home

Obama's Speech On The Economy

The complete text, via Sargent, is on the flip. Two things stood out for me. First, the 90 day moratorium on mortgage foreclosures. This was first proposed by Hillary Clinton in December 2007, when she also proposed a temporary interest rate freeze. If my memory serves, Obama agreed with the idea at the time.

The second thing that strikes me is that there is no HOLC in Obama's plans. It seems to be up to Congress folks who care about HOLC who will have to make Obama do it. It seems to not be in his plans. The complete text of the speech on the flip.

We meet at a moment of great uncertainty for America. The economic crisis we face is the worst since the Great Depression. Markets across the globe have become increasingly unstable, and millions of Americans will open up their 401(k) statements this week and see that so much of their hard-earned savings have disappeared.

The credit crisis has left businesses large and small unable to get loans, which means they can't buy new equipment, or hire new workers, or even make payroll for the workers they have. You've got auto plants right here in Ohio that have been around for decades closing their doors and laying off workers who've never known another job in their entire life. 760,000 workers have lost their jobs this year. Unemployment here in Ohio is up 85% over the last eight years, which is the highest it's been in sixteen years. You've lost one of every four manufacturing jobs, the typical Ohio family has seen their income fall $2,500, and it's getting harder and harder to make the mortgage, or fill up your gas tank, or even keep the electricity on at the end of the month. At this rate, the question isn't just "are you better off than you were four years ago?", it's "are you better off than you were four weeks ago?"

I know these are difficult times. I know folks are worried. But I also know this - we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. Because we are the United States of America. We are the country that has faced down war and depression; great challenges and great threats. And at each and every moment, we have risen to meet these challenges - not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans. We still have the most talented, most productive workers of any country on Earth. We're still home to innovation and technology, colleges and universities that are the envy of the world. Some of the biggest ideas in history have come from our small businesses and our research facilities. It won't be easy, but there's no reason we can't make this century another American century.

But it will take a new direction. It will take new leadership in Washington. It will take a real change in the policies and politics of the last eight years. And that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America.

My opponent has made his choice. Last week, Senator McCain's campaign announced that they were going to "turn the page" on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. His campaign actually said, and I quote, "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." Well Senator McCain may be worried about losing an election, but I'm worried about Americans who are losing their jobs, and their homes, and their life savings. They can't afford four more years of the economic theory that says we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. We've seen where that's led us and we're not going back. It's time to turn the page.

Over the course of this campaign, I've laid out a set of policies that will grow our middle-class and strengthen our economy in the long-term. I'll reform our tax code so that 95% of workers and their families get a tax cut, and eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000. I'll bring down the cost of health care for families and businesses by investing in preventative care, new technology, and giving every American the chance to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves. We'll ensure every child can compete in the global economy by recruiting an army of new teachers and making college affordable for anyone who wants to go. We'll create five million new, high-wage jobs by investing in the renewable sources of energy that will eliminate the oil we currently import from the Middle East in ten years, and we'll create two million jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, schools, and bridges.

But that's a long-term strategy for growth. Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency that requires urgent action. We can't wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now - who don't know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don't know if next week's paycheck will cover this month's bills. We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class and we need to do it now. Today I'm proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities, and help struggling homeowners. It's a plan that begins with one word that's on everyone's mind, and it's spelled J-O-B-S.

We've already lost three-quarters of a million jobs this year, and some experts say that unemployment may rise to 8% by the end of next year. We can't wait until then to start creating new jobs. That's why I'm proposing to give our businesses a new American jobs tax credit for each new employee they hire here in the United States over the next two years.

To fuel the real engine of job creation in this country, I've also proposed eliminating all capital gains taxes on investments in small businesses and start-up companies, and I've proposed an additional tax incentive through next year to encourage new small business investment. It is time to protect the jobs we have and to create the jobs of tomorrow by unlocking the drive, and ingenuity, and innovation of the American people. And we should fast track the loan guarantees we passed for our auto industry and provide more as needed so that they can build the energy-efficient cars America needs to end our dependence on foreign oil.

