All Things in Moderation

Morning Report – Bull Market Psychology is back 04/22/13

28 Responses

1. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on April 22, 2013 at 9:04 am said:

   Here’s what I don’t understand, Sebilius can move all sorts of money around for the disastrous Obamacare implementation,

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/19/about-the-obamacare-train-wreck/

   but the FAA, who’s budget is only growing at a 2% smaller pace than in previous years somehow is unable to function with this lower rate of increase and not be able to move money around.

   http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SEQUESTER_FLIGHT_DELAYS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-22-07-18-11

   I get the idiotic argument that “OH MY GOD WE CANNOT, I REPEAT, CANNOT SURVIVE WITH A RATE OF INCREASE IN OUR BUDGET THAT IS NOT AS LARGE AS IN PREVIOUS YEARS AND WE ARE HAMSTRUNG(!), HAMSTRUNG GODDAMNIT FROM MOVING MONEY AROUND TO PRACTICE GOOD GOVERNANCE!!!!!11!!111”

   Can anyone who believes that the Federal government should do more in our country explain how this is a demonstration of good governance?

   If the FAA collapses because it’s rate of increase is less than it has been in previous years, has it been all that well run in the past? If not, why not? Obama has now had 5 years to demonstrate Federal Administrative competence, is this an example of that?

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   jnc4p, on April 22, 2013 at 9:30 am said:

   Sigh. I used to expect better reasoning from the NYT Editorial page, even if I didn’t agree with them.

   “It also creates a “merit based” category of green cards while getting rid of permanent visas for siblings of citizens and for people from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. These new visas would be given to people on the basis of points granted for factors like the college degrees they have earned; whether their siblings are citizens; how highly they score in an English proficiency test; and whether they are from an underrepresented country. This proposal is deeply troubling because it appears to buy into the zero-sum thinking that pits employment-based immigration against family-sponsored and diversity immigration. America should welcome both groups of people, not choose between them. ”

   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/opinion/visa-reforms-for-skilled-workers.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

   If you have limits on who can come to the United States live and work, i.e. anything short of open borders, then by definition you are choosing between them with any allocation of green cards.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   jnc4p, on April 22, 2013 at 9:49 am said:

   It’s too bad former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer won’t run for the Democratic presidential nomination. He’d be a great candidate with a lot of cross over appeal.

   “Schweitzer is well known for his VETO brand, which he said he registered with the Department of Livestock. He used three sizes to emphasize his 96 vetoes: calf-size for the “inconsequential, stupid” bills, yearling-size for the “silly” bills and bull-size for the unconstitutional bills.”

   http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/article_5d09acc0-a89f-11e2-8c8c-0019bb2963f4.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on April 22, 2013 at 9:54 am said:

   What harm would come from open borders and instant citizenship?

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on April 22, 2013 at 9:59 am said:

     McWing:

     What harm would come from open borders and instant citizenship?

     Accelerated national bankruptcy.

     LikeLike

     Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on April 22, 2013 at 10:03 am said:

     I thought this article was pretty interesting, not just, or even primarily, because of the slam on MoDo (although that is always useful), but rather because of the danger for Obama that it points out.

     Her efforts to describe a strategy satirize themselves; her attempts to translate a “never-let-go” attitude into practical steps amuse. But none of that causes her to doubt the shining truth: gun control would be ours if the President weren’t so pathetic. If Maureen Dowd’s political fantasies cannot be realized, it is obviously because President Obama just isn’t very good at his job.

     The President should watch his back; there are a lot of Dowdians out there in Liberal La La Land, and as an inevitably disappointing second term unfolds they are increasingly ready to blame everything they don’t like about the state of the country on what they are sure is his incompetence, his political cowardice and his sloth.

     LikeLike

     Reply
5. 

   lmsinca, on April 22, 2013 at 10:09 am said:

   Is the NYTimes suggesting open borders and instant citizenship? I doubt it. I think they’re suggesting that both employment based and family based immigration have a legitimate claim to eventual citizenship. I don’t think they worded it very well but that’s the gist of it to me.

   They apparently don’t like the bill the way it stands. As a compromise between Republicans and Democrats working on the bill they must believe it swings too much in one direction. I haven’t had a chance to look at the bill yet but I understood it increased border security and the path to citizenship takes 10 years. Hardly open borders and instant citizenship. Not sure anyone would recommend that scenario, even the NY Times.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on April 22, 2013 at 10:11 am said:

   Scott,

   I have a lot of faith in human capital. Also, bankruptcy is inevitable and fresh blood will help in the rebuilding.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on April 22, 2013 at 11:23 am said:

     McWing:

     I have a lot of faith in human capital.

     Me too. I think we’ve discussed this before. I am instinctively in favor of open borders and easy immigration. But that cannot coexist with the kind of welfare state that we now have. I suppose if you assume the welfare state as it exists must eventually collapse anyway, then accelerating it and getting on with the recovery process sooner rather than later makes sense. In which case open borders and immigration is even more attractive.

     LikeLike

     Reply
7. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on April 22, 2013 at 10:15 am said:

   Lms, I Reccommended that scenario. There is zero long term downside.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   lmsinca, on April 22, 2013 at 10:21 am said:

   Okay McWing, I thought you were being sarcastic.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   jnc4p, on April 22, 2013 at 10:25 am said:

   “lmsinca, on April 22, 2013 at 10:09 am said:

   Is the NYTimes suggesting open borders and instant citizenship? I doubt it. I think they’re suggesting that both employment based and family based immigration have a legitimate claim to eventual citizenship. I don’t think they worded it very well but that’s the gist of it to me. “

   No, they suggested that there’s no trade off between the two, which is wrong. All choices involve trade offs.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    lmsinca, on April 22, 2013 at 10:30 am said:

    Okay jnc, I’ll take your word for it. I was trying to answer both your critique of the piece and what I thought was McWing’s strawman.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on April 22, 2013 at 11:49 am said:

    Hmmmmmm.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/22/video-flight-delays-because-of-sequester-cuts/

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on April 22, 2013 at 11:50 am said:

    Scott,

    My sentiments exactly.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Brent Nyitray, on April 22, 2013 at 12:10 pm said:

    Does the charge for the Boston Bomber mean that if we find Saddam’s old rice cooker that Bush will have been vindicated?

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on April 22, 2013 at 12:34 pm said:

      Brent:

      Does the charge for the Boston Bomber mean that if we find Saddam’s old rice cooker that Bush will have been vindicated?

      Hah. I noticed the same thing…WMD? Really?

      LikeLike

      Reply
14. 

    jnc4p, on April 22, 2013 at 1:21 pm said:

    The odd thing is the disparity between the Boston bombers and the guy accused of mailing the letters with ricin in them, Paul Kevin Curtis.

    I’d think that the ricin attack was closer to WMD’s than pipe bombs.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    jnc4p, on April 22, 2013 at 1:24 pm said:

    The criminal complaint for the Boston Marathon bombing:

    http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/criminal-complaint-united-states-vs-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/412/?hpid=z1

    Note the establishment of a link between the race and “a substantial impact on interstate and foreign commerce” on page 3, necessary to invoke Federal jurisdiction.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    novahockey, on April 22, 2013 at 1:31 pm said:

    any questions for Bob Woodward? can’t go into detail, but I’ll have the opportunity

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on April 22, 2013 at 1:38 pm said:

    NoVa, ask him what he thinks Mark Felt’s motivation was.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on April 22, 2013 at 2:05 pm said:

      nova:

      Ask him if he seriously thought Sperling was threatening him when he was told that he would “regret staking out this claim” over the sequester.

      LikeLike

      Reply
18. 

    jnc4p, on April 22, 2013 at 1:45 pm said:

    Does he buy the general media narrative of polarization, excessive use of the filibuster etc as a reason for “gridlock”?

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    novahockey, on April 22, 2013 at 1:59 pm said:

    those are both good. I’ll file those away and see if I can’t get answers. tune in next week.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    jnc4p, on April 22, 2013 at 2:28 pm said:

    I assume that they will be taking on hate crime charges as well as the WMD ones.

    “Boston Carjacking Victim Says Tsarnaev Brothers Spared Him Because He “Wasn’t American”

    By Josh Voorhees
    Posted Monday, April 22, 2013, at 12:44 PM”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/22/boston_carjacking_victim_tsarnaev_brothers_didn_t_kill_driver_because_he.html

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    lmsinca, on April 22, 2013 at 5:52 pm said:

    Here’s an explanation of the WMD part of the indictment today, for what it’s worth.

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, was charged today with using a weapon of mass destruction. It’s yet another circumstance where the legal and colloquial definitions of “weapon of mass destruction” are at odds.

    The actual bomb Tsarnaev allegedly constructed and detonated is pretty much the opposite of what people think about when they think “weapon of mass destruction,” a vague term that usually means a weapon carrying an unconventional payload, like a nuclear, chemical or biological yield. The FBI affiant, Special Agent Daniel Genck, confirms the bombs used pressure cookers for their hulls — “of the same brand” — packed with “low grade explosive” containing BBs and nails and a “green hobby fuse.”

    Bashar Assad’s chemical arsenal this ain’t. But, as Danger Room explained after U.S. citizen and anti-Assad fighter Eric Harroun, faced similar charges, “weapon of mass destruction” is a very broad category under federal law. Grenades, mines, missiles and rockets all apply. So do homemade bombs of the sort Tsarnaev allegedly constructed. About all that doesn’t apply are firearms and pyrotechnics gear. No one ever said the law had to coincide with military terminology.

    We’ve argued all this helps speak to the definitional absurdity surrounding “weapons of mass destruction,” and indicates the infamous term ought to be retired, replaced instead by the specifics of what an explosive actually is or does. None of that bears on Tsarnaev’s case.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/tsarnaev-charged/

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    lmsinca, on April 22, 2013 at 6:05 pm said:

    And here’s a little rebuttal to MoDo from Kevin Drum.

    Obama may very well be a lousy negotiator. But honestly, that’s just not a big factor here. He simply doesn’t have much leverage of any concrete kind, and when it comes to soft leverage, his power is quite probably negative. That’s life in modern Washington. Dowd needs to grow up and figure that out.

    But I will congratulate her on one thing. As near as I can tell, she actually cares about gun control. Yesterday was the first time in years that I’ve read a column of hers where she actually seemed to care about anything substantive. Mostly she seems to be on autopilot, creating some juvenile wordplay first and then adopting whatever position makes the column easiest to write. So as bad as Sunday’s column was, I’d have to grade it an improvement over her usual gig.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/04/maureen-dowd-and-presidential-leverage

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on April 22, 2013 at 8:59 pm said:

      James Taranto highlights yet another reason to oppose federal funding of NPR…it’s “science correspondent” doesn’t understand what science is.

      LikeLike

      Reply