home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:18:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If you do not want to talk about the issues I raise in my posts below, here is an Open Thread.

I am not sure what the House is going to do on the bailout and to me that is the most interesting story of the day, but I have nothing new to tell you.

I am out until late this afternoon. I am not sure of J's and TChris' schedule.

Update (TL): I'm off to the dentist in Boulder to fix a tooth I chipped a corner off of yesterday. (At least it's in the back.) If I just need a filling, I'll be back in a few hours. If it's a crown, I'll be back before the debate.

< The Polls - 10/2 | McCain: Life Isn't Fair >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 112 comments (112 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    How insulting (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:39:27 AM EST
    has the coverage of the Palin-Biden debate already been?  I don't think the debate coverage has been insulting to Palin personally but to women in general.  For instance, this was a headline on the NYT homepage yesterday:

    Experienced, but Often Tripped Up
    By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
    Senator Biden's tendency to go too far and the hazards of debating a woman could signal perils ahead.

    The "hazards of debating a woman"?  What is this, a Katherine Hepburn comedy?  The coverage so far leading up to this debate has been filled with vague references to the difficulty of debating a woman, a difficulty I did not know existed.  Hmm, this problem just wasn't covered much when Hillary was campaigning.  

    Just another chapter on the gender issues of this campaign.  But truly, hasn't the coverage of Palin been patronizing to women everywhere???  I find it interesting that that patronizing aspect was largely absent from the equally sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton's run.  

    My, how did all those college men (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    contend with the hazards of debating Palin when she was on her campus team?  Apparently they didn't deal well with it, as she was a debate champ.  But who knew it was because of her uterus?

    I will email the debate coach at my campus to recruit lots of uteri carriers, so that we can take the conference title against all those penile types who can't compete with the perils!

    Parent

    Those guys.... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:52:07 AM EST
    on the college debate team didn't have an election to win...right or wrong, Biden has to worry about being perceived as "picking on a woman", while still trying to win the debate.

    Men and woman are equal, but we are not and never will be the same.  Like how it is sometimes justified for a man to punch another man in the teeth, but it is never justifiable for a man to punch a woman.

    Parent

    Oh Spare Me! Pick! Pick! Pick! on Hillary already! (none / 0) (#108)
    by bridget on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:16:36 PM EST
    "Pick! Pick! Pick! on Hillary already ... HARD!" the Obamaloving media blowhorns, the Obamacans, the Obamafans on the net, the Obama pundits told Barack Obama on a daily basis cause for a year Hillary looked the winner and that just was so wrong ....

    Edwards and Obama, the lovely tagteam, got together and attacked her PERSONALLY and politically in a supernasty way publically during the debate and she just took it like the grownup self-confident woman she is.

    When she finally decided to defend herself, cause it just had to be done, Obamafans thought that was just so wrong. Soooo wrong. Clearly Obama was off limits in the "picking" department. And seeing Obama pout and petulant was not a pretty sight to behold to put it mildly.

    P.S. If you can't see the difference between a debate and a fist fight you can't be helped. Besides, K. Seely is one of the reporters who helped put Bush in the WH. Somerby wrote the book.

    Parent

    If it matters.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    I'm voting for Nader:)

    Clinton is a helluva politician, no doubt, and sharp as a tack...can sling the bullsh*t with the best of 'em.  Palin not so much...if Biden out wonks her too badly tonight I think it hurts them.  

    Parent

    The reporter (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by WS on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:47:01 AM EST
    was referring to the bully factor when debating a woman.  Remember Hillary and Lazio?  The press always points to that as one of the minefields a male politician has to cross when debating a woman.  

    Parent
    Lazio TRIED to bully Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by litigatormom on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    but I think if he'd come any closer she would have punched him down.  Plus, she was clearly the more knowledgeabale person in the debate. Which made his attempt to bully her laughable and desperate, a pure show of panicked testosterone.

    Biden should not be afraid to show up Palin in his knowledge and mastery of the issues. What he should not do is sarcastically condescend to or patronize her -- which would be the same mistake that McCain made in his debate with Obama, which of course had nothing at all to do with gender. (I don't even think it had anything to do with race; I think it was purely related to McCain's sense of entitlement based on his age, experience, and oh, did you know he was a POW?).

    Parent

    I have no doubt Palin is a strong person (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:58:28 AM EST
    I wish we were at a stage in our country's development where gender is ignored and a man being tough on a woman in a debate was viewed the same as it would be with another man.  

    I also wish my Orlando Sentinel hadn't taken up a large part of the front page with an article on campaign fashions by Palin, M. Obama, C. McCain, and Jill Biden.

    If this campaign season has proven anything, it is the immaturity of this country regarding gender issues.

    Parent

    I think Immaturity (none / 0) (#80)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    Is such a great word in describing where we are as a nation.  It means so much, but doesn't have the complicated associations that the word sexist has.  But leaves the listener with a strong sense of how off base the comment was.  Thank you.

    Parent
    How off base which comment was? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    The NYT comment or the commenter's comment?

    Parent
    I don't understand your comment? (none / 0) (#113)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST


    Parent
    How dare (3.66 / 3) (#8)
    by borisbor on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:07:45 AM EST
    this Katharine guy be so sexist...

    Parent
    Gee, how insightful. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:31:09 AM EST


    Parent
    I See It A Little Differently (none / 0) (#60)
    by daring grace on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    This is a more nuanced situation than merely a double standard for Governor Palin as a woman. I think it's also related to the image she cultivates/has been assigned as well.

    What I mean is contrast her public image so far with that of other women who have recently been prominent in political authority settings: Senator Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Conner, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and even Geraldine Ferraro even more than 30 years ago.

