« Ike Ate My Homework, and Some of the Neighborhood ... | Main | The Knucklehead of the Day award »

The Voice Of Ignorance

When it comes to economics, I am woefully ignorant, both on a macro and a micro scale. I make no pretenses to even be an amateur scholar of such things, and all anyone has to do to prove me an ignoramus is to look at my bank account, tax returns, and credit rating.

But I do remember some things, and can occasionally piece them together.

I have no grand unified theory that explains the collapse of the subprime mortgage industry, no overarching explanation for the events that led to the collapses that have shaken Wall Street to its very core this week (if that is what happened -- I'm not even up enough to know how much of the hysteria is hype), but I do recall certain things that seemed to me, at the time, bad ideas that would lead to major problems.

Many years ago, there was a huge push to approve a lot of mortgages that the banks had been refusing. There was a huge stink about "redlining," where banks were compelled to issue loans in areas they didn't wish to invest. And in the last couple of years, "creative" mortgages were all the craze -- especially the "no-documents" loans, where the applicants would just say how much money they made and the lenders would say "sure, we trust you!"

In the first case, I can understand why the government stepped in. There were some very bad reasons why these banks didn't want to invest in certain neighborhoods -- racism, bigotry, and the like. That shit needs to be stomped down, and stomped down hard. But there were also some good reasons that got shoveled under with the rush to end discrimination.

And just who the hell thought that "you say you make that much in a year? Sure, your word's good enough for us! No need to show us any documentation!" was a good idea? I'll tell you who -- those who have a vested interest in certain loans being made, regardless of whether or not they'll ever be paid off. Mortgage brokers, and those who want to point to record home sales and take credit for it and brag about how great it is -- i.e., politicians.

Politicians like, say, Barack Obama, who was #2 on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's list of favorite politicians, as measured by how much money they gave him.

The fun part of that list is that Obama's second on that list that is cumulative over 20 years -- and he's only been in there four years. Other politicians had up to 16 years' advantage on Obama, but they (apart from Chris Dodd) were left far in the dust. They really, really, REALLY like Obama.

Other politicians I'd like to shovel a good chunk of blame on are certain Republicans who liked citing home ownership as a measure of economic prosperity. The problem there is that you start thinking of the indicator as the goal -- you are tempted to rig the results by pushing the metric, even beyond the limits of reason and common sense.

In my utterly uninformed and uneducated opinion, what is happening in the financial world is the rude triumph of reality over fantasy: the fantasies that good intentions and government power can make things better, that social engineers and activists and "community organizers" know economics better than those who make it their livelihood, that attempts to make things "more fair" will never end in disaster; that "equality" never means "everyone's equally miserable," that combining the benefits of government entities and private enterprises will never end up with the worst of both worlds; and no matter what happens, some politician will be eager to tell you that it's not your fault, and he or she has the perfect solution for everyone.

I'm fairly confident that in the long run, things will be OK. Yes, there are some parts of our economy are in serious trouble, but I happen to agree with John McCain -- at its core, in the big picture, America's economy is on sound footing. Our current problem is caused by a bunch of idiots and greedheads in some very high-profile areas who have finally been exposed as the incompetent assholes they are -- and those who they fooled for so long are paying the price for believing their bullshit.

That's my take on the matter. What's the difference between what I say and what the experts are saying? The main one I can think of is that I don't even pretend to know what the hell I'm talking about.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31634.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Voice Of Ignorance:

» Wizbang linked with More Devils, More Details

Comments (41)

I am very glad that there w... (Below threshold)

I am very glad that there was no bailout of Lehman Brothers, or Merryl Lynch,and that there will be no bailout of AIG and probably not one of WAMU either.

Bad decisions have bad consequences.

Barry Obama and his minions... (Below threshold)
Bob:

Barry Obama and his minions better hope the economy is basically sound, as he has no clue how to improve it. More taxes on the "rich," more regulations, more social programs and income redistribution - all of his programs assume a strong and healthy American economy, which will be able to continue producing despite his planned assault. If the core economy is weak, we'll really be headed for disaster with BHO in the White House.

