I listened to Senator Bob Corker — and others — discuss the new financial regulations this morning. I was astonished to hear the single most moronic talking point evah: “New regulations will hurt job creation.”
You know what really hurts job creation?

The worst recession since the Great Depression, trillions of dollars in taxpayer monies used — unproductively — to bail out irresponsible banks. Oh, and 15 million lost jobs.

THAT hurt job creation, you frickin’ eejit.

Category: Bailouts, Regulation

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

43 Responses to “Idiotic Talking Point of the Day”

  1. Dennis says:

    I would have titled this “Bob Corker, douchebag of the day”

  2. David Tallman says:

    When our boys were little we used to tell them, “Stupid people explain a lot.” Still true.

  3. TakBak04 says:

    Corker is a fave of CNBC in the mornings. Ever notice they rarely have Dems on their countering. Maybe the Dems don’t show up because they can’t counter. Or, perhaps they aren’t invited.

    The tone I heard was that this is terrible financial reform and will ruin the markets and the country’s hope for continued growth.

    When I went on to the Dem Blogs they were complaining how badly the legislation has been watered down and the compromises made because Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats blocked everything. It seems that they even took out “truth in lending” for Auto Loans and Paycheck Loan Shop loans which are two that hurt the poor or the clueless the most.

    Hopefully something will come out of this that’s worthwhile in the end. But for CNBC’s Morning Show to characterize the legislation as too restrictive is laughable when one has read what was taken out.

    Worse is that the legislation that was watered down helps neither political party because the economy is in such bad shape because of years of deregulation and credit bubble (as BR rightly calls it). Both parties are to blame but the Republicans can probably make a better case this fall for elections that the economy is still bad and little job growth has occurred because the Dems Overspent on stimulous and tied Wall Street’s hands behind their back with “restrictive financial reform.” Dems will have little to counter with.

  4. franklin411 says:

    Silly Barry. Don’t you know that there isn’t an unemployment problem? As Nevada Teabagger Sharron Angle said, all of those unemployed folks are just lazy mofos who refuse to work less-than-perfect jobs. That’s why the Senate killed the unemployment benefit extension. See how that works?

  5. Charlatan says:

    You think that’s bad? Yesterday Cramer blamed the bad stock market on the “nonsense regulation” being proposed and claimed that it had only succeeded in creating a “D.C. induced malaise” over the entire market.

    And then there was this corker: “There’s nothing wrong with saying that a great man has lost a step or two. You can say it about Willie Mays, you can say it about Paul Volcker… How cynical and calculating was President Obama with the ‘volcker rule.’ Very troubling” — Jim Cramer, 3/17/10.

  6. Mannwich says:

    Good grief, Barry. Now that’s just crazy talk focusing on facts and stuff.

  7. Mannwich says:

    As Orrin Hatch put it, we need to start drug testing the unemployed.

  8. WFTA says:

    BR. Don’t suger coat it. Let us know how you feel.

    Somewhere there’s a village missing its alternative reality.

  9. Tarkus says:

    He meant HIS job creation as a future well-paid lobbyist. Context is everything.

  10. Sircornflakes says:

    I’d like to see everyone hooked up to a giant shock machine. Say something stupid and BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

    And not the “cute” vuvazela kind of of bzzzzzz either.

  11. TakBak04 says:

    Its A Draw! Bank-Friendly Dems And Progressives Finalize Wall Street Bill
    Brian Beutler | June 25, 2010, 8:57AM

    Big banks won one big fight yesterday, which will allow banks to continue investing a significant amount of equity in hedge funds. But that was in the context of a greater battle over whether banks should be allowed to make speculative trades with their capital…and they lost that one.

    The more dramatic tussle was over a provision, authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), meant to force big financial firms to spin off their derivative trading desks into separate affiliates that do not enjoy federal protections. The haggling over that provision dragged on past midnight. Wall Street largely lost, having pushed hard for months to get it scrapped entirely. However, big firms will retain the ability to trade derivatives in house for the purposes of hedging their own risk.

    That doesn’t mean Wall Street walked away without anything to show for the fight. In the previous days, for instance, it succeeded in gutting an amendment meant to eliminate conflicts of interest at credit rating agencies. That measure would have prevented big firms from shopping around between agencies in search of the best rating. Now it will first be subject to a two year review before implementation and could be scrapped altogether. Similarly, industry won a number of exemptions from new consumer protection and trading regulations.

    “I am proud of this bill, and I am proud of the open and transparent process that led to such a successful result,” said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, who lead negotiations for the Senate.

    Now the legislation goes back to each chamber for a final vote. Bank-friendly House Dems will have to support the bill for it to pass. In the Senate it will likely be held to a 60-vote threshold. With two Democrats continuing to oppose the bill from the left, Dodd and Majority Leader Harry Reid will have to woo the same Republicans who supported the bill the first time around, with little to no margin for error.

  12. Fitgerald says:

    A little background on Bobby Corker.