We will also save one million jobs by creating a Jobs and Growth Fund that will provide money to states and local communities so that they can move forward with projects to rebuild and repair our roads, our bridges, and our schools. A lot of these projects and these jobs are at risk right now because of budget shortfalls, but this fund will make sure they continue. The second part of my rescue plan is to provide immediate relief to families who are watching their paycheck shrink and their jobs and life savings disappear. I've already proposed a middle-class tax cut for 95% of workers and their families, but today I'm calling on Congress to pass a plan so that the IRS will mail out the first round of those tax cuts as soon as possible. We should also extend and expand unemployment benefits to those Americans who have lost their jobs and are having a harder time finding new ones in this weak economy. And we should stop making them pay taxes on those unemployment insurance benefits as well.

At a time when the ups and downs of the stock market have rarely been so unpredictable and dramatic, we also need to give families and retirees more flexibility and security when it comes to their retirement savings. I welcome Senator McCain's proposal to waive the rules that currently force our seniors to withdraw from their 401(k)s even when the market is bad. I think that's a good idea, but I think we need to do even more. Since so many Americans will be struggling to pay the bills over the next year, I propose that we allow every family to withdraw up to 15% from their IRA or 401(k) - up to a maximum of $10,000 - without any fine or penalty throughout 2009. This will help families get through this crisis without being forced to make painful choices like selling their homes or not sending their kids to college.

The third part of my rescue plan is to provide relief for homeowners who are watching their home values decline while their property taxes go up. Earlier this year I pushed for legislation that would help homeowners stay in their homes by working to modify their mortgages. When Secretary Paulson proposed his original financial rescue plan it included nothing for homeowners. When Senator McCain was silent on the issue, I insisted that it include protections for homeowners. Now the Treasury must use the authority its been granted and move aggressively to help people avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. We don't need a new law or a new $300 billion giveaway to banks like Senator McCain has proposed, we just need to act quickly and decisively.

I've already proposed a mortgage tax credit for struggling homeowners worth 10% of the interest you pay on your mortgage and we should move quickly to pass it. We should also change the unfair bankruptcy laws that allow judges to write down your mortgage if you own six or seven homes, but not if you have only one. And for all those cities and small towns that are facing a choice between cutting services like health care and education or raising property taxes, we will provide the funding to prevent those tax hikes from happening. We cannot allow homeowners and small towns to suffer because of the mess made by Wall Street and Washington.

For those Americans in danger of losing their homes, today I'm also proposing a three-month moratorium on foreclosures. If you are a bank or lender that is getting money from the rescue plan that passed Congress, and your customers are making a good-faith effort to make their mortgage payments and re-negotiate their mortgages, you will not be able to foreclose on their home for three months. We need to give people the breathing room they need to get back on their feet.

Finally, this crisis has taught us that we cannot have a sound economy with a dysfunctional financial system. We passed a financial rescue plan that has the promise to help stabilize the financial system, but only if we act quickly, effectively and aggressively. The Treasury Department must move quickly with their plan to put more money into struggling banks so they have enough to lend, and they should do it in a way that protects taxpayers instead of enriching CEOs. There was a report yesterday that some financial institutions participating in this rescue plan are still trying to avoid restraints on CEO pay. That's not just wrong, it's an outrage to every American whose tax dollars have been put at risk. No major investor would ever make an investment if they didn't think the corporation was being prudent and responsible, and we shouldn't expect taxpayers to think any differently. We should also be prepared to extend broader guarantees if it becomes necessary to stabilize our financial system.

I also believe that Treasury should not limit itself to purchasing mortgage-backed securities - it should help unfreeze markets for individual mortgages, student loans, car loans, and credit card loans. And I think we need to do even more to make loans available in two very important areas of our economy: small businesses and communities.

On Friday, I proposed Small Business Rescue Plan that would create an emergency lending fund to lend money directly to small businesses that need cash for their payroll or to buy inventory. It's what we did after 9/11, and it allowed us to get low-cost loans out to tens of thousands of small businesses. We'll also make it easier for private lenders to make small business loans by expanding the Small Business Administration's loan guarantee program. By temporarily eliminating fees for borrowers and lenders, we can unlock the credit that small firms need to pay their workers and keep their doors open. And today, I'm also proposing that we maintain the ability of states and local communities that are struggling to maintain basic services without raising taxes to continue to get the credit they need.

