How soon people forget! The big Wall Street bailout of $700 billion was signed into law by Bush in October 2008, three months before Obama took office—in fact, even before he was elected.

The current head of the NEA is Janet Chu, who is from the heartland (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas) whose signature achievement seems to be seeing how the arts affect GDP--before taking over the NEA, she was best known for pushing to build an arts centre in Kansas City. What has she done that deserves to be "put on notice"? Genuinely curious.

The people who were advising Bush weren't any brighter than Bush was. Globalists can afford to gamble with other peoples money. There was the bailout by Bush, and then there was the stimulus by Obama and congress. Two separate things, if you ask me. The stimulus went primarily to democrat hacks and unions, not to infrastructure. Of course, I'm sure someone posted a stimulus sign on Christie's boondoggle in Jersey to make it look good. It's why Christie and Obama could share a hug.

I'm glad that we're back in reality with a separation of the stimulus and bailout--two different pieces of legislation in different years from different administrations.

You're right, Charlie, the stimulus bill did not include a lot of infrastructure spending--a little less than $50 billion out of the $830 billion that was eventually spent on the ARRA were earmarked for it, according to my quick search. Contrast this to the $275 billion in tax cuts. You're saying all this went to union members and Dem hacks?

The Obama-Christie hug came during a visit to inspect Hurricane Sandy relief efforts, iirc.

But getting back to Andrew's original list . . . y'all are in for quite a ride. We here in Canada are sure to catch a lot of it. The NEA is the least of my worries, although of course it matters, too.

No, Edward, not to the union members, but their bosses. A good bit of it did go to Dem party officials, however, as of today, not all of the stimulus money has been spent, yet. There's a little left to blow. Back to the subject of the arts; I have no idee who at NEA or NEH has pissed off Trump. It could be anyone. I am fairly certain there are some evangelicals who have Trump's ear and hate those orgs as well. I don't care much for those entity's either. I'm sure there is a list somewhere that gives an accounting for a lot of the "art" projects which have been approved and paid for which have little to do with art, in the purest sense of the word. I do know a couple of folks from my Seattle days who applied for money. Those guys have never truly worked a day in their lives. It's easier to live on the public teat. It's free money. Who wouldn't go for it?

Charlie your normalizing of the birth pangs of the Plague by pointing out the deadly fevers in past generations must be reassuring to you. If that is why you are doing it, keep up the good work. If you are hoping for someone to take the time to respond more fully, don't hold your breath. There comes a point where to keep saying "It isn't as bad as all that" becomes collaboration. For me, you past that line a long time ago. Your comfort with the violence against the biosphere, the lower class, and reasoned approaches to reality are duly noted. When Madame DeFarge is reserving seats for the "You Helped It Happen" Ball I am sure she will put you down for two. Bring a friend.

If this darling little fascist hatchling gets knocked from the nest to the pavement before it is feathered, it will be from open resistance not from wasting anymore time talking to he self inoculated. And by chick I don't mean just Trump. He is gonna make a go of it for Godfather but prolly is just a useful meat puppet with horns that will be sliced into cutlets once the china shop is sufficiently aerated. Maybe he has the chops for the Full Reichstag but unless they can get the voltage right on his treatments and find an IQ donor with a blood type compatible with Useful Moron I doubt it. It will be much more complicated than his impeachment, which if hasn't happened by this time next year would indicate they did in fact find that donor after all.

The whole vampiric spectrum of this State is due for a day in the sun and I get Obama's integration in its violence and half measures but I don't hear that in your comments. I figure anybody who can't see the common decency in the guy compared to what we are up against here struggles with basic distinctions to the point of being irrelevant. In that willful collapse I hear something I can't play nice with. So allow me to leave it at this for the whole thread and just ignore your posts. That doesn't mean I don't think you dismissing Dan Rather as having an agenda while you read aloud from your Chick Tracts isn't funny. That laugh I can thank you for.

Edward,

I’m not forgetting. TARP was an important part of the bailouts, but its $700 billion or so was dwarfed by the $16 trillion provided by the Fed, largely with the consultation and consent of the department of Treasury, into 2010 (see this Fed timeline). Bank of America, Citi, AIG, Fannie and Freddie were on government life support well into Obama’s administration and needed subsequent guarantees and capital infusions. Citibank and BofA alone needed an additional $400+ billion in asset guarantees which, IIRC, were only finalized after the election and closed as late as January 2009. I don't believe that Obama was ignorant of or opposed these actions.

It is also arguable and even probable that the Fed’s $4+ trillion quantitative easing and ZIRP programs were designed primarily to recapitalize the big banks, many of which were insolvent well into 2009 and beyond; ‘asset reflation’ was how the Government rebuilt the bank balance sheets. Alas, this strategy has widened the disparity in wealth in the US to historic, and I believe very, very dangerous levels -- and I think this greatly feeds into populist anger. If Obama had strongly opposed the Fed's actions, he likely would not have nominated Bernanke to a second term as Fed Chair, or nominated Yellen as Bernanke's successor.

I think it was damaging that the Obama administration failed to prosecute senior bank officials or to break up the banks, while substantially socializing their losses. Obama and Geithner argued again and again that they took ‘hard and unpopular’ actions for the benefit of the American people, to stave off systemic collapse. Perhaps so; but these actions fueled the notion that our plutocratic elites play by a different set of rules than everyone else: they keep their profits, we socialize their losses. It's a difficult notion to combat because it seems true, and not just on Wall Street. I think the rage against the elites we now see is traceable in part to the memory of these events.

(edited in: if you care to hear Geithner's full-throated defense of all the Government's actions in the financial crisis, I remember his interview on "Charlie Rose" (here in six parts) is pretty good. BTW, after leaving Treasury, Geithner became President and Managing Director of Warburg, Pincus, one of the US's largest private equity firms. I think there's a whiff of oligarchy.)

In my life, I watched the Right tear up Jimmy Carter as: Naive.
I watched the Left tear up Ronald Reagan: Dangerous Cowboy.
I watched the Right tear up Bill Clinton: Sexual predator.
I watched the Left tear up George W. Bush: Stupid.
I watched the Right tear up Barack Obama: Muslim.

Yep, Andrew, I've watched the past generations play lawn tennis with every recent past president. I don't know yet for sure whether Donald Trump will be treated the same as the rest or worse. I suspect the latter.


I know the medications of the nut-alt-left are alluring to some, maybe even you, Andrew, but that is your business. This is still America. Are we ever really led by the very best person that all of us can agree on?

When has the public ever played nice?

Your biosphere comment is uncalled for. And beneath you.

Though USA business isn't really my business, may I remind all youse that Obama told us to go to the back of the queue and the Donald told us to go to the front. Which we are now doing. His common decency didn't show here though the students like him

Andrew M, you seem to speak a curious opaque language all your own. But then you are not writing for the likes of me. I do get that Trump is President and you don't like it.

Just a quick reminder that Eratosphere's guidelines don't prohibit harsh criticism of either poems or ideas. If you think someone's poem or idea is dreck, you are free to say so (ideally by identifying specific points that will help that person revise).

However, critiques need to stay focused on the poems or ideas, and not wander off into critiques of the personal shortcomings of the people associated with those poems or ideas.

An attack on the weaknesses of your poem or idea is not automatically an attack on you. Please don't interpret it as such. (And if someone does attack you personally, please don't respond in kind--just remind that person of the site guidelines, and bring the conversation back to the poem or idea.)

Now back to our regularly scheduled argument.

As you were...