    There were times when, during the primary debates, her male challengers were accused of 'ganging up' on Clinton--and many times they were. But that was not framed (that I can recall) as a result of her gender and perceived frailty. But rather, it was, in fact, that they perceived her as the threat--the one who was leading and had to be taken down.  

    I'm sitting here chuckling, remembering how Barbara Bush even complained about how mean Gerri Ferraro was to HER husband in their debate. Although that's the other edge to this double edged sexism sword: strong woman rhymes with 'witch'.

    I think that's true for all these women, because they all have projected competency even when in the case of someone like Rice they probably weren't.

    That's not true with Palin. Whether she is not ready for the national stage or her intro to it has been extraordinarily botched by the McCain campaign, she has a somewhat vulnerable 'girly' image of someone way out of her league, field dressing moose not withstanding. And some elements of the electorate WILL savage Big Bad Joe Biden if he is perceived as 'hurting' her.


    Parent

    I get what you are saying. (4.50 / 2) (#68)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    What interests me is that the NYT is framing this (and the media at large is as well) as if debating a woman, any woman, has hazards for men.  Even though the situations you cite (and most recently, Hillary in the primary) more or less prove that men don't have to be particularly careful when debating women - all women.  And it wasn't framed this way before!  What punches were pulled because Hillary was a woman?  There's no opportunity for a "ganging up" situation in this debate - it's just Biden and Palin.  

    So what is the deal?  What are the "hazards of debating a woman [any woman]"?  I agree with you, I can't see this framing being applied to Rice, Albright, Clinton, etc.  And that's why it p*sses me off.  I didn't realize there was a set of hazards attached to debating women in the political realm.  Heck, it seems like there only are a set of hazards attached to debating women NOW because women were upset at the way Hillary was treated by the media.  In my experience people in power usually don't care what women think about the way women are being treated in public life.  

    So pretending that there are hazards to debating any woman is really openly patronizing.  "The hazards of debating a Latino."  "The hazards of debating an African-American."  Blah blah blah.  It's patronizing.

    Maybe the media is trying to cover its a$$ by anticipating sexism.  I dunno.  


    Parent

    New Media Are Slow Learners (none / 0) (#73)
    by daring grace on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:51:22 PM EST
    and they thrive on making drama regardless of the accuracy of their frame.

    So if they are uniformly framing it as "all women" rather than as this woman, I'd agree: it's nonsense.

    But I think Palin herself and the McCain campaign invite this kind of 'manly' chivalrous idiocy too. She was originally introduced as this pioneering spirited very capable person (female or not). Yeah, the 'hockey mom' thing, but that was more that she was an effective multi tasker, I thought than that she was...a woman.

    But since then they've demanded kid glove treatment for her by isolating her from the routines of campaigning and so have conspired in this 'Don't play mean with Sarah.' nonsense.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#74)
    by daring grace on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    Meant 'News" media.

    Parent
    sexism by the media? (none / 0) (#76)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:10:07 PM EST
    or sexism by Biden, because you just said that Biden doesn't have to worry about sexism because he doesn't have to make any special changes to his debate style based on the fact that Palin is a woman...

    he can't be sexist as long as he attacks Palin just as he would any man...
    if she really is the pitt bull she says she is then she'll attack back...and that will open up Biden to be as viscious as Palin invites him to be...

    Parent

    I really like Senator Russ Feingold (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:52:09 AM EST

    "I will oppose the Wall Street bailout plan because though well intentioned, and certainly much improved over the administration's original proposal, it remains deeply flawed. It fails to offset the cost of the plan, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden of serious lapses of judgment by private financial institutions, their regulators, and the enablers in Washington who paved the way for this catastrophe by removing the safeguards that had protected consumers and the economy since the great depression. The bailout legislation also fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn't do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess."
    It's very rare... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    when I have something nice to say about a politician, but bless Feingold's heart.  I wish we had more like him.

    Parent
    Yes, Feingold (none / 0) (#63)
    by daring grace on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    and Bernie Sanders.

    I knew my two senators would be onboard--Clinton and Schumer--aside from any other reason we are home Wall Street here.

    Parent

    Here's some more of what my Senator (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    had to say about the House bill -- the list of what we needed in the Senate bill and didn't get.

    Shoot, links just don't work on this borrowed computer.  For his quote, see my comment last night or see his website.

    Parent

    The NRA attacks on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:30:54 AM EST
    are hitting CO.  Seems like every commercial has a "Obama wants to take away your guns" ad.  Last year I had a "debate" with a friend's husband.  He insisted Hillary Clinton wanted to take away everyone's guns.  I will bet money he will say the same about Obama.  
    The NRA here is a political powerhouse.

    If the NRA and religious groups take over (none / 0) (#11)
    by stefystef on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM EST
    in CO, Obama may have big problems.  I know many people think Colorado will go Obama, but I think the Republicans and religious right will back McCain/Palin not because they like McCain, but they don't want Obama.

    Also, the "Obama-is-a-Muslim-with-Arab-ties" talk is heating up in the right-wing bloggesphere.  This will play a factor in the midwest and west, even if the Obama followers don't want to admit it.

    Parent

    Nobody is "taking over" Colorado. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    The people that think the Democrats are doing to come to their door and confiscate their guns have been around here for a long time.  As have the religious fanatics.  Their numbers are shrinking, not growing--as is their influence on voters in this state.

    Of course they are going to vote for McCain--there has never, ever been any question of that.  They don't need an excuse not to vote for Obama.  

    However, they're not the ones who will decide who wins the election in CO.  

     

    Parent

    The NRA has been pushpolling (none / 0) (#37)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    the Obama wants to limit/take away your guns line since at least February, via targeted telephone calls.

