance.

ISDS is a new system outside of the existing legal system that can't be appealed, and can be easily abused.

Existing uses of it up to this point do not preclude it from becoming a damaging, and expensive tool for the corrupt crony capitalists to use to maintain their power at our expense.

Look at the exclusion of cigarette manufacturers from the ISDS provision and you have to ask if there aren't numerous other industries that could one day in the not too distant future also be worthy of exclusion.
There are, and we should be wary of ending up footing the bill for their losses caused by a comparable emerging enlightenment of the people.
It could be beef, fossil fuels, chemicals... or something that people currently view as innocuous but that we may learn is harmful.

Don't you think it's a little fishy that only cigarettes get singled out?

A

Your assumption is that the corrupt crony capitalists who wrote the TPP had an interest in writing a good deal.

History tells us otherwise.

Present evidence that they tried and failed or your argument falls flat.

We also know the benefits go to the few, and the hardships aren't being mitigated.

There is also the little fact that the bad provisions in previous deals have not been amended or improved, so the "let's do it and see what happens, we can fix it later" approach amounts to empty promises.
Such an approach requires trust and integrity, and the Free traders have lost our trust and demonstrated a lack of integrity.

So, the answer to your question is "No".

A

The point I'm trying to make is that too much emphasis is being put on the POTENTIAL for harm because of the ISDS by those who would probably not support the TPP, under any scenario. At least, that's what it sounds like to me.

I'm pretty certain the U.S. government has never lost an ISDS case, but I don't know about American companies.

Nice non-answer.
Bold and brave.

A

I think if those problems could have been addressed to your liking, they would have been.

Why not enact the thing and see how it goes? I mean, it's not like changes can't be made later and the US can always pull out of it, right?

You have not convinced me that the potential problems of the TPP outweigh the benefits to the US and to the other partners.

It seems you may not be open to answering questions, especially stupid questions from me but, here goes again ...

Do you know if the majority of the Australian people support the TPP?

Certainly some sort of mechanism to protect trade is required to prevent abuse by the state of private capitol investment...BUT, the current proposed TPP ISDS does nothing to curb hedge funds that are purposely purchasing bad debit and then holding out for the maximum payout or, propping up a bankrupt company for the sole purpose of seeking a payout and then letting the company die while they get a huge profit and putting the taxpayer on the hook for the dead company.

This version of the ISDS opens up brave new litigatory frontiers that go beyond the basic discriminatory and exproriative law defense (as it is limited to in NAFTA) and allows for companies to bring claim without risk if they loose, so no matter what it costs the people.

I find it more than a bit dodgy that there is no curb on the types of claims that can be brought and also a bit in favor of corporations that there is no test for harm to the claimant that is required before a claim can be brought.

I also find that it works in favor of corporations to prevent the government from being allowed to use Amicus Curiae to assist in defending the state against claims that run counter to public interest. (Philip Morris v. Austrailia)

Given the sterling character of our government officials and the overwhelming benevolence of hedge funds and corporations you will have to bear with me if I am a bit of a skeptic about fixing after the fact.

Should we not be supporting a trade deal that has those problems fixed/addressed before we enact?

Are there any examples where an ISDS provision in a FTA has ever been successfully used against the US or against any America company?

I get it, and the potential to replace humans for such tasks might be more difficult. But the point is that a lot of the low level service jobs we have thought of as location bound may not be as safe as we (I at any rate) previously thought.

A human controlled robot (or drone) that can vacuum, pick up towels, wash floors and toilets, etc. might not be able to perform 100% of the room cleaning tasks, but could remove 30-70% of the work that required an on-site housekeeper leaving the fiddly tasks such as bed making to a human. Robots should also be able to deliver room service, and transport luggage to people's rooms (I'm sure they could even be programmed to loiter around and point out where the bed is, how to open the closet doors and which is the bedroom and which is the bathroom until paid to go away).

The ISDS system is a balance between protecting long term investments an organization makes in an economy against potentially catastrophic local laws, such as nationalization, populist protectionism, etc.

It can be abused (e.g. Philip Morris vs. Australia being held in Hong Kong), but these abuses are not always successful (e.g. Philip Morris vs. Australia).

This is a calculated risk by countries that sign up to these free trade agreements, and I agree that it is suspicious that the U.S. has never lost one of these cases itself, and that it is heavily weighted in favor of Western companies over developing companies.

However the goal is to deliver a neutral decision based on international law, and it does a company no good to start a ISDS case for the most part (I know there are rapacious lawyers, but we know how to solve that e.g. the medical PI restrictions in CA have decimated the PI legal ranks).