Congress should pass this emergency rescue plan as soon as possible. If Washington can move quickly to pass a rescue plan for our financial system, there's no reason we can't move just as quickly to pass a rescue plan for our middle-class that will create jobs, provide relief, and help homeowners. And if Congress does not act in the coming months, it will be one of the first things I do as President of the United States. Because we can't wait any longer to start creating new jobs; to help struggling communities and homeowners, and to provide real and immediate relief to families who are worried not only about this month's bills, but their entire life savings. This plan will help ease those anxieties, and along with the other economic policies I've proposed, it will begin to create new jobs, grow family incomes, and put us back on the path to prosperity.

I won't pretend this will be easy or come without cost. We'll have to set priorities as never before, and stick to them. That means pursuing investments in areas such as energy, education and health care that bear directly on our economic future, while deferring other things we can afford to do without. It means scouring the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don't need and making the ones we do work more efficiently and cost less.

It also means promoting a new ethic of responsibility. Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means - from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying home they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway. We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save.

Now, I know that in an age of declining wages and skyrocketing costs, for many folks this was not a choice but a necessity. People have been forced to turn to credit cards and home equity loans to keep up, just like our government has borrowed from China and other creditors to help pay its bills. But we now know how dangerous that can be. Once we get past the present emergency, which requires immediate new investments, we have to break that cycle of debt. Our long-term future requires that we do what's necessary to scale down our deficits, grow wages and encourage personal savings again.

It's a serious challenge. But we can do it if we act now, and if we act as one nation. We can bring a new era of responsibility and accountability to Wall Street and to Washington. We can put in place common-sense regulations to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again. We can make investments in the technology and innovation that will restore prosperity and lead to new jobs and a new economy for the 21st century. We can restore a sense of fairness and balance that will give ever American a fair shot at the American dream. And above all, we can restore confidence - confidence in America, confidence in our economy, and confidence in ourselves.

This country and the dream it represents are being tested in a way that we haven't seen in nearly a century. And future generations will judge ours by how we respond to this test. Will they say that this was a time when America lost its way and its purpose? When we allowed our own petty differences and broken politics to plunge this country into a dark and painful recession? Or will they say that this was another one of those moments when America overcame? When we battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success?

This is one of those moments. I realize you're cynical and fed up with politics. I understand that you're disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what's been asked of the American people in times of trial and turmoil throughout our history. I ask you to believe - to believe in yourselves, in each other, and in the future we can build together. Together, we cannot fail. Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save. Not when there are so many Americans without jobs and without homes. Not when there are families who can't afford to see a doctor, or send their child to college, or pay their bills at the end of the month. Not when there is a generation that is counting on us to give them the same opportunities and the same chances that we had for ourselves.

We can do this. Americans have done this before. Some of us had grandparents or parents who said maybe I can't go to college but my child can; maybe I can't have my own business but my child can. I may have to rent, but maybe my children will have a home they can call their own. I may not have a lot of money but maybe my child will run for Senate. I might live in a small village but maybe someday my son can be president of the United States of America. Now it falls to us. Together, we cannot fail. Together, we can overcome the broken policies and divided politics of the last eight years. Together, we can renew an economy that rewards work and rebuilds the middle class. Together, we can create millions of new jobs, and deliver on the promise of health care you can afford and education that helps your kids compete. We can do this if we come together; if we have confidence in ourselves and each other; if we look beyond the darkness of the day to the bright light of hope that lies ahead. Together, we can change this country and change this world. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Dow Comes Back | McCain Pastor: My God Is Bigger than Your God >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The "Jobs and Growth Fund" (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:02:05 PM EST
    I'm interested in hearing more details on this part of the plan because it is the states and localities that are really suffering now. In my city, county and state we are facing millions to billions of dollars in deficits.

    How much is the plan going to cost? Where is the money going to come from?

    It sounds nice but the details matter. I hope the funding issue will be addressed in tomorrow night's debate.

    I don't expect much resolution (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:51:39 AM EST
    concerning funding in the debate.

    Several things:  Raise taxes significantly on family incomes that exceed $250,000 per year.  Add new higher tax rates on incomes that exceed $500,000, $750,000, $1,000,000, $5,000,000.

    Raise capital gains to 28%.  Make the earnings of hedge fund managers subject to progressive income taxes. Put dividends back into the income stream making them subject to progressive income taxes.

    Get out of Iraq and save $120 billion per year.  Cut Pentagon spending, a target rich environment.  Kneecap the Pentagon brass that wants to ADD $450 billion in Pentagon spending over the next 5 years.

    Establish international cooperation to assault offshore tax havens.

    Absolutely halt and reverse off shoring non-geographic jobs.

    Hell, the saving from getting out of Iraq alone would probably fund some pretty tremendous programs.

    Parent

    7 million new jobs in ten years (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM EST
    with 10 million people unemployed.  It will take a year to get any of the programs rolling.  In the meantime, hundreds of thousands more will lose their jobs.  Hell, W created 4.6 million jobs in 8 years.  'Course he lost more than 2 million.

    We are at the precipice of a very long and deep recession unless they start treating job creation like a national emergency.  The impending snowball effect of the job losses of this year alone over the next 9-12 months will be severe.

    Great speech but not impressed.

    The Clinton Administartion (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:35:35 AM EST
    record was an average of 220,000 jobs per month.  That's 21 million jobs over 8 years.

    The whole plan seems more than a bit modest.

    Parent

    was a different time with the computer age (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:56:38 AM EST
    and what we need to do is make this a "different time" with the green tech age.  Scientific American has run several articles addressing how to invest in green tech that would double the job creation but the argument has always been "we don't have the money".

    We are wasting a lot of time and energy arguing about "victory" in Iraq, when we should be talking about how to "win" the green tech golden nugget.  The best thing we can do for our soldiers is invest heavily in being the premier provider of green technology to the world.  Cuz when I got out 20 years ago what I wanted was a J-O-B.

    When we do end the war we are going to have tons of soldiers looking for work and I hope and pray we can honor their service with gainful, well paying employment.  

    Parent

    Having the money (none / 0) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    is a matter of setting priorities and tax policy.

    It is a time to think big.  I'm hoping that Obama is holding back in an attempt to secure the election. Now there's hope for ya.

    The people who cry that there isn't money are simply suggesting we do nothing and doing nothing is not a viable option.

    Parent

    I have been saying that for months (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    We need to think big and look past the deficits as much as that scares me and makes me sick to my stomach.  

    We have lost 759k jobs and no one is paying attention?  It is going to cost a crap load of dough to fund job creation but again those of us who are in the keynesian camp are mostly lunatics.

    Parent

    Lunatics (none / 0) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:04:20 AM EST
    who turn things around and get results.

    Parent
    That also means (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:58:06 AM EST
    that a college degree has little vocational value if the jobs aren't here.

    It knocks me out when I hear politicians talking about sending our kids to college so that they can compete.  Compete for what and with who.

    SalseroDos makes a very important point.  Those technologies AND manufactures MUST be in the US and ONLY in the US.

    Parent

    Aid to local governments (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Coral on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:15:23 PM EST
    I found this part appealing:

    And for all those cities and small towns that are facing a choice between cutting services like health care and education or raising property taxes, we will provide the funding to prevent those tax hikes from happening.

    Cities and towns have been suffering for the past few years. Here in MA, we've cut and cut and cut school budgets, while politicians give lip service to schools and education. Talk is cheap. Local schools need federal and state funding. Relying on property taxes locks in inequality in education. And inequality in school districts skews home prices as families who can afford it buy where the schools have a good reputation.

    I'd love to see this issue addressed directly.


    Interesting, but (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by patriotgames on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:32:33 PM EST
    where is this money coming from???

    Parent
    The Next Big Question: Where will the money come (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jawbone on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:53:23 AM EST
    from?

    A question raised by few among the Villagers and little discussed among the MCMers with the biggest microphones for, oh, the past 8 years.

    Dem prez and Dem Congress? Why, Nelly bar the door, we dasn't let those profligate tax-and-spend Dems create new social programs! Why, best they cut the existing ones, don't you agree, Sen. Obama?

    That will be the hue and cry of the Village powerbrokers and their lackeys. Obama has already signaled he will heed their call--and warnings.

    Saturday he told a PA fundraiser that he would have to cut back on expensive programs like healthcare and education, per this report at HuffPo.

    As 250 major donors ate beet salad and mahi-mahi under a huge tent, Obama seemed to look ahead to his first term as president.

    "We're going to have to make some priorities, we're going to have to cut some things out," he said, referring to expensive goals such as improving health care, schools and college affordability.

    "I'm going to be in some fights with my own Democratic Party in getting some of that done," he said.

    Notice he did mention the Democratic Party here--in the role of his opponent in his need to cut expenditures.

    Libs and progressives may find the next four years to be very much NOT to their liking. Reagan may smile beingnly (or malignantly, depending on how you view his policies). Let us hope for good SCOTUS and Federal bench appointees--that may be all we get.

    Good luck to us all.

    I will be delighted to be proved wrong.

    Parent

    As much direct ... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:53:17 PM EST
    and indirect help for big business in the speech as for average Americans.

    Some of it in coded language, some of it blatant.

    Whatever.  

    Obama has two choices:  He can be a bold, progressive President.  Or a one-term President.

    And this (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:04:27 AM EST
    is what I feared about Obama.  That the remedies would be timid, as they are in this speech.

    That damages the Democratic brand and the nation as a whole.

    I'll be voting for Obama.  A tepid Democrat is vastly preferable to any Republican.

    Unfortunately I doubt that he has any feel for the fix we're in.

    Parent

    Re: 90 day moratorium (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by wasabi on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:55:57 PM EST
    I don't believe that this allows a homeowner to skip paying his/her mortgage for 3 months.  

    The proposal is "if your customers are making a good-faith effort to make their mortgage payments and re-negotiate their mortgages, you will not be able to foreclose on their home for three months."  

    I guess I don't see failing to make any payments in 90 days a good faith effort. YMMV.

    It is my understanding ... (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:16:44 PM EST
    that "good faith" does not mean making full payments.  Usually when working out debts that simply refers to make you best efforts given your situation. In some instances it doesn't even refer to money.

    The whole purpose is to give people time to do work-outs.

    If a bank chooses not to take advantage of this 90-day window, the homeowner should be allowed to move on with the equity they accrued during that period.

    Parent

    I was just describing ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:06:40 PM EST
    how the term "good faith" is usually used when talking about debts.  

    I don't understand the rest of your comments.  They have nothing to do with the plan originally presented by Hillary or the one Obama is now proposing.

    Read up on them.

    Parent

    This speech is the first one I have (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by hairspray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    read that seems to have a sense of urgency to it and I am happy.  Until now the speeches seemed to have been a litany of what is wrong and why, without real approaches.  He just need to spell out a few goals and it will be a jackpot. One small item :
    I may not have a lot of money but maybe my child will run for Senate. I might live in a small village but maybe someday my son can be president of the United States of America.
     A child can be a senator but only a son can be the president?

    That's not how I read it at all (none / 0) (#28)
    by Melchizedek on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    I think this is a case of trying to vary the parallel clause for sake of better flow. In other words, he doesn't want to repeat "child"-- and in terms of prosody his version does sound better. That said, as the father of a daughter I would have preferred a different variance-- perhaps "my kid." Anything but "that one." :)

    Parent
    So prosody is the priority (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:00:18 PM EST
    over promoting equality.

    'Nuff said.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:07:58 AM EST
    he was making a reference to himself.

    I may not have a lot of money but maybe my child will run for Senate. I might live in a small village but maybe someday my son can be president of the United States of America.



    Parent
    Shovel? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:32:59 AM EST
    So, Obama's own daughters can't be President?

    Parent
    Precisely! (none / 0) (#52)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    The guy has no sons but does prominently display his daughters.  Obviously, he thinks his daughters could not be president or he would have said 'my daughter.'  This is no accident - this is how he thinks.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    The reference was to himself.

    Parent
    It's a hard choice to make, isn't it? (none / 0) (#58)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:29:21 PM EST
    Sexism, or narcissism.

    Ha ha, only serious...

    Parent

    It was (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:07:18 AM EST
    narcissism.

    I thought that was obvious.

    Parent

    Nope, doesn't fly (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    as he's talking about himself but then about his progeny.  And he has daughters.  And even if speaking figuratively -- well, the president is supposed to not keep talking about himself and his family but about us and ours.

    Parent
    It has the rhetorical echo of (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:51:37 PM EST
     Themistocles, (at least, supposedly Themistocles, as quoted in one of my favorite movies, Lawrence of Arabia): "I cannot fiddle, but I can make a great state of a small city."

    Parent
    If you can't fiddle. . . (none / 0) (#30)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 08:15:06 PM EST
    you better stay the heck out of politics!

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 08:17:10 PM EST
    You crack me up Larry.

    Parent
    Bamkriptcy Law (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    Rewriting the current bankruptcy law is a good step. Banks should be willing to salvage a loan rather than pulling the plug. What are they going to do with a million homes on their books. They end up selling the forclosure at a depressed price so why not work with current owner if possible.

    Anyone looking for insight on the flaws and the solution (major overhaul) to the fix the system can find them on http://coinage.me

    It goes into detail how the summary information needed to actually manage a fiat currency system is not available and therefore cannot be properly managed.

    Furthermore our information system systems are not designed correctly to support such a system the data is all disparate.

    The is referenced by one of Obama's advisors and can be read at the Obama link below.

    http://tinyurl.com/52bczy


    Raiding 401Ks (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:20:56 AM EST
    Really bad to let people raid their 40IKs. Especially to stay in their overpriced houses! YIKES! We already have abysmal savings and people have already mortgaged their and their children's future for the grand American Dream of Home"Owner"ship, and this idea is just dreadful. So is the rest of it. So is McCain's. It's all shortsighted and dreadful.

    Where is the politician saying "We can't afford to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore, so that's over, and we're going to spend the money on jobs-creating infrastructure here at home instead...Oh and by the way you don't get to live in your Dream House anymore and your kids probably won't go to college but they probably don't need to anyway, because the good jobs aren't going to be there, they're going to be in skilled trades when we start rebuilding our bridges and railroad lines, which by the way means they won't be in hock for the rest  of their working lives and will have good jobs that can't be shipped overseas, and oh yeah, while I'm on the subject, start getting ready to take a lot more of those trains because gas is going to stay  high so we can pay for all this clean energy where the other JOBS are going to be..."

    Well, a girl can dream.

    No, Obama did not agree (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:14:59 AM EST
    with Hillary on the foreclosure moratorium.

    but at least he is capable of learning.  Maybe he will come around to HOLC.

    Other than missing HOLC... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Thanin on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    did you think it was a good speech BTD?

    Other than that ... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:37:21 PM EST
    how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#14)
    by Thanin on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    Well, let's look on the bright side! (none / 0) (#46)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:50:02 AM EST
    We'll be able to cash in our IRAs and 401ks to stay in our homes!

    Heck, why not apply the same logic and let us cash in our Social Security!

    Parent

    Buffet says..... (none / 0) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:06:10 PM EST
    that the problem is not insoluble, that if everyone worked together and did the right thing the economy could turn around in a matter of months, not years. With England taking the lead, and Paulsen indicating he'll follow, it might just happen. (at least the stock market thinks so)

    As to foreclosures, the last thing the banks want, or need, is more inventory on their hands. It's been estimated that each foreclosure ends up costing the bank, on average, about 250K. (Attorneys, taxes, maintenance, heat & electricity, etc.)

    If these are "Gimmicks" where everyone wins; let's have more gimmicks.


    The next president has the pleasure of (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by hairspray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:58:30 PM EST
    telling the american people that the party is over. That will be a tough sell, because there are parts of the country that do not yet even recycle.  I recall about 12 years ago here in CA how offended so many were to have to bring their garbage cans down to the street, or sort through their refuse to pull out cans and glass from paper, etc.  Lets hope people will be more willing to follow Obama (should he make those requirements clear) than they were to follow Carter.

    Parent
    The next president (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by BrianJ on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    Is going to have to tell people that their taxes will rise sharply, there will probably be a bunch of new excise taxes, and any attempt to expand government services will be postponed indefinitely.  He will also get to say that our troops are coming home from their deployments outside the US (not just Iraq and Afghanistan) unless our creditors decide that it's better to have them marooned overseas, and that NASA's going to have its plug pulled on doing anything but maintaining satellites.  And no doubt he'll be saying a bunch of other things people won't want to hear about their new overlords in Beijing and Dubai.

    The next president will be as unpopular next summer as Bush is today.

    Parent

    Tax hikes on the middle class not needed. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Faust on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    Just tax the ever living $hit out of the rich imo. Nothing wrong with being unpopular with the top 5% of the population. Especially if the hike in taxes on the super rich is coupled with a slashing of the taxes on the self employment tax.

    Parent
    Not enough money there (none / 0) (#23)
    by BrianJ on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:16:24 PM EST
    We have a deficit of more than a trillion dollars a year.  Pounding on the rich simply won't be enough.  Doubling their current tax rate-  which would put it at 70 percent-  would give the IRS another $350 billion a year at most, based on the amount of taxes they paid in 2005-06.  (That's presuming they don't engage in greater use of tax shelters, or simply emigrate, which would reduce the take considerably.)

    Nice idea, though.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:17:10 AM EST
    Your trillion dollar deficit number is Waaaay off.

    It's not even half of that.  And taxing the crap out of the rich is the only way an industrialized society can properly function.

    Parent

    Lose the terror of deficits (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:19:02 PM EST
    That's a conservative GOP theme the Dems. got on board with totally unnecessarily.  All other things being equal, yeah, it's nice not to have one, but the U.S. government has operated at a deficit for most of history.  It's no big deal.

    In times of recession verging on depression, increasing the deficit is exactly the right thing to do to keep money pumping into the economy.  Once the economy recovers in a few years, the money starts flowing back to the government and then the deficit can get pared back to reasonable levels.

    See Keynes, Maynard.

    Parent

    Also see (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:22:52 AM EST
    Joseph Stiglitz

    "All deficits are not created equal"

    Deficits incurred by making needful investments of long term value are right and proper especially in hard times.

    Deficits incurred in part by tax cuts are harmful.

    Parent

    In California Arnold Schwarzenegger (none / 0) (#27)
    by hairspray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:45:09 PM EST
    suspended an unpopular car license tax which has been a major reason for our budget deficit.  In addition, Proposition 13 reduced property taxes to 1975 levels where they remain except for some small increases or when the property sells.  Prop 13 also allows commercial rates to be the same as residential rates, a boon to large landholders and businesses. These are considered the third rail here in CA and I don't see a popular politician making any changes.  Certainly Arnold could have spent some capital, but hasn't happened yet.  So as I said, asking for sacrifice is going to be a tough sell.

    Parent
    to my recollection (none / 0) (#32)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    the licencing fee wasn't unpopular until the GOP made it into a political item.

    Parent
    No one liked it. Arnold won with over 54% (none / 0) (#37)
    by hairspray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:01:43 AM EST
    of the vote and the Democrats outnumber the GOP here.  So while the GOP whipped it up, the Dems were part of throwing it and Davis out.

    Parent
    I remember Arnold winning (none / 0) (#50)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    less than 50% because of the sheer numbers that ran for the recall election. Are you talking about his reelection?

    Parent
    I'll have to go back and check the (none / 0) (#53)
    by hairspray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    records.  I recall being shocked at how large his margins were.

    Parent
    Doesn't need to be "liked" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:30:16 PM EST
    just respected.  Fortunately, almost anyone will start out more respected than the resident president.

    Parent
    should be double that (none / 0) (#7)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:29:41 PM EST
    was my first thought.

    Well, this song keeps coming to mind..... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:12:34 PM EST
    "Those were the days my friend
    We thought they'd never end
    We'd sing and dance forever and a day
    We'd live the life we choose
    We'd fight and never lose
    For we were young and sure to have our way.
    La la la la...
    Those were the days, oh yes those were the days"

     

    Or this one... (none / 0) (#24)
    by BrianJ on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:17:45 PM EST
    Once I built a railroad
    Made it run
    Made it race against time

    Once I built a railroad
    Now it's done...
    Brother, can you spare a dime?

    Parent

    Follow Through (none / 0) (#62)
    by JCollins on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:10:04 PM EST
    Obama seems to be following through on some of his promises...he's already trying to get a tax cut and stimulus package sent through.  His approach has a lot of great points, in that he wants to create jobs, and stimulate growth.  A restructuring of the American economic model is needed - an emphasis on long term sustainability with minimal unemployment would be the ticket.  In other words, what America needs is a return to the days when we could actually manufacture goods, sell them on the world market, and sell them well because we made them so much better than anyone else.  If that means that aggregate CEO salaries fall in order to keep up with payroll...boo hoo.