    He made his money as a real estate developer, and then got into politics to satisfy his ego, he’s small of stature you know. He was budget director under republican Governor Don Sundquist, and was part of a push to bring an income tax to Tennessee, yeah great idea. Then he became Mayor of Chattanooga and used the office to push through development that he, and his associates, benefitted from. He finally bought a senate seat by spending more money than any other senate candidate in the 06 election cycle.

    His political skills, and grasp of the issues, are weak. He recites republican talking points very well, but if he is asked follow up questions his shallow political intellect is exposed. He only latched on to this bill to raise his profile in hopes that he might get a shot at a VP nomination. You only have to look as far as Senator Bob Corker to understand why the mess we are in has been impossible to fix.

  13. cwf says:

    QUESTION – someone please explain to me the correlation of initial jobless claims to the UE numbers which come out at the end of each month………

    On page 2 of the WSJ, there is an interesting graph. It shows us hovering around 450k IJC’s per month, about the equivalent of where we were in late summer 2008. If that’s the case, how are we able to have positive job growth numbers at the end of the month, especially since it looks like pre-recession, we were averaging about 300k IJC’s per month – a number that seemed to keep overall UE stable in the country. 450k IJC’s would equal 600k more IJC’s per month MORE than an equilibrium UE situation.

    I’m confused. I hope my question makes sense.

  14. AHodge says:

    if you get angry everytime someone on planet R blames the govt and regulation for everything bad, that will use a lot of energy
    they have one point to think about
    apparently geithner bernanke agree. If we do narrow banking– pull back guarantees for everyone, the big pay steal 50% of fake profits jobs will go to another country.
    until that country’s govt and taxpayers pay for the next bailout?

  15. The Curmudgeon says:

    The best regulation would be failure. Congress is just pissing in the wind so long as we allow the financial system to hold us hostage to its failure. It is often said that a functioning financial system is critical to a developed economy. Bunk. A developed economy is critical to a financial system that wishes to skim the cream off the top of its every endeavor.

  16. boutyaybig says:

    I agree with it being a stupid statement, but…

    At this point you also can’t say it WON’T hurt job creation.

    per Chris Dodd: “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”


  17. Mannwich says:

    I agree with Curmudgeon. These corrupt, incompetent banks (and their corrupt, incompetent leaders) need to fail and be replaced so that we can start over.

  18. ashpelham2 says:

    @ ewf, I’ll venture a guess, a wild guess, that the birth-death model is coming into play there.

    Aside from my wild-a55 guess there, I’d like to say that it’s very hard for people like Bob Corker, and there are plenty like him, to really understand the struggle that is heavy in the working-man world these days. As much as they thrill us with their use of a teleprompter, I hope Americans are starting to get away from pulling for the guy with the best hair or the best speaking skills, and look at track record more seriously.

    Of course, here in sweet home Alabama, all that matters is how “conservative” you are. Our politics in this state are basically a penis-size relative to conservatism competition.

    “I’m more conservative!”
    “No, I”m more conservative! Look how big my conservativeness is!”

    That’s politics in Alabama right now. Meanwhile, funding for a major space and defense initiative has been killed, and will effectively dump Hunstville-Madison, Alabama into depression: http://blog.al.com/times-views/2010/06/post.html

  19. martin66 says:

    Celebrating ignorance, each and every day. If every country gets the government it deserves …

  20. Congressional negotiators today approved the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. financial regulation since the Great Depression, reshaping oversight of Wall Street and some of its most opaque concoctions.

    Lawmakers from the House and Senate worked through the night in a 20-hour session to reach deals on two of their most far-reaching and contentious proposals — a ban on proprietary trading by banks and new oversight of the derivatives market. This month, they’ve also agreed on measures to wind down big firms whose collapse might shake markets, to keep tabs on hedge funds and to make it easier for investors to sue credit raters.

    U.S. Lawmakers Reach Accord on New Finance Rules
    JUNE 25, 2010, 6:37 A.M. ET

    Lawmakers Agree on Wall Street’s Biggest Overhaul Since 1930s
    By Bloomberg News
    Bloomberg, June 25 200

  21. cwf says:

    But if the birth-death model is the answer, is that inferring that 600k more people are dying each month than being born? That seems very hard to believe.

    I’m assuming I’m missing the correlation between Initial Jobless Claims and monthly UE numbers. There must be some explanation that makes sense here.

    BARRY can you help with this?

  22. wisedup says:

    cwf: the computer models are merely making an entirely logical adjustment for the anticipated “discorporation” of those who have been denied unemployment payments.

  23. Transor Z says:


    The Birth/Death Adjustment is about corporate births and deaths, not human births/deaths. It’s an attempt to account for the fact that businesses fold but then immediately re-form and hire many of the same people laid off in the folding. If you search the site you’ll find that Barry frequently posts about it.

    Here’s a link to the BLS site that explains it:

  24. Tony Dorsett says:

    Well said BR

  25. [...] by the esteemed Bob Corker [R- Crazyland], I take great joy in watching honest brokers critique the ideological drivel that comes so naturally to the good senator. Corker got a  seat on the [...]