The political risks in entering an emerging economy are well known. A smart investor might put 10-20% of his or her long term portfolio in emerging markets, but most professionals would caution too high an investment. One of the reasons is the dodgy state of the government in these countries. Without ISDS many long term investments by private capital would either cost a lot more to cover the higher risk or not happen at all.

Short term populism can whip up irrational but feel-good laws that can significantly harm organizations, look at Trump's threats to impose targeted tariffs on individual companies who move jobs to Mexico. There is a poster child argument in favor of ISDS in and of itself.

Again, the solution is to look to improve the mechanisms that support free trade agreements, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I wish you a Mele Kalikimaka, Hou'oli Makahiki Ho'u!

And, now, we are officially done here.

I fully agree about the ISDS.
Very well said.

The unenforceable labor and environmental provisions that encourage the race to the bottom... also part of the TPP like all the past trade deals... are at least a close second as far as flaws that justify opposition go.

Free traders tout the way our trade has lifted so many out of poverty overseas, but sure aren't writing the deals to help them more or harm our workers less... which enforceable and actually enforced provisions would.

A

Here's a little something about Hanukah from an article that followed a story Neil linked to above...

"The Hebrew word for charity, tzedakah, illuminates this perspective on giving. It means righteousness, fairness or justice. Giving is simply the right thing to do, and the recipient of a charitable gift does a favor to the giver by providing the opportunity to fulfill the duty to tithe. In the words of the famous ancient Rabbi Maimonides, “Nobody is ever impoverished through the giving of charity.”"

In the spirit of the holidays and tzedakah... righteousness, fairness and justice... perhaps you should consider sparing a thought for the millions of victims who were denied justice by Timmy and Obama at the behest of their Wall Street buddies.

A little tzedakah is what this world needs, and I pity you if you think it is wrong to believe otherwise... or if you think those preventing it deserve praise and admiration.

Such a spirit is alien to me, and I will never "get into it".

A

Could you explain in a little more detail how the ISDS in this trade deal is supposed to work?

That link was disappointing at best...I was hoping for something a little more thoughtful, unfortunately, like most other documents out there, written by corporate intrest groups, supporting the TPP it does little to address the very glaring issues of the ISDS as it stands in the TPP.

While I am not against "trade" I am however against trade deals that allow for corporations to enter into a dispute process that allows them to bring whatever they want to the table while preventing the government from bringing what is needed for proper defense to the table.

I am also against a corporation being allowed to bring dispute over laws designed to protect the health of it's citizens or prevent harm. Thus allowing the corporation to dictate the laws and power of the state. Something that the ISDS in the TPP permits.

While corporations and other parties should be afforded some protections from expropriative laws and discrimination by the state that would infringe upon covered trade it most certainly should be a two way street that protect the states ability to look out for it's citizens and prevents third parties from funding the litigation to make a profit.

If there were to be a equitable ISDS in TPP, I would perhaps think about having a favorable view of the agreement as there are many good things and like all trade agreements some bad.... however the ISDS is a bridge to far for me.

Let me know when you get into the Christmas spirit ...

Timmy

Timmy? Really?

Until your wisdom on taking care of the people is adopted, the equation is unbalanced.

The math can't count what should be, but isn't.

A

I'll try to get to the article.
Does it mention robots to fix the robots that break?

Have you ever changed the sheets on a bed?

A

It's not belief, it's fact.

I'm not sure if it's attempted revisionism or self-delusion.
The crooks walked.
Timmy helped them do it.

A

An honest presentation of why Sanders and Warren opposed the bill would make you look better...

... of course defending the provisions they opposed would not.

A

1. The FBI who they regard as "plodding coppers" (my friend watches way too much British TV, even though he is a yank, and likes to "talk Brit" with me - CW, I bet you do the same to your lovely other half, except "talk Paddy" might be more politically correct, or maybe not? "Talk Bog-Jumper"? "Talk Mucker"? Am I in a hole and still digging here?)

2. To be reminded of their 2003 "Weapons of mass destruction" failure

Frankly, on point #2 I think Trump is right to remind them that they aren't as smart as they think they are, but if you are reading this NSA/CIA/etc. I was only joking :)

Since he also dismisses most of their intelligence briefings, he is probably really getting up their noses.

This might not be a good idea - they do have a lot of ability to look under rocks he might not want them to.

Anyway, I think we need to focus on the Gini coefficient and raise awareness about the level of inequality in our society.