Some interesting highlights... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Some interesting highlights (interesting to me, at least)
Dems lead over Reps, overall by 724,632
Reps took in more from PACs than as individuals by 871,876 overall
Dems were more even, taking in 324,186 more in PAC contributions
The largest contribution beneficiaries from individuals:
Obama: 120,349
Dodd: 116,900
Kerry: 109,00
Clinton: 68,050
Davis: 61,500

Biden, BTW, 3,300 over the years, all individuals. McCain 21,500, also only from individuals.

When Alan Greenspan talks a... (Below threshold)
Dave:
Jay your last sentence make... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Jay your last sentence makes you an equal to McCain.

But seriously, this mess belongs to everyone. Republican politicians, Democratic politicians and "we the people." We tolerate year after year after year the incompetents ( democratic and republican) who run our government. They all claim to be working for the people - and some of them actually are - but most are in it for one thing - power and money. When we all wake up and throw the bums out at least we can say we fulfilled our responsibility.

Barry Obama and his mini... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Barry Obama and his minions better hope the economy is basically sound, as he has no clue how to improve it. More taxes on the "rich," more regulations, more social programs and income redistribution - all of his programs assume a strong and healthy American economy, which will be able to continue producing despite his planned assault. If the core economy is weak, we'll really be headed for disaster with BHO in the White House.


Bob,

Unless you make more than $250,000 your going to pay more taxes under Obama. The bulk of Bush's tax cuts went to the ultra rich. Obama's plan is to roll back the tax cuts just to the ultra rich and apply it to hard working people (such as you and I) who will need it the most in these bad economic times.

Dave, I don't think you mea... (Below threshold)

Dave, I don't think you meant to say what you said, but I think that what you said is more accurate than what you meant to say.

The Community Reinvestment ... (Below threshold)
hermie:

The Community Reinvestment Act was put in place to force banks & other financial institutions to prove they were not discriminating, and that they were making efforts to promote lending in 'unserved' areas.

That meant that these lending institutions were pressured to make more loans which were riskier because of the lack of sufficient collateral and the greater likelihood of foreclosure or outright default.

Groups like ACORN...Yes THAT same group which Obama is closely aligned with..Promoted lawsuits and other legal actions against lenders who they felt were not in compliance with the 'spirit' of CRA. Mergers and acquisitions of banks, establishment of branches, and other business that were under the jurisdiction of the FDIC and Federal Reserve, could be delayed or even halted unless the lenders 'made up' for their 'insensitivity'. That meant more risky loans.

Now why would Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac give more money to Obama in this short amount of time in office? Considering Obama's alliance with ACORN, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac's disasterous lending practices, the answer is simple: Obama and the Dems would cover for them, as long as they would lend according to ACORN's dictates.

Dave Most of those... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Dave

Most of those "Ultra rich" (top 1% of income earners) are folks who own small businesses who file the earnings of the small businesses via personal income tax rathe than business tax.

So what Obama's plan will do is kill the small business owners. Thus no job creation, and a whole host of other NEGATIVE things that will happen.

Thank goodness Obama wont be elected.

I'm fairly confident tha... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

I'm fairly confident that in the long run, things will be OK.

Don't bet on it.

I expect we'll get out of t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I expect we'll get out of this mess, but there's going to be casualties besides taxpayers. Anyone who's 401K is heavy into mortgage backed securities or financial sector stock should study up and act to reduce their exposure. Pension plans may also be uncomfortably exposed.

We need to benefit from lessons learned. ARM's should be highly regulated if not outlawed. Minimum qualifications for mortgages must be enforced. Converting mortgages to securities needs to be highly regulated and traceable so that investors know the risks.

More generically, anytime there's a bubble detected (rapid increase in price not supported by supply and demand fundamentals) there should be a mandatory investigation to see what's driving it. If it's speculation, like with oil and housing, then the government needs to step in an regulate it. A new Bush Doctrine would be that "if it's too big for the government to let it fail then it's too big for the government not to regulate."

There's a fundamental difference between investors and financial parasites. If you like the idea of a windfall profits tax then applying it to financial parasites seems just when taxpayers are asked to bailout financial markets.

wolfwalker, that was an int... (Below threshold)

wolfwalker, that was an interesting article. Particularly this one sentence:

The pain-minimizing strategy, from an economic and human-misery point of view, would be to voluntarily crash those programs now.

They're going to crash. Of that I have no doubt. As he also said, smart people began writing off their social security back in the 90s and began planning. We're going to have to bite the bullet. The only question is, do we want it to be a .22 or an 8mm?

So what Obama's plan wil... (Below threshold)
Dave:

So what Obama's plan will do is kill the small business owners. Thus no job creation, and a whole host of other NEGATIVE things that will happen.

Retird Military:

I know its hard for someone who listens to McCain to know the truth about Obama's tax proposals. But if you do a little research you can get the straight facts.

The ad continues McCain's pattern of misrepresenting Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals as falling on middle-income families. It claims that Obama "promises more taxes on small businesses, seniors, your life savings, your family." But that's untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama's actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income.


The truth is Obama is providing tax credits to small businesses.

I can understand your confusion because the GOP is implementing a campaign of distortion on Obama's tax plan.

OysterWith respect... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Oyster

With respect, neither of the "articles" linked by wolfwalker were in fact "articles.' One was a conservative blog opinion piece and the other an editorial, hardly substantive pieces.

The hard truth is that taxes are going to have to be raised, and they will be raised. Now I'm not going to blame one side or the other for the current mess as I think both parties are culpable. McCain can hoot all he wants about retaining the tax cuts but I don't think that's a sustainable position. It seems to me it won't be a question of if taxes are raised but of how much they will be.

Our government has been a perfect mirror image of the mortgage schemes. Lets borrow borrow and borrow some more and worry about how to pay it back later. We see what's happened with the mortgage schemes and now our government's day of reckoning is coming. Hard, hard choices are going to have to be made and if compromise can't be reached then I do agree there will be a crash.

Here's the (simplified) uni... (Below threshold)

Here's the (simplified) unified theory:

(1) Too many loans made to unqualified borrowers. This group includes, but isn't limited to: the so-called redlined buyers, speculators buying houses they had no intention or ability to close on, fools and idiots taking out mortgages based on the hope that interest rates would never go up, the gullible screwed by unethical brokers, and

(2) The securitization of mortgages, whereby mortgage debts were accumulated, packaged and sold off to investors, resulted in nobody really knowing what is in their particular package of mortgage debt; as a result ALL mortgage debt is considered suspect. This has led not only to the write-offs (perhaps far higher than the real amount of mortgage defaults) but to a lack of credit available for mortgages.

The cure: (1) re-institute credit standards for extending mortgages (decent down payments, verified credit and income, mortgage payments commensurate with income), and (2) unwinding mortgage packages so investors can see what they're actually buying, which would allow good credits to be made and would identify the slices of mortgage debt where repayment is unlikely.

wolfwalker,The art... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

wolfwalker,

The article you linked is fundamentally flawed.

At some point, the U.S. government is going to lose both the ability to increase revenues and the ability to sell bonds. At that point the entitlements system will crash.

The federal government has trillions of dollars worth of assists it can fall back on; must fall back on for anything secured by the full faith and credit of the United States. What are those assets? They are millions of square miles of Federal land and the resources that grow on them and lay beneath them. One solution is to use these to pay entitlements entitlements for anyone over 60 at the time of the crises and then privatize the system for everyone else proportionally based on age.

If the monetary system crashes we'll end up with hyper-inflation, and if it's rapid as in a crash, it will wipe out most people's savings and investments, but also allow them to pay off their fixed rate mortgages and loans with what amounts to play money.

Anyone who really believes such a crash is coming needs to be buying a year's worth of food, real-estate, gold, silver, and guns. Without the guns others will take your food, gold, silver, and other property.

As I understand it, the "no... (Below threshold)
No One of Consequence:

As I understand it, the "no document" loans actually do serve a purpose. They allow self-employed people whose income may fluctuate greatly from month to month to get mortgages.

Banks are terrified of lending to the self-employed. When my wife and I were getting our mortgage (standard 30-year fixed), the loan officer noticed a bump in one of our bank statements. I told him that I sometimes do some consulting on the side, and someone happened to have a big project for me. You should have seen the panic in his eyes. I had to write a letter explaining that I made very little money this way (which was true), and that particular month was an aberration (also true).

He [Obama] propose... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
He [Obama] proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income.

What Obama doesn't tell you or doesn't understand is that these are the small business owners. Every sole proprietorship, LLC, or subchapter S corporation passes it's income to the owners directly as if it's family and/or individual income. Obama's tax plan won't have any effect on lower income people unless they work for a business and/or purchase goods and services from a business. Such people will pay Obama's taxes indirectly in the form of higher prices and lower wages. It's just a shell game Obama is hoping people are too stupid to see through.

14. Posted by JFO "The har... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

14. Posted by JFO "The hard truth is that taxes are going to have to be raised, and they will be raised."

Without some citation I see your statement as unsupportable. I think you likely could state that the federal government is going to require more revenue without a request for citation, but you chose to say "taxes".

There is not enough money available, even if the government confiscates every penny from people with incomes above $250,000, to pay for this mess. The only way I see for that amount of money to find it's way into federal revenues is for the economy to grow, and and from that growth federal receipts will increase to cover these liabilities (assuming someone doesn't come along and spend all that new revenue on a whole bunch of new programs).

We cannot tax our way out of this problem.

"McCain can hoot all he wants about retaining the tax cuts but I don't think that's a sustainable position. It seems to me it won't be a question of if taxes are raised but of how much they will be."

And that sounds to me like you are an advocate of throwing gasoline on a fire.

"Our government has been a perfect mirror image of the mortgage schemes. Lets borrow borrow and borrow some more and worry about how to pay it back later. We see what's happened with the mortgage schemes and now our government's day of reckoning is coming. Hard, hard choices are going to have to be made and if compromise can't be reached then I do agree there will be a crash."

Compromise. nice word. My position is that government is too big now, too intrusive already, became too involved in regulating long ago. Yours seems to be pretty much the opposite. My compromise would mean I would still allow for some but less regulation, some but less intrusion that we already have, and a smaller but bigger than we need government. So how are you going to compromise? Come on, your the one who brought up the idea of compromise.

Old GuyA quick res... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Old Guy

A quick response as I am on the run.

Compromise = less spending + more taxes.
Yes, smaller government. happy to chat more later.

I'm no expert. My impressi... (Below threshold)
epador:

I'm no expert. My impression is that revenues tend to increase over time with tax cuts and decrease over time with increases. Anyone got evidence to support this?

JFO: You may well be right ... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

JFO: You may well be right that taxes will be raised -- but that won't solve the problem. You're making an obvious-but-flawed assumption: that a rise in tax rates will equate to a rise in tax revenues. That doesn't necessarily follow. In fact, we have good reason to believe it won't: in recent years, there have been at least two cases where the federal government attempted to raise a lot of revenue by passing large tax rate increases. One was Carter's "windfall profits" tax on oil companies. The other was the Reagan-era "luxury tax" on things like private yachts. In neither case did the actual new revenue collected get anywhere near the projections. I'm sure you could find many more examples at the state and local levels.

Mac Lorry: The notion of selling off federal lands and the resources thereon is an interesting one, which I admit I hadn't heard or considered before. It might indeed make up the difference ... if you can get it past Congress, and if you can actually get it to yield the multiple trillions of dollars in revenue needed to pay off the entitlements programs.

Whether or not either of those ifs is do-able remains to be seen. Thus I say the same I did above: don't bet on it. Work to bring it about, yes. Blithely assume it will work, no.

My impression is that re... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

My impression is that revenues tend to increase over time with tax cuts and decrease over time with increases. Anyone got evidence to support this?

Well, a Nobel Prize in Economics was handed out to someone for basically saying just that.

JFO, Why is it tha... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

JFO,

Why is it that you on the left ALWAYS say that 'more taxes' are (at least part of) the solution to (place current financial 'crisis' here)?!?

When you, in your personal life, find that your cash is going out faster than it is coming in, do you:

a)Assess a tax increase on your employer (e.g. get a raise)
1)Borrow more money to keep up your current standard of living, knowing full well that you will eventually have to pay back that debt, or
B)Cut your spending back to the point where it is less than your current cash inflow.

I don't know about you, but RESPONSIBLE people will cut their spending to match their income. Why should the goverment behave differently? I sure wish I had the power to tell my boss he was giving me a raise because I had a new program to implement at home. Sorry boss, that new program was 150% more expensive than planned, so I'll need another raise. You're rich, you can afford it, so fork it over!

Obama talks about Hope and Change, but his plans are nothing more than same old, same old. Same old tax increases. Same old spending increases.

When does the goverment ever have to do some belt tightening like most Americans have to do from time to time?

ShiekI don't "alwa... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Shiek

I don't "always" say that more taxes are part of the solution. I'm just trying to look at this realistically. I think the government has been doing business the same way as a significant portion of the population has - irresponsibly. Borrowing against the future - and the future is here and there is no way to pay the debt. The government is like irresponsible borrowers who run up credit card debt and then refinance and then run up the debt again. The day comes when the debt is due and you either have to pay it or lose the house. This may simplistic but it's how I see it.

How are we ( the country) to get out of this mess without raising taxes as a part of the solution? Maybe we're not past the tipping point yet but it sure doesn't look that way. I think we ought to cut government as well and we ought to be able to figure out how to pay for the war somehow other than borrowing from China.

I really think that both McCain and Obama will govern more from the center than from the right or left and I think both will realize the answer is not just cutting the government size and spending. I agree with you that RESPONSIBLE people will cut their spending and that the government should as well. I just don't think its the complete answer.

Oddly enough, the ch... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Oddly enough, the checker where I shop for groceries was griping about the Democratic Party tax raises. Testing the water, I said, "But Obama says that will just be for people like him, over $150,000.

Checker said, "I guess Obama never heard of indirect taxes, windfall profits tax means higher prices at the pump. Guess who pays that?

Smart checker.

JFOYou are project... (Below threshold)
Larry:

JFO

You are projecting what you THINK Obama will do as opposed to an analysis of his track record, which is deliberately obfuscated by him and his handlers. Look at how he blew 100 million of Annenberg money on school programs (and other stuff) that didn't make a difference in Chicago schools mainly because he fought hard to minimise the work day for teachers; 5.15 hours per day for almost nine months.

Think what politicians do, not what they say, please.

wolfwalker, <blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

wolfwalker,

if you can get it past Congress, and if you can actually get it to yield the multiple trillions of dollars in revenue needed to pay off the entitlements programs.

I'm not sure Congress would have a choice. Just saying sorry to everyone who put money into the social security system would be political suicide. It's not just those who are retired who would be out for blood, but all those who have been paying into the system for decades as well. In such a climate it's doubtful Congress could hold back any government assets that could be sold or used to back the money it needs to print. Even then taxes will go way up on those who have income and/or real property. Few people will escape unscathed, even many of those who think they have planned for such a crash will find themselves in want.

LarryI'm not proje... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Larry

I'm not projecting anything - it's what i think both of them will do. Of course I could be wrong. If you were to analyze McCain's record he's a clone of Bush. Do you really think he'd govern that way if he wins? I don't believe he will but of course I could be wrong about that too.

Speaking of projection, please show me how ["Obama]...blew 100 million of Annenberg money...

And please do it without linking me to some right wing blog or right wing writer.

Taxes WILL have to be raise... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Taxes WILL have to be raised? Seriously? based on what? When has taxing ourselves into prosperity EVER worked? Getting rid of this graduated tax system would be the best thing that could be done to get the economy rolling again.

Taxing people for being successful is just insane to me. I don't make a whole lot of money, but some day i hope to. I don't want to be paying 30% or more of my check to the government. At the very core, it strips people of their freedom. Government programs are not a right. It stops being a right when the government has to intrude on someone in order to provide the "right". "free" healthcare is not a right, never has been a right and never will be a right. The government will ration it and will treat it like a privilege. You have free speech, but as soon as you use that speech to cause someone else harm, thus infringing on their rights, the freedom of speech is no longer your right.

Government handouts and regulations are what are killing this economy right now. There are too many promises, and too many people on the "taking" side instead of the "giving" (confiscated from) side. The fundamental idea of the left is to infringe on the side that is not "giving" enough instead of weening those that are "taking" off of these government programs. You lefties need to realize that incentives to be poor have never been a good idea and they never will be a good idea. It will be the collapse of this country if you get your way.

JFO - "And please do it... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO - "And please do it without linking me to some right wing blog or right wing writer."

Well golly-gee, do I spy a continuing problem?

Why yes I do, your persistent idea the any and everything published or espoused by, OMG, a "right-winger" is a lie.

That wouldn't make you a far-out, close-minded ideologue now would it?

No marc - only when someone... (Below threshold)
JFO:

No marc - only when someone makes a preposterous allegation like:

["Obama]...blew 100 million of Annenberg money...

Now remember before you get into your anal fixation marc that it is you who bloviates on a regular basis about unlinked statements. Lets have you challenge Larry to the same standard you hold the rest of us to.

