So what you're saying is that Larsen voted to reduce the "bailout" culture, or at the very least, ways to fund the "bailout culture"? Seems then that the title and the focus of the press release is incorrect, then. Indicating that there's "always latitude... to stretch the law" is one thing, but saying that this law provides an actual MEANS to do that is another. A law that is not as effective to stop bailouts is not the same as one with the intent actually promotes the use of them.
Likewise, Taylor does NOT state that all bailouts will cease, quoting that "eliminating regulation by deal in a financial crisis is impossible."
Therefore, you're wrong.
As to the former, what Koster's press release actually said was the bill "will likely open the door for permanent taxpayer-funded bailouts for Wall Street." Far from being not "the truth" -- given the fact that even the NYT says that deal-making, wiggle room, ad hoc remedies, latitude, and backdoor assistance will still encouraged, allowed, and arguably still provided -- it's a perfectly reasonable belief to have.
"Opening the door" by...? Where precisely are the "permanent taxpayer-funded bailouts" in the bill?
You're stating that "deal-making, wiggle room, ad hoc remedies, latitude, and backdoor assistance will still encouraged, allowed, and arguably still provided" and that "it's a perfectly reasonable belief to have". However, where precisely is the stated intent behind the bill to "create" a permanent bailout culture, or to promote those actions? If you're arguing that there are still loopholes that are not closed by this bill, that's fine -- and expected, since watertight bills rarely exist -- but saying that doors are "opened" suggested that this actually mandates bailouts or "deal-making, wiggle room, ad hoc remedies, latitude, and backdoor assistance", which this does not.
Therefore, you're wrong.
Believing that if they can bail out, they will bail out, is not remotely unreasonable.
Saying that there's enough latitude in the law to deal with unexpected future events or that there may be loopholes does not suggest that the law itself will encourage bailouts as a matter of course. You're ascribing intent specifically to a law that does nothing to specifically promote the actions you claim it does.
Therefore, you're wrong.
Let's not pretend that you're making a strong argument here. You haven't outlined how bailouts will be encouraged, nor have you described how this would result in a "vote to create permanent bailout culture" -- which is still part of the press release, despite your dismissal of it.
Therefore, you're wrong.
Posted by cnb at July 24, 2010 06:40 AMTherefore, you're wrong.
That's my main point: that bailouts are likely to continue under this bill. Do you dispute this, as Sam Taylor does? This is his clearly stated basis for saying Koster's claim is not "the truth."
Now, it is true that Taylor would not DEFEND his incorrect claim that bailouts will not continue when I showed his own link to the NYT disagreed with him. But he didn't retract his incorrect claim, either.
Saying that there's enough latitude in the law to deal with unexpected future events or that there may be loopholes does not suggest that the law itself will encourage bailouts as a matter of course.
I never said it did: I repeatedly said that to believe that the law, through these loopholes, will encourage bailouts is REASONABLE. That the belief is NOT UNREASONABLE. That it is INCORRECT to claim that this belief is not "the truth." If someone does not believe it will encourage bailouts, I think they are naive, but there's no empirical evidence (yet) either way. In fact, the wording you use here implies you agree with me; you seem to be saying we don't know what will happen, which is my point: that Taylor is wrong to say that Koster's claim about what will happen is not "the truth," because Taylor cannot know that bailouts will not be encouraged.
Therefore, you're wrong.
You're ascribing intent specifically to a law ...
Incorrect. You're completely misrepresenting the claims made. Intent is irrelevant, because encouragements are not necessarily intended. Ronald Reagan's amnesty law is an obvious case in point: it was not intended to encourage more illegal immigration, but it did precisely that.
Therefore, you're wrong.
Let's not pretend that you're making a strong argument here. You haven't outlined how bailouts will be encouraged
Let's not pretend you are actually referring to my argument. You are, in fact, arguing a straw man. My point is that it is wrong for Taylor to say that the belief that bailouts will be encouraged is not "the truth," not that encouragement will or won't happen. But history shows that leaving the door open for bailouts, as it's clear was done in this bill, is very likely to lead to more bailouts.
Therefore, you're wrong.
nor have you described how this would result in a "vote to create permanent bailout culture"
Neither I nor the press release said it would. Try rephrasing, perhaps?
What was said is that the vote is likely to result in a permanent bailout culture, which is a reasonable belief backed up by the other points I made. No one said that the bill, or a vote for the bill, is likely to result in a vote for a culture: that doesn't even make sense.
Therefore, you're wrong.
Try harder!
I have a high standard for journalists: when there's serious accusations that they erred, they need to man up and seriously defend them, or admit they were wrong. He's done neither.
He is not trustworthy, frankly.
cnb: you're not following along very well. You say, Taylor does NOT state that all bailouts will cease, but he explicitly does. In his original post he links to, he approvingly says: "So is the claim that bailouts will continue under the legislation true? Politifact says no. And the claim has been debunked for a few months now by them."
Wow... so where in that statement did HE HIMSELF say that the bailouts will cease? He said that other organizations have said this in his previous post, but in the post you're criticizing, he states: "the verbatim language of the measure sets up mechanisms for the institutions themselves to pay for any restructuring (not taxpayers)."
He also states in his previous post: "But, basically, the gist is that while there is specific language barring bailouts, there is flexibility in terms of how a company would be liquidated. The legislation is specifically intended to show the markets that the government won’t act as a backstop against failures, and that one portion of the bill that might allow for what some could perceive as a “bailout” is written in a way that it might never be used."
Maybe you just have a problem with the term "explicitly". Regardless, you're wrong... and you're quite absurd.
That's my main point: that bailouts are likely to continue under this bill. Do you dispute this, as Sam Taylor does? This is his clearly stated basis for saying Koster's claim is not "the truth."
No, his statement is disagreeing with the title of the press release put out by Koster.
Honestly, if you are trying to develop an alternative approach for dealing with firm liquidation, that is far better than either doing nothing or passing a law "against bailouts". To be honest, nothing that you've said shows any way that an alternative bill would NOT continue. Hell, if Congress decided to do whatever it liked, it could easily repeal any "ban" that existed, and decide to bail out a firm anyway.
Now, it is true that Taylor would not DEFEND his incorrect claim that bailouts will not continue when I showed his own link to the NYT disagreed with him. But he didn't retract his incorrect claim, either.
He made a statement about claims from other sources. He did not say at any point that ALL bailouts would cease, and you're lying for stating otherwise.
I never said it did: I repeatedly said that to believe that the law, through these loopholes, will encourage bailouts is REASONABLE. That the belief is NOT UNREASONABLE. That it is INCORRECT to claim that this belief is not "the truth." If someone does not believe it will encourage bailouts, I think they are naive, but there's no empirical evidence (yet) either way.
So without establishing a method by which this would encourage bailouts beyond the status quo (or beyond Republican alternatives), and without "empirical evidence", you make a claim that someone is a liar. Brilliant. Score one for complete intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, the wording you use here implies you agree with me; you seem to be saying we don't know what will happen, which is my point: that Taylor is wrong to say that Koster's claim about what will happen is not "the truth," because Taylor cannot know that bailouts will not be encouraged.
If you're arguing that Taylor is incorrect because he states something with absolute confidence -- which he does NOT -- you'd be right. However, to state that this will absolutely create a "bailout culture" is also incorrect. You cannot know that bailouts WILL be encouraged.
Incorrect. You're completely misrepresenting the claims made. Intent is irrelevant, because encouragements are not necessarily intended. Ronald Reagan's amnesty law is an obvious case in point: it was not intended to encourage more illegal immigration, but it did precisely that.
That's parsing the point beyond reason -- this is politics, and not a undergrad polisci course. If Koster were trying to establish that the Democrats were merely writing laws incorrectly, that would be one thing. The use of the term "bailout culture", though, ascribes specific intent where none exists.
Let's not pretend you are actually referring to my argument. You are, in fact, arguing a straw man. My point is that it is wrong for Taylor to say that the belief that bailouts will be encouraged is not "the truth," not that encouragement will or won't happen. But history shows that leaving the door open for bailouts, as it's clear was done in this bill, is very likely to lead to more bailouts.
Absolute bull. Again, without a Constitutional amendment, any law banning bailouts can certainly be repealed or rewritten to allow them. Providing an alternative approach to liquidation does far better than believing that a "ban" would actually ban an intervention like with the bailouts.
Neither I nor the press release said it would. Try rephrasing, perhaps?
Title of the press release is "Larsen Votes to Create Permanent Bailout Culture". Unless you plan to dispute that title, why don't you try to rephrase your objections?
What was said is that the vote is likely to result in a permanent bailout culture, which is a reasonable belief backed up by the other points I made. No one said that the bill, or a vote for the bill, is likely to result in a vote for a culture: that doesn't even make sense.
Again, name of the press release. Likewise, you haven't established squat, other than that you're willing to scuttle an alternative approach for liquidation that would actually address the issue.
So yes, pudge... try harder. You're claiming that someone is lying, while you're pretty much doing that in trying to tear him down. How dishonest.
Posted by cnb at July 30, 2010 05:57 PMI've already gone over this. Koster said, the bill "will likely open the door for permanent taxpayer-funded bailouts for Wall Street." Sam quoted that, and said in response that "the truth" was "far different."
There's only two ways for that to be not "the truth." One is for there to be no possibility of the bill opening the door for bailouts. The other is for Sam to know the future such that the possibility will not be realized.
As any reasonable person would, I took him to be asserting the former, especially since he explained that such a door would not be opened because "the institutions themselves" would be paying the bill, "not taxpayers."
Seriously: it is not possible to read what Sam wrote and think that he was not asserting that bailouts WOULD NOT HAPPEN under the bill.
He later said he was communicating poorly, and that it wasn't what he meant. But he refused to explain what he DID mean when he responded to an assertion that bailouts were likely under this bill by saying it wasn't true because taxpayers wouldn't be paying the bill.
So I am left now believing that he knows the future. He has traveled there and seen that bailouts did not continue, so he can confidently say that a belief that it is likely is not "the truth."
Of course, even here, our time-travelling friend from Bellingham has a problem: since even if bailouts are not realized, that doesn't mean they were not likely. It's likely that if I flip a coin ten times it will land heads at least once, but if it does not, that doesn't mean it wasn't likely. So Sam knows the future, he just doesn't understand probabilities. (But if you know the future, I guess you don't need to.)
No, his statement is disagreeing with the title of the press release put out by Koster.
Nope. As I said just above, you're wrong. Try actually reading what Sam wrote. He replied directly to a quote from the text of the press release. In fact -- and you would know this if you were paying any attention -- Sam only mentioned the title of the press release in his own entry's title, and not in the text of the entry he wrote.
Honestly, if you are trying to develop an alternative approach for dealing with firm liquidation ...
Irrelevant to our discussion here, which is about Sam's false claim that Koster's press release was not "the truth."
So without establishing a method by which this would encourage bailouts beyond the status quo
I quoted the NYT which made the assertion that the bill could do this (whether it would is, of course, undeniably conjecture, and obviously fair conjecture). Again: your reading comprehension is quite poor.
If you're arguing that Taylor is incorrect because he states something with absolute confidence -- which he does NOT -- you'd be right. However, to state that this will absolutely create a "bailout culture" is also incorrect. You cannot know that bailouts WILL be encouraged.
Wow. It's like you live on another planet. Sam absolutely used absolute language: he said that Koster's press release was "far different" from "the truth." That is absolute: he said categorically that what Koster's press release said was not "the truth." Full stop.
Meanwhile, what Koster's press release said -- despite your obviously false claim to the contrary -- not absolute at all. It did not say that a bailout culture absolutely will be created. It said that it will LIKELY do so.
Seriously, learn to read.
That's parsing the point beyond reason -- this is politics, and not a undergrad polisci course. If Koster were trying to establish that the Democrats were merely writing laws incorrectly, that would be one thing. The use of the term "bailout culture", though, ascribes specific intent where none exists.
Seriously: another planet you are on (maybe if I speak like Yoda it will get through to your alien way of communicating). No intent was mentioned, implied, or otherwise asserted. You're making it up. You're lying.
Again, without a Constitutional amendment, any law banning bailouts can certainly be repealed or rewritten to allow them.
Yes, Obama lied when he signed the bill. I agree with you.
Title of the press release is "Larsen Votes to Create Permanent Bailout Culture". Unless you plan to dispute that title, why don't you try to rephrase your objections?
Not all. I will repeat my objection, using your own words: neither I nor the press release said the bill 'would result in a "vote to create permanent bailout culture."'
Please think about the words you are using. Just a LITTLE bit. I don't think anyone, ever, in history, has claimed that a bill would result in a vote for something like that. Bills usually don't result in votes at all, and this one is no exception.
Twenty points higher than me? Thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?