Chetty and his colleagues estimate that inequality is more than twice as important as slowing growth, accounting for more than 70 percent of the decline in mobility.

Their research comes out the same week as a separate study by French economist Thomas Piketty and others that found that the bottom half of American adults by income today earn no more in pre-tax income than the bottom half of American adults did in the 1970s.

Chetty and his colleagues estimate that inequality is more than twice as important as slowing growth, accounting for more than 70 percent of the decline in mobility.

Their research comes out the same week as a separate study by French economist Thomas Piketty and others that found that the bottom half of American adults by income today earn no more in pre-tax income than the bottom half of American adults did in the 1970s.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inequality-is-killing-the-american-dream/

I'm not sure that blaming Obama will work. I know that the Democrats spent way too long blaming Bush 2 for everything, however Bush 2 left two unpopular wars, a crashed economy and his popularity level was in the toilet.

Obama is leaving with high popularity numbers, a booming economy and no military involvement to pass off. There will be protestations that Obama should have been more robust about Syria and ISIS containment, but that is a more difficult thing to point to.

So, with the exception of the Obamacare unwind, which I think Obama should use his last words to warn about, so Senate Democrats and say "we told you so" in June of next year, I'm struggling to see how blaming Obama for the points in #2 or #3 will work.

?

neilm -

Your points 1 and 4 contradict each other. If it's 4 then 1 is just CT. If it's 1, then 4 isn't true. You obviously believe 4 in which case you believe the election was fair so 1 really means nothing at all.

Points 2-3 are wishful thinking. In reality, republicans need only blame everything on Obama and hey presto, they're heroes.

That's not at all how it went down.

And, my sense of humour is in pretty good shape, despite everything. :)

Currently Social Security is a safety net that 95% of people either rely on as a primary support mechanism for their retirement, or for the wealthier, as an essential component of their planning. Even for richer Americans, the 20,000-70,000/year that they are entitled to is important, particularly as it is guaranteed and indexed linked. There is a lot of uncertainty in 401(k) based income streams, so another advantage is the certainty of an income floor.

If we means test Social Security and eliminate the top 10-20% richest Americans, they are going to see it as:

1. Something for other people (who will be identified as "the takers") ...
2. that they have to pay for and get nothing in return.

The richest 10-20% of Americans are disproportionately politically powerful, from their engagement with their politicians, to the donations they give individuals and parties, and being in the right golf clubs, at the right events, etc.

If the most powerful see Social Security as a drain rather than a benefit, they will agitate to lower the cost, eliminate COLA increases, etc.

It is better for everybody that all Americans (with the exception of the Trumps, or Paris Hilton, to whom the amounts are a trifle) see some personal benefit from Social Security.

Everything above also applies to Medicare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/06/american-presidents-have-a-long-history-of-walking-back-tough-talk-on-china/

https://nrf.com/sites/default/files/NRF_TPP-Agreement-Holds-Potential-for-Retailers-and-American-Families_2016-full-report.pdf

Yes, you have mentioned all of that before.

We'll see ...

Of course, you know that would be wrong. :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/12/09/how-trump-era-trade-policy-threatens-to-send-up-the-prices-you-see-on-store-shelves/?utm_term=.17eefc579d46

* I don't believe in trying to protect jobs that automation (the major reason) or globalization make uneconomic, I believe in helping the people transition to a new economic reality and think we have a lot to learn from the Nordic countries about how to do this for the people that lose out through no fault for their own.

One thing I (re)learned the hard way from November 8th is to not make predictions :)

Maybe there are a few things that might give you some more hope for the Democrats:

1. Most of the intelligence services are jumping up and down saying that the selective hacking of the DNC and Podesta have Russian fingerprints all over them. If Obama's investigation is seen as a genuine warning rather than a partisan effort (i.e. he is doing this after the election) some real public anger is likely to grow.

2. The Republicans are in a state of happy disbelief at the moment:

2.a This is likely to manifest itself via over reach (e.g. Ryan even just talking about trying to fix Medicare or SS) that will be deeply unpopular

2.b They are acting in a coherent, "all in it together" fashion at the moment, but the seeds of division are there. As Michale repeatedly points out, Trump isn't a Republican's Republican, he might not even be a Republican's Independent. Lindsay Graham is already working with a bipartisan group to protect "dreamers". By 2018 the Republican Party could be at war with itself - the Commerce wing fighting the Trump wing and everybody fed up with the Tea Party wing still blocking everything.