P.S..... would you consider... (Below threshold)
marc:

P.S..... would you consider the University of Illinois (Chicago) a "right-wing" organization?

If so don't bother reading this final report (138 page PDF File) on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Obama was an utter failure during his first major test as head of an outfit that had 100 mil to play with.

I got your "standard" hangi... (Below threshold)
marc:

I got your "standard" hanging... and linked to.

But trust me, I have little faith you will make the slightest attempt to wade thru 138 pages.

marcI didn't "wade... (Below threshold)
JFO:

marc

I didn't "wade" through it and if you say that you did then you are either nuts or a liar - actually I suspect that you're probably both. I did skim it and used the "Find" box. Funny, I didn't see anywhere in there that "Obama blew 100 million of Annenberg money." Can you tell me where it says that in there?

The smarter banks wrote mos... (Below threshold)
LenS:

The smarter banks wrote most of these loans off as soon as they made them. Because, realistically, these weren't loans. They were bribes to buy off the politically connected.

I posted this Social Securi... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I posted this Social Security comment on a blog (possibly Wizbang?) some years ago:
I'm putting as much as I can into my 401k provided through my job. I do this by sacrificing things I want right now.
However, I think that in 40 years, SS will be so eff'ed up that the politicians will look around and say, "Hey, look at how much Les has saved! He's got a pile of retirement money. He has more than 'enough'. Let's reduce or eliminate his SS benefits while continuing to pay people who didn't plan ahead." And so all that money that I paid in for all that time will be wasted. Plus, since I will (hopefully) have a nice nest egg saved up, I think there will be a significant tax increase on us 'rich' retirees.
I will not be surprised for events to unfold this way; in fact I mostly expect it. But, knowing myself, I will still be mightily pissed; possibly to the point of doing something 'unfortunate' in my geezer years.
You have all been warned.

I think it still is true.

JFO - "I didn't "wade" ... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO - "I didn't "wade" through it and if you say that you did then you are either nuts or a liar"

Oh yeah, simply, (the single way your mind works) that just has to be it, I'm a liar or nuts.

This all over 138 pages of text. That's a fine demonstration of my earlier assessment.

You're an ideologue with zero initiative to learn or accept anything related to truth.

P.S. And if you think the findings published by a major U.S. university would place the text "Obama blew 100 million of Annenberg money" within that study you're far more delusional then most here thought. (and may speak to your education level)

P.P.S. I called your bluff, you wanted a link, one not from a "right-wing" blog or website and you got it, then you ran with the dear in the headlights look in the eyes whimpering out of the frame crying for help to find the info.

Asswipe.

JFO, the reason you didn't ... (Below threshold)

JFO, the reason you didn't find it is because it isn't there. You might have picked up on that by the lack of quotation marks around it; that means that they're my own words.

Instead, if you look at the link I posted in my article "Barack Obama: The ACME Corporation of Education" (where I actually discuss the CAC, you'll see a quote and a link to a study of the CAC's activities, that show not measurable difference in schools they tried to help and those they didn't. In other words, they achieved essentially NOTHING.

When you spend over $100 million and end up with having achieved NOTHING and reached NONE of your measurable goals, then I think it's more than fair to say that you pissed away that $100 million.

Alternately, you could have achieved your unstated goals quite adequately -- such as, say, funneled a nice hunk of change to your cronies who never had any intention of actually helping the schools in question. But I'm just tossing out possibilities here.

J.

JayClarification -... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Jay

Clarification - I was not referring to your quote, it was a comment from "Larry".

There is no dispute that the Annenberg Challenge was not successful. The issue is whether "Obama blew 100 million dollars. And of course the inference is that he - not anyone or anything else - was directly responsible for blowing the money. I don't think you believe that.

From what I've read there are mixed views of the Annenberg Challenge in general, which as you know was not limited to Chicago but included NW, Philadelphia, SF amongst others. I've read some varying reports where some found some success in some of the programs and not much, if any, in some.

H

marc"asswipe" </... (Below threshold)
JFO:

marc

"asswipe"

Man you really have an anal obsession. It appears that you must have been a failure at potty training with this incredible obsession of yours. Were you punished for failure? Maybe rewarded for not succeeding?

As further evidence - you sound like a toddler with these constant "poop" type references.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy