Full Version: Eliot Spitzer Is Impressive
Every time I see Eliot Spitzer on some cable show, I come away thinking the guy is just too good to go to waste. I think what he did was wrong on so many levels. But can people forgive him and give him another shot at public office? I think I could if he seemed sincerely contrite.
no, he is not a member of the bushclinton cabal
which is why he won't
he was canned becdause he was looking into the banks and wall street
sex was just phony
(mirror image of what phony sex was conjored up for clinton to save him)
aka the same thing that Mcgreevey was canned for as spitzer
you don't take the blood oath, you don't continue
which is why he won't
he was canned becdause he was looking into the banks and wall street
sex was just phony
(mirror image of what phony sex was conjored up for clinton to save him)
aka the same thing that Mcgreevey was canned for as spitzer
you don't take the blood oath, you don't continue
I think he is pretty sharp too, even though he does have too many ties to Wall Street. I hope he does overcome that prostitution thing, many have come back from a lot worse.
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 3 2009, 11:01 PM) 
I think he is pretty sharp too, even though he does have too many ties to Wall Street. I hope he does overcome that prostitution thing, many have come back from a lot worse.
spitzer don't have ties to wall street, he was about to break some major scandals when they set him up to take a fall with the hooker
the whore has said she will run in any race he does, insuring he will never run, because no issues will get talked about
Well, with all due respect for ladies of the night, that's a whore if there ever was one! What gives with her? Was she a Republican set up like the one they did on Gary Hart?
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 4 2009, 12:20 AM)
Well, with all due respect for ladies of the night, that's a whore if there ever was one! What gives with her? Was she a Republican set up like the one they did on Gary Hart?
that's what I think
they manufactured a sex crisis to stop his investigation cold
Unlike say John Edwards, who is 100% cad, or Bill Clinton who is 200% cad and all, Spitzer is not that type.
And he actually loves his wife if you ask me, not the cheating type.
I think Spitzer was set up, blackmailed and given a choice
so I don't think he ever will be allowed back in.
the fix is in
I live in New York and I have had dealings with Eliot Spitzer and he is as crooked as a twisty country road and as dirty as they come ...
Talk about a POLITICAL WHORE, alright ...
If he wants to make a come-back in politics, let him go somewhere in the USA where they appreciate slimeballs as their politicians ....
Let us see, there is New Jersey ....
There is California ....
And Georgia is on the board as a taker for him ....
GOOD BYE, Eliot, you piece of garbage ....
And so ...
Talk about a POLITICAL WHORE, alright ...
If he wants to make a come-back in politics, let him go somewhere in the USA where they appreciate slimeballs as their politicians ....
Let us see, there is New Jersey ....
There is California ....
And Georgia is on the board as a taker for him ....
GOOD BYE, Eliot, you piece of garbage ....
And so ...
Trouble Ahead: Can the Right Seize the Banking Reform Issue in 2010?
Eliot Spitzer explains how the White House defense of the status quo will give Republicans powerful ammunition in the 2010 elections.
Few things are as potent in politics as calling for change at a moment of fundamental dissatisfaction with the status quo. Nobody should know this better than the current White House. Gauzy words describing the possibilities for change are always more comforting than defending the current dire straits. That is why — in addition to all the substantive arguments — the current White House plan for banking reform is so troubling.
Let us fast forward a couple of months. Momentary GDP pops notwithstanding, the economy next year is likely to be in pretty sad shape. Consumer spending is sagging; foreclosures are still climbing (and may surge as ARMs re-set); unemployment is likely to be hovering in the 9.5-10.0 range; federal deficits and state deficits will be soaring; and Goldman profits will still be setting new records.
Added to this toxic political brew will be a new, and perhaps counter-intuitive, but highly successful political attack from the RIGHT: break up the banks. Imagine this: by next spring, an intellectual consensus will have emerged that the concentration in the banking sector that developed from the 1980s until the crash of ‘08 was misguided. Voices as disparate as Former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King, meta- investor George Soros, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page will be in agreement on this point.
A few brave souls on the Right — recognizing that the Republican Party has been bereft of ideas in its attacks on President Obama — will then try to re-define a populist, conservative attack by asserting that the White House has been captured by Wall Street. Real populism and change, they will argue, will come from the Republican, not the Democratic, party.
The power of such an attack from the Right should not be underestimated. There will be a huge first mover advantage that goes to the candidates who grab the real banner of attacking the structure of Wall Street as having been the root of the crash of ‘08. We Democrats are spending way too much time wringing our hands over the new, “reformed” structure of regulation, and not nearly enough focusing on restructuring the banks. Congress continues to mediate the intramural battle among regulators who are defending turf in the next regulatory flow chart. Yet the real debate should be how to take the big banks and make them smaller: how to peel off proprietary trading and other high-risk endeavors that are now being funded and guaranteed by taxpayers.
In addition, there is too much attention being paid to the one recent idea thrown into the mix by the White House: how to place a tax on big financial institutions after the next crash, so that they shoulder the cost of the next bail out. The notion that a levy on surviving big banks when the next crisis hits can pay for the bail out seems wrong in at least three ways:
First, applying a levy at the moment of crisis will merely accentuate a down turn. At a time when we will presumably need more liquidity and lending to revive a stalling economy, the federal government is going to apply a significant tax to healthy institutions capable of lending? Not likely.
Second, having the healthy institutions cover the losses of the sicker institutions takes us right back into the land of moral hazard. Profligate, risk taking entities will be bailed out by those that exercised caution.
Third, any downdraft significant enough to bring “too big to fail” institutions to the brink of the precipice is likely to be broad based enough so that virtually all the other major institutions are troubled, probably leaving them in a no position to cover the cost of the bailout.
So the simple question remains: why aren’t we focusing on the problem that got us here in the first instance — the scope, range, and size of the mega-institutions whose risk taking has so far inflicted only enormous harm on our economy? If the Republicans pick up this issue before we do, the elections of 2010 could be even worse than we are now fearing.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/tro...ue-in-2010.html
Eliot Spitzer explains how the White House defense of the status quo will give Republicans powerful ammunition in the 2010 elections.
Few things are as potent in politics as calling for change at a moment of fundamental dissatisfaction with the status quo. Nobody should know this better than the current White House. Gauzy words describing the possibilities for change are always more comforting than defending the current dire straits. That is why — in addition to all the substantive arguments — the current White House plan for banking reform is so troubling.
Let us fast forward a couple of months. Momentary GDP pops notwithstanding, the economy next year is likely to be in pretty sad shape. Consumer spending is sagging; foreclosures are still climbing (and may surge as ARMs re-set); unemployment is likely to be hovering in the 9.5-10.0 range; federal deficits and state deficits will be soaring; and Goldman profits will still be setting new records.
Added to this toxic political brew will be a new, and perhaps counter-intuitive, but highly successful political attack from the RIGHT: break up the banks. Imagine this: by next spring, an intellectual consensus will have emerged that the concentration in the banking sector that developed from the 1980s until the crash of ‘08 was misguided. Voices as disparate as Former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King, meta- investor George Soros, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page will be in agreement on this point.
A few brave souls on the Right — recognizing that the Republican Party has been bereft of ideas in its attacks on President Obama — will then try to re-define a populist, conservative attack by asserting that the White House has been captured by Wall Street. Real populism and change, they will argue, will come from the Republican, not the Democratic, party.
The power of such an attack from the Right should not be underestimated. There will be a huge first mover advantage that goes to the candidates who grab the real banner of attacking the structure of Wall Street as having been the root of the crash of ‘08. We Democrats are spending way too much time wringing our hands over the new, “reformed” structure of regulation, and not nearly enough focusing on restructuring the banks. Congress continues to mediate the intramural battle among regulators who are defending turf in the next regulatory flow chart. Yet the real debate should be how to take the big banks and make them smaller: how to peel off proprietary trading and other high-risk endeavors that are now being funded and guaranteed by taxpayers.
In addition, there is too much attention being paid to the one recent idea thrown into the mix by the White House: how to place a tax on big financial institutions after the next crash, so that they shoulder the cost of the next bail out. The notion that a levy on surviving big banks when the next crisis hits can pay for the bail out seems wrong in at least three ways:
First, applying a levy at the moment of crisis will merely accentuate a down turn. At a time when we will presumably need more liquidity and lending to revive a stalling economy, the federal government is going to apply a significant tax to healthy institutions capable of lending? Not likely.
Second, having the healthy institutions cover the losses of the sicker institutions takes us right back into the land of moral hazard. Profligate, risk taking entities will be bailed out by those that exercised caution.
Third, any downdraft significant enough to bring “too big to fail” institutions to the brink of the precipice is likely to be broad based enough so that virtually all the other major institutions are troubled, probably leaving them in a no position to cover the cost of the bailout.
So the simple question remains: why aren’t we focusing on the problem that got us here in the first instance — the scope, range, and size of the mega-institutions whose risk taking has so far inflicted only enormous harm on our economy? If the Republicans pick up this issue before we do, the elections of 2010 could be even worse than we are now fearing.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/tro...ue-in-2010.html
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.