2.c Everybody reads Trump the way they want him to be. He says so many contradictory things that people hear what they want to hear. And he is not immune (I'm being Michale sensitive here) to "exaggerations". Last night at one of his "Victory" rallies he said in response to the "Lock Her Up" chant: “That plays great before the election. Now, we don’t care, right?” Wrong Donald, your supporters really care about appointing a special prosecutor to go after Hillary. Once Trump has to start making decisions he can't be "a man for everybody" and the unity will fragment.

2. In off year elections, the young and other democratic demographic groups don't vote in the numbers they do in Presidential years. However there is a LOT of anger on the left - Trump is a lightning rod that will coalesce the angry mob out to "make America for all Americans" or whatever slogan the left find.

I'm expecting republicans to win a super majority in the House as well. That will then give them the numbers they need to hold a constitutional convention to repeal all those pesky amendments they don't like and add a heap of nice new shiny ones.

Don't worry. I forgot to send mine in last year so I'll double up this time around.

But, damn, can that Looney get any lower!? Geesh.

There is hope for the Republic, yet. :)

Humph.

It pains me to point this out, but after a fantastically record-breaking first weekend for our pledge drive, this week has been pretty flat -- only a few small donations all week long.

So anyone who hasn't already experienced our 2016 pledge drive announcement, which is just chock-full of cute kitten pictures, I heartily encourage you to click on over to it in the hopes that you'll be so mesmerized by the (to coin a phrase) "basket of adorables" that you'll open your wallets and purses wide in order to keep CW.com running ad-free for all of next year.

We have topped the halfway point in our pledge drive, but we've still got a significant ways to go before we reach this year's goal.

So if you can see your way to digging deep and sending us a few odd bucks for the holidays, we would certainly apprecaite it!

Let's regain the exciting momentum of the first weekend! Woo hoo! We can do it!

:-)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled comments....

-CW

Forgot to add: "...plus, Biden went to Canada, so you've GOT to love that, right?"

Heh. Sorry...

:-)

-CW

You've got to lighten up a bit -- Biden himself loves a good joke, right?

I wasn't casting any sort of aspersions on Biden, I thought he handled the whole thing (initial interview, followup with Colbert) perfectly -- like Trump, Biden knows when tossing in a "what the Hell, man" is worthwhile. I respect that in him, and think all the better of him for it. I just thought Seth Myers' line was a hilarioius riff on it, that's all... (hence the pointed capitalization in the Myers quote...).

I realize you're extra-sensitive to Biden slights, but sometimes the late-nite comics are laughing with him, not at him. This seemed to be the case, to me, this time.

Biden can be a funny guy. That's a rare gift in a politician, one that I have always respected and supported in him (unlike the late-nite comics). But sometimes, you've just got to laugh, that's all.

C'mon, I gave him the MIDOTW, didn't I?

:-)

Don Harris [3] -

Hey, I'd hold out for at least a couple hundred thousand... seems like they've got money to burn, after all...

Heh.

LizM [7] -

Didn't Feingold actually lose his election? I'd check on that...

[8] -

I was more thinking of Larry Summers when I wrote that, just to clear things up...

neilm [10] -

There's this thing called "auto-tune". I'd look into it...

Heh.

[13] -

Words to the wise, it sounds like...

LizM [20] -

Forgive me for the juvenile nature of this, but when I read that (and whenever I hear of the tennis star with the similar name), I flash back to Roseanne Rosannadanna reading a letter from "a mister Richard Feder from Fort Lee, New Jersey..."

Hey, I warned you it was going to be juvenile...

:-)

On that note, I think I'll sign off and go watch some Father Ted re-runs (to put me in the proper Christmas mood, of course...).

-CW

We have to look for inspiration from northern European countries who have comprehensive retraining, help with housing, help with relocation. Typically they have the unions, governments, and companies working together to try and keep the social cohesion. It doesn’t always work, but at least they try and most people feel that the government is helping them.

The article above explains far better than my words, why we need to look after the people and not the jobs when it comes to automation and globalization.

neilm

This is a new angle on robotics/drone technology I hadn't though of.

Fascinating article: http://qz.com/854257/brace-yourself-the-most-disruptive-phase-of-globalization-is-just-beginning/

Apart from CW, Ritholz is the only blogger I read religously every day. I strongly recommend his site: http://ritholtz.com/

Ritholz is a huge critic of any prognostication of just about any sort. A wise man that I could learn from, it would certainly give Michale a lot less ammunition to use against me if I did :)

Good night!

I'm afraid this is an area where I'm frightfully ignorant of the details. I remember the controversy, but my limited understanding comes from the McDonald paper:

http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/what-went-wrong-at-aig

The best I can understand is that the rest of AIG's business was sound, and that it was better to put a band-aid on than let the patient die.

:)

Wise lady.

I'd love to get your thoughts on this ...

During Geithner's testimony before Elizabeth Warren's TARP oversight committee, there was quite a lot of discussion back and forth between her and Geithner with Warren insisting on the idea that AIG should have gone through a special bankruptcy proceeding despite the clear and concise explanation by Geithner that this was not at all possible, given all of the extenuating circumstances.

It was actually quite a hoot to watch - the expressions on Geithner's contorted face were absolutely priceless as he tried to school Warren on why bankruptcy of any kind was simply not in the cards for AIG.

By the time everybody realized what had been achieved complacency had returned and so the architects were seen in hindsight as doing the obvious things that led to the comfortable outcome.

As humans we are really bad at forgetting then anxiety we felt about the future when we get back to our comfort zone.

When we look at events in, say 1943, we know that the allies are going to win the war, so we don't understand the real fear that people had at the time who didn't know the outcome.

This is why I recommend you set up as large lines of credit as you can in preparation for the next financial crisis (and there is always a new one, every 5-10 years), so you're already liquid when everybody is selling into cash to generate liquidity - the words "cash is king" should be music to your ears - that is the time to get out of cash and into depressed assets.

Oh, I was planning on wearing construction-grade ear plugs.

Heh.

I watched a lot of his testimony before congressional committees and learned so much from him when I was trying to understand all the elements of the financial crisis.

Can you imagine what more he might have accomplished and how much faster and robust the recovery might have been but for the unprecedented obstruction from the congressional Republicans? It gives me a headache whenever I think of it ...

Now, THIS, I gotta see!

Your problem won't be seeing it, your problem will be hearing it. Every so often one of my favorite sing-along songs will come on and I'll forget the total ban my family have on me singing with anybody in earshot.

They have all convinced me that I've not hit a correct note in at least two decades. They treat me admirably all the rest of the time, so I take their word on this.

However, for an occasion like this, I think my talent will parallel the gravity of the occasion.

I'm there with you. I was working on Wall St, and the City of London at the time and the smart guys knew they had a tough but solid Treasury Secretary. TARP was bitched about up and down, of course, and especially with the AIG bonus scandal - but that was not really Geithner's fault - he inherited a mess and did the best he could to correct it.

Just for the record, Treasury Secretary Geithner wasn't one of them, contrary to popular and progressive belief.

One of these days, Obama will get the credit he deserves for nominating this guy and Geithner will get the credit he deserves for practically single-handedly pulling the US economy back from the deep, dark abyss and for saving Main Street.

Of course, I won't be holding my breath ...

Now, THIS, I gotta see!

Heh.

As I understand it, this was part of a larger bill called the 21st Century Cures Act, an uncommon act of political compromise that passed the Senate in a 94-5 vote, I believe.

Of course, the usual suspects were among those who voted against this bill ... namely, Senators Warren and Sanders because, you know, they didn't get EVERYTHING THEY WANTED!

They are part of the 'I want what I want when I want it' gang. Didn't the poster boy of this group just get elected to the Senate, again? What's his name ... Russ Feingold?

Joe Biden has been on a farewell tour this week, not only being lionized on the Senate floor by Democrats and Republicans alike, but also appearing on Stephen Colbert's late-night show, where he displayed the basic humanity that has earned him such bipartisan respect. Earlier in the week, he joked to a reporter that he might just run for president in 2020, because "what the Hell, man."

I'm gonna file this one under 'Quoting Out of Context', something that Senator Biden is certainly familiar with having been done to him with great frequency.

Like me, you must have read the "What the Hell, man" quip from a report that failed to understand the meaning of what Biden actually said. Because, what he actually said has a completely different meaning from what the misplacement of this quote might suggest.

Here's what really happened and you can see how it completely changes the meaning of the quote:

Biden said that he might run in 2020 and the poor reporter asked, "for what?". Yeah, for what? For dogcatcher, you idiot reporter, what do you think he's thinking of running for!!!???

So, immediately after the reporter asked what Biden thought he would run for in 2020, Biden replied - without missing a beat and with a decidedly certain sense of chagrin... for president, what the Hell, man In other words, what the hell did you think I would run for in 2020, dogcatcher? ... you poopy head, you!!!

A rather different meaning than 'I'm gonna run for president, what the Hell, man ...

You would think that I would be over this sort of thing by now but, considering all that this kind of treatment of Biden by the press for more than 40 years has cost the vice president, I'll probably never get over it.

:-(