  26. The Curmudgeon says:

    Anytime someone claims something is “the most sweeping overhaul since…” then we know for sure that it ain’t an overhaul of anything. Nothing, but nothing changes with this legislation. If we wanted “the most sweeping overhaul…” we’d turn the banks out and let them sink or swim on their own. A really sweeping overhaul would be the elimination of deposit insurance provided by the Feds. A minor overhaul would be a constitutional amendment that prevents, without a two-thirds vote of both houses, the federal reserve from providing “liquidity” to the banking system. Until the government gets out of it, the financial system will be moral-hazard and conflict-of-interest soup.

  27. cwf says:

    That makes sense. Thanks for that. So I guess now the question is this:

    For UE to remain at 9.7%, then we will need 450k IJC’s to be offset by a combo of new jobs, birth/death, & people leaving the job force, correct?

    If that’s the case, the formula is:

    450k IJC’s = weekly newly created jobs + b/d + people leaving the work force

    if in 2007 that formula was based on 300k IJC’s, then are we presently creating 50% more jobs on a weekly basis, or are we having a b/d situation that’s 50% greater on a weekly basis or are 50% more people leaving the work force on a weekly basis? or is it a combo of all three? I still have a hard time believing we are creating a significantly larger number of jobs on a weekly basis than we were in 2007.

  28. vipasyana says:

    And here’s Dick Bove reacting to it!

    All of you are going to pay for this. We will find ways to make you pay anyways.

  29. eightnine2718281828mu5 says:

    Non-compete clauses and forbidding employees to hire former coworkers also hurt job creation.

    But oddly enough you never hear businesses complain about it.

  30. Moss says:

    Corker and others certainly would never say lack of regulation was a job destroyer. They need pretzel logic to support their political agenda. How many jobs will be destroyed in the Gulf due to shoddy enforcement, negligence and greed? Just like the financial meltdown the gulf gusher will prove to be a net negative.

  31. wally says:

    Well, see, you’re talking about jobs for other people. Bob is talking about HIS job.

  32. quiddity says:

    BR states that 15 million jobs were lost. I thought it was more like 8 million.

  33. great king rat says:

    Isn’t this actually the Idiotic Talking Point of the Last Quarter-Century?

  34. advsys says:

    Politicians have been unable to create job growth for an entire decade yet they never have a problem pretending to be a jobs growth expert every time they want to scare us into some bad bill they are about to pass.

  35. Mannwich says:

    Politicians (especially in the minority party) don’t care about jobs when they don’t have power. They’d have one less thing to demogogue about in their efforts to try to regain power.

  36. censeo says:

    All these pols in Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina… each talking like a man with a paper a@#hole. Some Dixie disease? Tell me. Most important: is the country going to swallow this sh** in November?

  37. FrancoisT says:

    I’ll tell you what is the most moronic thing about this monstrosity that pretends to be a bill: contrary to the 30′s, where Congress had the good sense to wait for the conclusions of the Pecora Commission and THEN, build finance reform with FACTS, this edition of the CONgress built a reform based on…what exactly?

    “All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.”

    –Mark Twain

  38. Jim67545 says:

    They must know what they are talking about. They used 1,500 pages on it.

    I’d love to have bugged the boiler room in which the Republican talking point crafters debate the best way to put a critical/negative spin on everything and anything arising from the Dems or administration. Would be quite illuminating.

  39. Carse says:

    So true — then. Corker is talking about here and now.

    I listened to the eminent economist/professor out of UoC(I forgot his name! ), state the banking situation concisely and to the point: Force the TBTF banks to raise capital requirements to 50% or better if necessary.

    Problem solved in one sentence, OK maybe two. The government didn’t grow any more tentacles suckling from the tax payer money tree, no increased threats of picking politically induced poisonous fruit, and everyone gets to go their own way without threats of debtors imprisonment, bankruptcy, and/or broken bones.

  40. Bruman says:

    Yeah, I think I heard that too. It’s like the patient saying “but my life was so much better before you amputated my arm; it’s your fault for doing it. After all, it was just gangrene.”

  41. willid3 says:

    i really wonder how stupid the GOP thinks we are. for 8 years they sold us a bill of goods telling us each time it was going to create jobs. at the end of their rule, their results indicated the worst job creation in many decades, and they calculated those results them selves, with help from that birth death adjustments

  42. Carse says:

    I’m pretty sure I know when, as a tax payer, I’m getting the stinky end of the stick.

    This one just doesn’t pass the smell test. Why? The parties of interest devised it. And I’m not buying it, it’s too complicated — 2,000 pages that most didn’t read and even if they did, don’t really understand themselves.

    Banks will find a way around the regulators.Regulation keeps lawyers gainfully employed!

  43. farmera1 says:

    Palin Corker in 2012

    Or will it be Corker Palin

    I can hardly wait. This is like the Peter Principal squared, or maybe to the fourth power. They are the perfect conservative couple.