    Seriously - they called me to have me participate in a "survey" (subscribe to a lesser-known, regionally-oriented fishing/hunting magazine and wind up on their call list, I guess) a couple or three times.  The first couple times I was either eating or busy and they said "no problem, we'll call some other time".

    The third time I said OK.  The caller (nice cowboy accent) then read his script, which included asking if I wanted to hear a taped message from Wayne LaPierre (I said OK), and then came back with a one question poll.

    His initial script contained stuff like "liberal Barack Obama", and the usual propaganda catchphases they use about Democrats.  The question was whether I supported the idea of a "quota" on the number of guns I could buy.  "I don't participate in opinion polls."

    I thought it a very professional combination of race, liberalism, affirmative action and a whole bunch of other ideas through which the NRA was pushing the Republican meme.  It was designed to push all the propaganda buttons.

    Whether it will be successful - another question.  

    IMHO, the election trends are going so against McCain that the only thing that's likely to put on the brakes is Osama Bin Laden showing up in Times Square strapped to something explosive with the trigger in his hand and a "Vote Obama" sticker on his headdress.  Which, I suppose, Karl Rove has a bunch of operatives working on putting together, as we speak.  I've long thought they've had bin Laden in a cargo conex half-buried on Kwajelin since sometime in 2002 and put him between a VHS camera and a cloth backdrop every now and again when they need a jolt of propaganda impact.

    Parent

    That kind of reactionary... (none / 0) (#45)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:02:27 AM EST
    ...rhetoric can have a boomerang effect on reasonable conservatives too.  The ones who know that out here in the Wild West, liberals are gun owners too.  People like my Dad--a lifelong old-school Republican who disowned the NRA when they started pushing this nonsense.

    I wonder about OBL as well.  I have a hard time believing that someone who reportedly suffers from kidney failure is going to get the kind of treatment he needs in some remote cave to survive for long.  No matter how many millions he may have.

    Parent

    They were planting a seed (none / 0) (#53)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    back in February, which all but (likely) me will have forgotten by November.

    Parent
    I wish I understood (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    the politics of finance better.  It's all so confusing.  All I know is that my only asset, my house, is losing value.  I have no stocks or bonds...just my house and my pension.  
    I have been working more than usual substituting trying to build a small savings.  

    I don't even know what is best for my own future...this bill or no bill or a different bill.
    sigh

    Take the Crash Course (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Romberry on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    If you want to understand what is happening and how we got here, take The Crash Course. Since you are a homeowner, I'd start with the segment on bubbles.

    I can not recommend this course highly enough. I just can't. And the price (free!) is absolutely right.

    Parent

    You hold a tangible asset (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:57:06 AM EST
    Its value will come back unless you bought it at the heighth of the inflated bubble.  If you bought your house at an uninflated price or even at the beginning of the bubble you are sitting in a nice longterm position.  The country's goal at this point needs to be to ensure that this recession is as short as possible because we are in a recession now and it hasn't hit its peak yet either.  That is why this bailout "as is" is a really really bad idea.  I'm not sure if the Senate passed the 700 bn figure but if they did they are proving that they really don't care about you and I.  Paulson has admitted he can get by with 250 bn until January, then we get a new president.  If Obama is the president he can continue helping our failing banks if they are savable while the taxpayer is given preferred shares in those institutions and will reap the benefit of what will happen when those institutions begin to profit again (allowing the institutions to repay their bailing out), and recapitalizing the toxic assets. Doing this will give us at least an 18 month recession, anything less gives us a longer and longer recession and means that tangible assets like your house will not regain their value as soon as they could.

    Parent
    Longterm??? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    Approaching my mid sixties in age, longterm is not all that long.  Wanting to sell in the next two years so I could move near family seems to be a dream fading...

    Parent
    If you're looking to sell... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:27:56 AM EST
    you're in a bad spot...sorry to say.

    Maybe look into keeping the place and renting it out?  

    Parent

    Have you had this house (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    for quite some time?  If so, in two years you may be doing fine unless you were banking on your house to continue to increase in equity over the next two years.  If you have been making payments on your house for the past twenty years though and were't expecting to retire fully on that you may not being all that bad in two years. Then how long this recession lasts is of major importance to you.  If you bought when housing was inflated, then how we address rewriting inflated mortgages and in turn recapitalize toxic assets is of major importance to you.  Both issues are something that the bail out doesn't address and actually carries the potential to worsen. BushCo refuses to address it and apparently the Senate is willing to allow him to do not have to.

    Parent
    What part of the state... (none / 0) (#50)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    ...are you in?  Here in Denver, we've been pretty lucky that housing value hasn't crashed too bad compared to similar sized markets in the rest of the country.  Of course, our values didn't skyrocket as much as other places either.  

    Still not easy to sell your home in this market though.  Best of luck to you!

    Parent

    Unless.... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    you view your house as an investment, instead of a home, you have nothing to fear...it has the same value it had before, 4 walls and a roof to protect you from the elements and a place to rest your head.

    Parent
    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Romberry on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    If you still have your house, what have you lost? And the same holds true even for investments like stocks. As long as the company is not bankrupt, if people still have their shares, they've lost nothing unless and until they sell.

    Parent
    He or she, all of us who have homes (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    have lost our options. If I wanted to move in the next two years, and I may need to for work, I will lose money on my house.

    I think people feel trapped in this economy, even if they have a roof over their heads and can pay their mortgage.

    Parent

    you'll only lose money if you bought in the (none / 0) (#83)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:18:25 PM EST
    last couple years, during the height of the bubble, and listened to your real estate agent when he/she told you that was the fair market value for the house...

    if you've had you're house for 5, 10 or even 15+ years then there is no way that you're losing money on what you originally paid for it...

    you're not losing money from what the house was worth 2 years ago because you didn't sell the house 2 years ago, so your house didn't have the value you thought it did...easy enough...

    that's why it's a bubble...it rises with nothing but a lot of hot air, and then when if bursts everything falls back to where it started, where it should be...

    I'm tired of hearing people say there losing money on their house just because it's not worth 30% more than they paid for it 2 years later like housing prices were going in the bubble...

    Parent

    An asset has no set value (none / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:18:53 AM EST
    until it is sold.

    I love that concept.

    Parent

    Money has no value either.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:21:41 AM EST
    until it used to obtain goods or services.

    Parent
    The economics uncertainty principle! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    Any dead cats in economic theory?  

    Parent
    Aren't the dead cats in the... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by santarita on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:42:11 AM EST
    fancy CDO boxes - Paulson wants to buy them so he can see if the cat is dead or not.

    Parent
    Or wipe your fanny with (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:02:42 AM EST
    Nothing worse than having a dirty fanny :)

    Parent
    No joke Trac.... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    we keep borrowing and bailing out and occupying and locking up the reefer man that might be all our dollar bills are good for...wiping arse:)

    Parent
    I was not clear enough. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    My goal for retirement was to be able to sell my house, and use the profit as a "savings" and a cushion as I age.  I live 1600 miles from my closest family.  I wanted to move back there when and if I made it to age 65, two years from now.  I want to have just enough to not be a burden on family if something happens. My issues are: it's getting harder and harder for me to "take care" of my house.......the cost of repairs is getting out of control.  Large repairs, like roofs and stuff, I used the equity (refinance) to take of those things as well as unexpected medical bills. I am not alone.  A lot of older people are in the same boat. We did NOT start doing things like 401Ks and whatever in our youth.  They did not exist.  And when they did come into being in the 80s, some of us saved in them and then used them up for putting kids through college, for house repairs etc.

    If I were forty, I could just wait it out.  Now I can but it's limited.  My home is an older home, built in 1929.  When I bought it I put a lot of money into repairs.  That was in 1983......I spent years paying off those loans and then the house was starting to need stuff again in the last several years......like a new roof, window issues....
    etc.

    I worry about how much longer my furnace will last.  I understand I am better off than many.  I understand that I am not going to lose my home.
    But it is still frustrating to know that the one big ticket item you invested your life in because it was considered the safest way to go, my lose its value.


    Parent

    Jjc..... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    You sound like you're in a similar boat as my landlady....she's a retired woman whose only asset was her home.  She lives with her daughter now and rents the place out to me and my roomies to supplement her retirement income.  We have a great arrangement where we, the tenants, do a lot of the upkeep and repairs on the place, and she knocks a little off the rent when we do.

    It may be somewhat difficult to find a handy tenant(s) looking for that type of arrangement, but it may be worth looking into.  And you can always sell later when the market rebounds, without putting off your move.

    Where there is a will, there is a way...good luck friend:)

    Parent

    Well, what I am doing now (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:09:05 AM EST
    is substitute teaching.  It's not a lot of money but hopefull I can retire my "equity loans" in the next two years.  I have a decent retirement (a teacher in CO) so my monthly income is something I can easily live on even if I ended up walking away from my house breaking even (which will be no problem).
    I know I am better off than many so I don't want to be a whiner.....

    I am just so damned mad at the right wing because I know the rich got richer and richer and richer off the backs of people like me, my peers and our children.....most of whom, like me have been working since we were 16 year olds.  I don't care about being rich.  Never have....just wanted enough for when I was older that I would be able to travel a little, and not be a burden to anyone.

    I know that I probably could eventually rent the house to college students......

    Everyone thanks for your advice and empathy.  Now I am off to walk, a part of my preventive program for good health.

    Parent

    Good luck with those teeth. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    I've had 3 crowns (my teeth are prone to cracking I'm afraid). They suck.

    I have worse luck with fillings. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM EST
    My first filling failed, then failed again, then the tooth cracked, then I got a crown.  It took a total of two years.

    The good news?  I have three fillings, one crown and I'm in my forties.  Not a bad track record.

    Parent

    Couric and Ifill (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magster on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    The best thing about Couric is that she wouldn't let a non-answer answer be sufficient (when McCain's campaign probably cynically believed she was the most likely high profile reporter to let a fluff answer lie).  Just by asking "like what?" Palin has been hanging herself.

    All it will take is Ifill asking a few "like what?"s tonight to keep Obama's lead in tact.  Unfortunately, Biden can't ask the same question without being accused of bullying.  

    I hope Ifill has noticed how asking a simple follow up is earning Couric lots of attention and praise.

    Good thing Couric improved (none / 0) (#51)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    since her John Edwards interview where she pressed Edwards about if Elizabeth's cancer would present problems if he was elected.

    Parent
    Haven't seen much improvement in Couric (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by stefystef on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    and the fact that she, a woman, is trying to make her "bones" by bringing down another woman (Palin) is so typical.

    No one, and I mean NO ONE, can tear down a female like another female.  Women really don't like women, too many of us see each other as competitors not colleagues.   If you don't believe me, sit in a lunch room of any given high school and listen to the conversation of teen girls.  Scary stuff.

    Sometimes, you wonder what happened to feminism in this country.

    Parent

    Hilarious discussion on German radio (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    which I wish you could have heard.

    They are coming up on the "Day of German Unity" holiday, October 3, which commemorates the Wall coming down in 1989.

    The station I regularly listen to is located in the old East Germany (good music selection).  Today, they had a panel discussion about the economic situation and how far things have come.  One commentator was recalling how people had denigrated earlier commentators who'd thought it would take a generation to get the old DDR up to speed economically with the old West Germany, and which everyone now pretty much agrees was the correct call.

    They - having grown up in socialism - discuss about how socialism and social welfare have proven to not work, and how the German economy is working.

    And then the comedy, when one of the commentators declares that "the biggest socialist in the world is the President of the United States".  During the ensuing hilarity, they all sit there laughing at Bush and his policies, and also note that in addition to being the biggest socialist in the world, he is also the biggest failure (something inevitable under socialism) and the most sanctimonious about it.  These, of course, all being things which the people who grew up under the RealExistierendeSozialismus of the DDR knew all too much about.  

    The sad thing is (none / 0) (#57)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    East Germany still hasn't recovered 20 years later, and all the young people just move out, so who knows if/when it will recover.  I remember being in Dresden in 2000 and the whole city was under construction b/c of the WWII bombings...

    55 years later and still under construction.

    The Americans fire bombed it and the Russians never bothered to re-build.

    Parent

    Interestingly, they're adopting as part of (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM EST
    their industrial base the new technologies:  they are clustering things like plants to make glass for solar cells together with plants to make the cells themselves, etc.  A couple weeks ago they announced starting construction on one of the biggest solar cell factories in the world.

    They are going at things in a very deliberate manner and looking to build a 21st century economy.  

    And, FWIW, they are getting a brand new infrastructure to replace all that was not attended to during DDR times.  Interestingly, every couple weeks or so one still hears a traffic report where certain streets are blocked so they can remove another dud bomb from WWII.  They have that down to a science.


    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#111)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:27:17 PM EST
    I hope it works.  Unemployment levels in E. Germany have remained astonishingly high, between 15 - 20%, even in recent years.

    They have thrown a ton of money at it, in infrastructure improvements and the like.  But the jobs just haven't followed yet.

    That's good to hear that they are starting to do things in a deliberate manner, for years it just seemed like they were throwing money at the problem to see what sticks.  But this is very encouraging.

    Parent

    Another thing (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    Is it really socialism and social welfare if the government in charge refuses to invest in any infrastructure and deliberately "punishes" the citizens?

    Not saying that socialism works every time, but I don't think we can view it through the prism of East Germany and expect it to apply to other countries.

    In some ways the "Marshall Plan" is more socialist than the iron curtain.

    Parent

    These folks know from living under socialism (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    and were perfectly right to make fun of Bush as the world's biggest socialist.  In all forms of socialism there was a nomenklatura of favored people who got all the benefits for being politically screwed in.  No one got hurt (they learned the lesson of the Stalin purges, not to kill themselves off) other than falling out of favor.  They milked the system for themselves and their families and friends, and screwed over the average guy.

    Not too different from what's going down today.

    Parent

    They know one form of socialism (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:13:33 PM EST
    The russian version.

    Ask the Swedes what they think, you'll probably get a different story.

    Parent

    Heartwarming story.... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    of a tragedy bringing out the best in people.  Link

    In case anyone else is in constant need of their faith in the human race being restored.

    A sad end to a sad story... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:20:28 PM EST
    "A police lieutenant committed suicide today, days after he ordered another officer to fire a stun gun at a naked, distraught man who then fell to his death, police said.

    The body of Lt. Michael Pigott, a 21-year police veteran, was found in a police locker room at a former airfield in Brooklyn, dead apparently of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, said Paul Browne, deputy commissioner for public information. He used a weapon that was not his, police said.

    Pigott had been stripped of his gun and badge and reassigned to desk duty after the Sept. 24 case in which police, summoned by the mother of an emotionally disturbed man, fired a Taser stun gun as he perched on a ledge."

    http://tinyurl.com/3nfl2p

    That's a shame.... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:37:17 PM EST
    there was an article in yesterday's Daily News about the late officer, he apologized to the family and sounded genuinely remorseful.  It's rare for an officer in such an instance to publicly apologize...made me think he was one of the few good guys.  

    Between this and the outpouring of support for a prison guard by the prisoners under his watch in my link above is really making me gut-check my personal prejudices.

    Parent

    That's pretty much what I thought.... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    ...when I read it--an officer with an actual conscience who was remorseful and repentent for his actions.  Not enough of those around today, IMO.  

    Parent
    Part of it appears to have been his boss (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    One of his superior officers was riding him with threats about going to jail and being hauled off in cuffs while his kids watched. He left a note in which he said he didn't want his kids to have to see him sent off in cuffs and would rather be dead than that.

    Then, he broke into another officer's locker, took that officer's gun and shot himself with it.

    In his note, he also took responsibility for the tasering, absolving the subordinates who actually did it by saying it was his order and he was responsible for it.

    Tragic.

    Parent

    Gun violence (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mikeb302000 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    See the LA Times' Homicide Report for a real chilling experience.  Something must be done.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/

    It isn't that I don't want to (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM EST
    talk about the issues you raise, but as in your post about Roe and Dred Scott, this is a time when I need to study more than opine.  There are many legal minds on here too so it is important that I do some study on their view points as well when they reply on such things so that I can be a better informed voter and advocate.

    5 Friends (none / 0) (#6)
    by indy in sc on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:59:24 AM EST
    I came across this video which is aimed at the youth vote for registration and GOTV.  Kinda funny.

    Thanks, I liked it. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Finis Terrae on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:33:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama has become Oprah (none / 0) (#13)
    by stefystef on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_Obama_channel.html

    The Obama Channel... if you didn't think you were getting All-Obama-all-the-time from MSNBC and CNN, now Obama gets his own channel so you can get bombarded ad nauseam.

    Sometimes, people can be overexposed.  And then people get tired of you fast.  I know I'm tired of him.

    Stupid use of (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    campaign cash, IMHO.  I have Dish network and took a look.  It's a silly idea unless they actually do something interesting with it.  All they're doing now is running the same 2-minute ad over and over and over again with Obama talking calmly to the camera.

    I don't get the point.  Do they think people are going to come to it accidentally by channel-surfing, see Obama's familiar mug and stop to watch?

    Parent

    Not any more stupid (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM EST
    than the dozen shopping channels on TV. Or the religious channels.

    Parent
    Oh, my goodness (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:12:38 AM EST
    Andgarden, those channels actually make money by selling stuff, and lots and lots of people watch them and buy stuff.  If they were just running the same 2-minute promotional video 24/7, nobody would watch them.  Those channels are making money by giving people something they want.  What need is the Obama Channel filling?

    Parent
    You realize that for years (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    people have complained about those channels wasting space.

    Presumably Obama thinks that he might convince a few more people with this channel. He is the product that he wants people to buy.

    Parent

    Everybody complains about (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM EST
    channels they're not interested in "wasting space."  Because I have not the faintest whiff of interest in the fifty bazillion sports channels my satellite system carries, or the dozens of children's channels, etc., doesn't mean they serve no purpose.

    Obama's channel serves no purpose, period.  It's a total waste of his contributors' money. If he used it for some really imaginative programming, even, say, running a biographical film or for video of various campaign events or something, then it might be something one could at least have a reasonable argument about.

    But just running a single 2-minute ad 24/7 is stupid and useless.  Even Michelle wouldn't watch it.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:46:52 AM EST
    So he bought an infomercial channel on Dish Network. So what?

    Parent
    So what is Obama selling with his informercial? (none / 0) (#98)
    by stefystef on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    Himself???

    ~ugh~

    Parent

    Is the House voting today instead of Friday? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    I read that in an earlier thread but I thought it was tomorrow.

    It is tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST
    We may find out today, though, whether the House intends to vote on the Senate bill or maybe a different version.

    Last night Harry Reid told the Senate that today will be an easy day, but they may have to be in session tomorrow depending on what the House does.  Odds are that if the House manages to pass a different bill, the Senate will simply rubberstamp it rather than go through the conference committee process.

    Parent

    Dying Cub Fan's Last Request (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    Great Steve Goodman Video for those of us needing a laugh this morning....for all kinds of reasons.

    Keep your chin up ruff.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    lot of baseball left.

    Ya Gotta Believe!!! (to borrow a catchphrase:)

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    We'll get'em tonight!!!

    Parent
    Aw, Steve Goodman (none / 0) (#69)
    by daring grace on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:25:11 PM EST
    Gone too soon.

    Being a New Yorker, I never liked the Yankees much. They always won too often for my underdog spirit so for years I rooted for the Red Sox--although watching the Mets some years they reminded me of a fun but really, really bad co-ed softball team I played on in my 20s and 30s and that gave me a passing rooting interest at times (in their worst years).

    Anyway, in honor of Steve Goodman...GO Cubbies!

    Parent

    It was interesting watching the (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lahdee on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:47:46 AM EST
    Senate floor last night prior to the from their desk vote on the amendment. Senator Obama appears and nears Senator Clinton who is engaged in conversation. There is a shuffling of places and perhaps a greeting is passed, but a separation ensues. Senator Obama handshakes, touches a few shoulders and hugs his way to the Leader with whom he exchanges some dialogue. She votes, he votes and leaves the floor only to return to Mrs. Clinton's area. This time they engage in conversation, no hugs were exchanged, no visible touching occurred. The air around them however was decidedly charged as it was later reported that large amounts of fallen particles were discovered nearby.

    Not as interesting (none / 0) (#34)
    by litigatormom on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    as the McCain-Obama interaction. Apparently Obama approached McCain, who was talking with Lieberman and some other Republican. He extended his hand. McCain took it, but barely turned to look at him. Lieberman and the other Republican guy then acknowledged Obama more warmly, and Obama went back to the Democratic side.

    Parent
    Nate Silver goes after RCP today (none / 0) (#52)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    and imo, he's dead on.

    Main Street Bailout (none / 0) (#56)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    We ought to encapsulate what Rep. Kucinich, Sens. Clinton, Feingold, Obama and others have said about the bailout and write our own citizen generated, homeowner centered, main street bailout bill, get some smart Dem think tanks involved, post it on Obama's site to ensure everyone knows it's his outreach to grassroots democracy that enabled the development of this solution.  We should involve our Dem party leaders and even if we have to present it to them as an alternative to the nonsense they keep trying to slip by us.  There should be no tax breaks, no earmarks, NOTHING that even looks like handing more money to the rich guys who created this mess.  The investment should be owned by the government and the returns should come back to us, not to speculators or CEOs or even upper middle class investors.  As Hillary pointed out, HOME would fix the root of the problem as well as create the confidence we need for economic recovery.

    Like involvement in wars, this economic crisis is an instance where the people must lead so the leaders can follow.  And it's a great opportunity to establish a clear mandate to our new Dem president who has specifically asked us to become involved and who has created an environment where we feel engaged and responsible.  If we do this today, this week, and if the current bailout fails, we'd get the media attention a grassroots effort of this sort deserves.

    This is our chance to take back our government, to fix a huge problem our country faces and to establish once and for all that citizen involvement works better than letting leaders be bought by financial interests.  

    Gwen Ifill and Don Imus (none / 0) (#66)
    by bison on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    Gwen Ifill's role  as moderator is not a problem in the VP debates.  She knows what it means to be victimized and to be treated unfairly.- Ask Don Imus!  Is McCain still appearing on the Don Imus show?  What has Don Imus said about Palin?
    Another argument against being famous (none / 0) (#70)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:27:51 PM EST
    The DUI arrest of Heather Locklear appears to have proceeded like this:

    A "former" paparazzo sees her getting in her car.
    The "former" paparazzo decides she's looking impaired, so he calls the cops.
    The "former" paparazzo then calls a photo agency which deals in paparazzi photos of celebrities.
    The "former" paparazzo just happens to follow along and take pictures of Locklear being pulled over and of her taking a sobriety test.
    The "former" paparazzo sells the pictures of Locklear's sobriety test to TMZ.com for ... $27,000.
    The "former" paparazzo makes herself unavailable to press inquiries about her motive.

    Man o' Man.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    do I despise dime droppers, especially profit-driven dime droppers.

    I wonder how some people manage to look in the mirror.

    Parent

    I once saw an inebriated guy finish off a (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    can of beer, hop in his car and drive off. I had no quams about dropping a dime on him.

    Parent
    But I'll bet you didn't (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    just happen to have a camera handy, follow and photograph the sobriety test, know anyone at TMZ.com, or get paid $27,000 for your pictures, did you?

    It's one thing to drop a dime on someone wasted in public (I've done it, more out of concern that drunk dancing in the intersection was a bad idea best addressed by cops).  It's another to get an amount you could use for a downpayment on a house out of it.


    Parent

    I know it's probably wrong... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    but I couldn't do it.  I have never called the cops, never will as long as I live.  I want nothing to do with the authorities...nothing.

    If I see a threat, I deal with it myself.

    Parent

    Pass/Fail (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    does anyone know what the pass/fail litmus is for the bailout?  In 3 months when we are no better off will the sell be "we avoided armageddon" and that is all?  Without any quantifiable information as to what is going to happen with the bailout it seems to me that this is a weird investment.  

    We cannot hold them accountable to standard, metric or goal and that bothers me.  No pol wants to give us anything to measure it by, if that does not give us pause for concern in light of what we were supposed to spend in Iraq vs what we have spent I simply do not know what will bother US.

    I am done ranting on it and methinks that is where they want us to be.  I hope it works.

    Great point J.... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    assuming its gonna pass one way or the other, we will never really know if the doomsday threats were real or a total bluff...unless we give 'em the pile o' cash and still get doomsday, then we'll know it was real.

    It really sucks when your govt. has less than zero credibility.

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    we are all shortstacked and cannot call them on it.  It's like digging a hole in the ground, covering it with a shirt and then rescuing people right before they walk over it and telling them we saved them from a dangerous fall.  You walk away saying "gees I am lucky that guy was there, here is 20 bucks for your saving me."

    Parent
    Short-stacked or not.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    I'm more than willing to call...every poker instinct I have tells me to call.

    Parent
    i am with you brother (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    if you can figure out how to bail this out with 700 bn, figure out how to bail it out if it fails.  Those economists against it should write a plan that shows how to fix it if they are wrong in not supporting it, i would love to read that.

    Parent
    Ted spread andl (none / 0) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:16:29 PM EST
    availability of short-term commercial credit (ie, "commercial paper") will tell the tale.  There's plenty of quantifiable information, but only if you understand the basic problem at hand and how the "bail-out" is intended to address it.

    It won't make your or my life better, but it should keep it from becoming a whole, whole lot worse.

    Parent

    that is not accurate (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:39:20 PM EST
    last Friday i received a call to up my BLOC.  There is money out there for people with excellent credit and collateral.  This will free up some money but no where near enough.

    I do not buy the armageddon or else argument without any back end prognostics other than "it will loosen it up".

    I more than understand the premise of the bail out, I also understand that the proposed solution provides nothing more than stability for the existing situation in the credit market.  

    In 3 months when credit card crisis hits (HSBC today was downgraded 30 days before i anticipated) and foreclosures spike to record levels NEXT year, and businesses outside the banking/finance industry start going belly up at a record pace, we will hear "it could have been a lot worse".

    It is a lot worser already, most people cannot see past this or are assuming it is isolated.  

    What are you going to do with your AMT credit?  I am going to bank mine.  I have no intention of hiring more people with that money and the assertion that people will use it in that fashion is not ringing with me at all.

    Parent

    Maybe Stability of the Existing Condition for (none / 0) (#100)
    by santarita on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    3 months is all that can be expected.  The more I read the more I think that what Paulson and Bernanke are trying to do is stop a panic at the level of the banks, investment companies and hedge funds.  Reading the account of the two or three days that led up to the Thursday meeting with Congressional leaders indicates that they were trying to stop a cascading panic.  The TED spread and the flight to safety in short-term Treasuries by investors indicates where we are.

       Actually, your statement about what you would do with the AMT credit is indicative of the mood in the economy, which is another problem without an easy solution.  Recession and undercapitalized financial institutions are feeding off one another.

    I keep wondering why Paulson and Bernanke are pursuing what most people think is not much more than a temporary crown (to stay with the dental theme opening the thread).  I suspect that they know that permanent solution requires such fundamental reforms that it needs to be left to the next President.  

    Parent

    exactly my point (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:07:16 PM EST
    I know full well it needs to be stabilized but we are not addressing how to stimulate it.  The tax breaks will not although I do think they are necessary for breathing room purposes.  Trickle up via job creation will help tremendously (although that is relative also) and my biggest frustration is that I am hearing nothing about it.  

    I think most americans believe we need stabilization as people like Buffett with no axe to grind make very clear statements about economic disaster.  

    I do not have a crystal ball but I do know that we as a nation have been working employees harder to eke out larger margins to preserve capital and or pay down debt.  I know that the loss of 700k jobs and we will continue to lose through at least the 1st qtr of next year.  That is prolonged UE for 10 million Americans and UE benefits are not strong enough to carry people and their bills.

    I am not against the bailout, I am against it as a stand alone solution to a broader problem.  It seems to me that darned near everyone on this blog is employed and/or not worried about their employment future to any great extent.  I don't think that is consistent with middle america.

    It is horrible to consider going into further debt to employ people which is essentially what the gov't is telling private enterprise at this point without doing it themselves.

    They are telling us small biz owners, when that credit is available soon, go into debt and hire more people and expand your business when they know full well we are almost completely reliant on big business in one form or another.  WE cannot and will not absorb too much more risk and need the federal gov't to create jobs even at the risk of running higher deficits so that banks will lend to those securing those contracts who will be in the position to begin hiring again to meet the needs of the infrastructure projects.

    What happens when the car dealerships, retail operations, auto service techs, graphic design firms, advertising firms, PR firms on and on start going belly up?  

    It is no secret that business, large and small are codependent but when the economy constricts and job losses are as prolonged as they are, our ability and desire to absorb any additional risk diminishes rapidly and we start laying off.  We have not seen that yet and I am betting that starting in November we will see a rash of it.

    The fact that we have not seen it to any real large degree (although 700k in job losses when the economy needs a gain of 100k a month just to be stable) does not make it avoidable.  It is the way the cycle works and we are approaching that part of the cycle.  I advocate that we address it before it starts to his and I am startled/baffled by the lack of prescience by our leaders in this regard.

    I hope I am wrong and truth be told I don't know any better than the mailman or the mechanic or the laborer as much of the financial market is like a foreign language.  But I think I understand cycles and the snowball effect and believe we are on the precipice of a much larger failure regarding personal finances due to job losses.  

    Hopefully I am just another crackpot overworrying.

    Parent

    Good post (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    I don't believe anybody thinks the bail-out thing is more than a short-term tourniquet to an immediate problem that could bring us all down much faster than your scenario.

    We are going into a recession.  We have them every once in a while and there really isn't any way of preventing them, though there are things the government can do that help make them shorter and less painful.

    Will the Dems in Congress be able to use the head of steam they've built up and their larger majority and a Dem. president to really get some of those things under way in the next Congress?  I dunno.  I suspect the Dem. congress and Obama will take some of the more obvious and sensible steps, but I have little hope for any genuinely economically transformative measures.

    (And if you're contemplating what you're going to do with your AMT giveback, you're way, way ahead of my financial situation, FWIW.)

    Parent

    that is the problem (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:28:37 PM EST
    none of our leaders are communicating that is merely a short term fix to provide liquidity, and more irresponsibly they are not addressing the work shortage which in my opinion is equally as tumultous.  

    250 bn in infrastructure authorized immediately will not prevent a recession, but it will lessen the severity of it and provide income to the next round of americans who will be facing dire financial times.

    This race has been run by both parties as a populist race, and neither are addressing those needs nor are they alleviating the upcoming pain.

    I am planning for my AMT based on my forecast of the upcoming months, if that changes significantly I would happily reinvest that money but you and I both know it ain't changing.

    Parent

    You're right, or course... (none / 0) (#106)
    by santarita on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    the headlines in the national media initially made this out to be a Wall Street problem.  People find it hard to connect Wall Street problems  to the local stories of restaurant failures, increased bankruptcies of local businesses, etc.  The economy is cyclical but the bubble economics has made the downturns a lot nastier.

    The best outcome of this sorry mess I think is for the government to take over the too big to fail banks or at least dictate their operating parameters and start funding regional companies that specialize in infrastructure rebuilding and environmental and energy solutions.  A national reconstruction program coupled with bankruptcy reform and financial system reform sounds like a good way to provide jobs and meet the needs of the nation.  I hope the Fed's printing machine is oiled and ready to go.

    Parent

    i agree (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    and as one who leans libertarian I fully acknowledge the ignorance of my beliefs as the human condition prevents us from not acting in our own self interest.  Nationalized banking even on a small scale has got to scare the hell out of most people but I am hard pressed to see another reasonable solution.  

    Thanks for the banter, I am way too worked up about this stuff and am concerned of course for myself and my country....

    Parent

    FDIC and taxpayers in a bind. (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:16:27 PM EST
    Curiouser and curiouser.  In a NYT business column by Eric Dash, it is reported that the FDIC waived most of the premiums it normally collects to insure bank deposits.  After foregoing premiums for ten years (1996 to 2006) since bank failures were so rare, the FDIC may now have to go to the Treasury (taxpayers) for more money if a large number of banks fail.  It would be exacerbated, of course, with an increase in the coverage.

    Calling yourself a maverick (none / 0) (#86)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    Am I the only one who finds it absurd that McCain and Palin call THEMSELVES mavericks.  How can you call yourself a maverick and not be made fun of.   Every time hear them call themselves a maverick I wander who Goose is in their bizarre story line.

    Not just Mavericks... (none / 0) (#89)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    ...the ORIGINAL mavericks.  

    No, you're not alone in thinking it is absurb.

    Parent

    Sure ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    we all know James Garner was THE ORIGINAL MAVERICK!


    Parent
    True dat (none / 0) (#114)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:35:12 PM EST


    Parent
    We have a different system. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:09:08 PM EST
    We are set up for anonymous infant drop offs.  

    There's an entire process including an official waiting period so that the parent has an opportunity to claim their baby.  If not, the infant enters into the state care system and the parents are never sought and never face legal repercussions.

    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 112 comments (112 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment