home

Obama Says "No Blank Check" for Wall Street

Speaking in North Carolina today, Sen. Barack Obama said there should be no blank check for Wall Street.

Obama charged that Republicans have run the economy "into the ground," as he outlined some broad concepts for reform of the financial industry.

"First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money," Obama said. "Second, taxpayers shouldn't be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street while they're going out the door."

Obama also said taxpayers must be protected, be able to recoup some of the investment they might make in a bailout and provide assistance for homeowners at risk of losing their homes.

More...

McCain's response:

"Two days after he confessed to not having a plan for the banking crisis, Barack Obama called for 'decisive action' while offering absolutely no new ideas, policies or concrete solutions - it shows he is just not ready to lead. John McCain rejected complacency and political calculation in favor of a direct call for updated, effective regulations that will protect Americans' homes, savings and jobs - we cannot afford a directionless driver like Barack Obama.

"When Barack Obama faults our complicated financial crisis on simple concepts that John McCain has supported comparable to allowing Americans to use ATMs in all 50 states, he's either lying to score political points or revealing how unqualified he is to lead our economy." ---Tucker Bounds, spokesman McCain-Palin 2008.

You can read the full text of Obama's remarks here.

< One Third May Vote Early | The Emmys and Other TV Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Obama and Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by bjorn on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    should put forth a plan that includes HOLC.  How brilliant would it be for both of them to work together...Obama would get big bounce from that, imo.

    She does the work, he takes the credit? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:10:10 PM EST
    This morning she said:

    "The American people deserve to know that this isn't a blank check."

    This afternoon Obama copied her position.

    Parent

    My mistake - she said it Thursday (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    Full text here

    Parent
    Poor Obama (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Faust on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:18:58 PM EST
    If he "copies" her position he's a...hmmm...I guess you would say plagiarizer?

    If he doesn't embrace her position, he's a fool for not taking good advice and proves his folly and arrogance.

    Or at least, that's how this "stuff" flies in your little neck of the woods.


    Parent

    How about giving her credit? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:45:14 PM EST
    And following her lead?

    He doesn't have to think of it first for it to be a good idea.

    Parent

    I owe Obama an apology (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by clio on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:02:50 PM EST
    and I am glad to offer it to him unreservedly.  I honestly did not expect such a detailed repudiation of this misbegotten Wall street give away.  More unfaltering leadership like this.
    Please.

    I remain skeptical of congressional Democrats' will, spine and gonads.  Especially the blue dogs.  But perhaps Obama can bring them to heel.  If so it would be an excellent omen for his ability to get his legislative initiatives passed.

    Foreign Banks (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Amiss on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    No Bailout For Foreign Banks From US Money:  Instead, all countries should work together to help everyone.

    Soo glad to see that in there as well.

    Parent

    BAILOUT (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Daniel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:01:59 PM EST
    This 'bailout' is an OUTRAGE that even Obama will wind up supporting and voting for. IT's unthinkable! The same bastards who squandered gazillions of our money is now asking to be bailed out so they suffer no losses. Well who do you think is going to pick up the tab? There are other ways to deal with this crisis but no one will really listen to the likes of Paul Krugman. Many know him to be a columnist for the NYTIMES but he is also an economist and professor. This is a HUGE, game changing, life changing DECISION>

    Parent
    Actually he does outline an approach (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Coral on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    You can see the principles here, at Brad  De Long's blog.

    Includes help for homeowners, regulatory structure, and help for Main Street. Still vague, but presented for wide audience, not economics wonks.

    It's a good start.

    He talked about it today at his Charlotte, NC rally, which is available at YouTube.

    Good, but better needed (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:09:16 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what Obama says, it only matters what Congress does. This is a good start, but the devil is in the details, and I don't want an outcome where, well, Obama puts lipstick on Paulson's pig.

    Parent
    Not a bad start (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by david mizner on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:33:56 PM EST
    But there are important questions, which always seem to be the important questions, whether we're talking about Iraq, FISA, or this:

    1. What leadership, if any, will Obama show in fighting the Bush approach and pushing a better one.

    2. Will he back the awful "compromise" that is sure to emerge.

    Everything else is just noise.

    Hi David, (none / 0) (#40)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:14:01 PM EST
    It seems to me that the bipartisan support for the "bailout" is exactly what Obama purports.  He will reach across the aisle, as has Paulsen, to get things done.  Do you see this "bailout" otherwise?

    Parent
    Reaching across the aisle to get (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST
    things done?  You mean like not changing any real oversight in the Bush Paulson plan?  Ya gotta love that!

    Parent
    Obama is addressing (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    a group of supporters, it seems. Do you really think he would go into the intricacies of solving this infinitely conplex problem??  Note what he has been doing over the weekend:

    Over the weekend, aides said Obama has spoken to congressional leaders about the proposal, as well as both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    As he addressed a crowd here that his campaign said totaled more than 25,000, the Illinois Democrat repeatedly criticized the White House and his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.

    "The radical idea that government has no role to play in protecting ordinary Americans has wreaked havoc on our economy," he said.

    I think this was strong. I want no one shooting from the hip on this crisis.  We already got a gunslinger for President.  We don't need another one.
     

    As long as he get on board a Clinton plan (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    I'll give him an A plus.

    Parent
    CREDO Action Petition - No blank check (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by noholib on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    I just signed a petition calling on key members of Congress to impose a few sensible conditions to this bailout in order to protect the American people. Please have a look and take action.

    http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/no_blank_check/?r_by=-815991-nZUj2rx&rc=confemail


    One big problem with this (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by dissenter on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:55:22 PM EST
    there is no BENEFIT for the taxpayers. The paper is junk....as in mostly worthless.

    Parent
    And we get? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:05:13 PM EST
    That's the question to ask. Always. Clinton supporters understand this. Many Obama supporters do not.

    Parent
    Newt Gingrich, today (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:03:22 PM EST
    It's time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.

    Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.

    Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law.

    Congress has an obligation to perform oversight.

    Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess.

    There are four major questions that have to be answered before Congress adopts a new $700 billion burden for the American taxpayer. On each of these questions, I believe Congress's answer will be "no" if it slows down long enough to examine the facts."

    Of course  he gets his zings in against the Dems also, but scathing, for him:

    http://tinyurl.com/3gqmvf
     

    Go Gingrich, Go! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:30:16 PM EST
    Like Pat Buchanen against the Iraq War, it's one of those unbelievably obvious occasions when the ultra-conservatives are so far right they're left ... er right.  Even the right, perhaps especially the right, recognizes how much of an incompetent boob Bush is.

    Parent
    Exactly what I was thinking (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    Read Newt's entire writing.  He has many very interesting ideas.  Actually I much prefer his ideas to the present "plan."  

    Parent
    Just Go, Gingrich! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by santarita on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:08:37 PM EST
    I read the link.  His thoughts on Question #3 I agree with.  And 4 is pretty obvious but according to Paulson, we don't have the luxury of waiting until after the election.  So I don't know where that thought get us.  As to eliminating SOX, yes it does cost a lot and yes it does mean that some companies stay private or go private.  But that has very little to do with the current critical period on Wall Street.  And ditto for the corporate dividend issue.  In short, to borrow a metaphor, his ideas for solutions are a little like suggesting that the color of the carpets be changed while the theater is burning down.

    Newt is one of those pundits who has to pop off every now and then in order to drum up business.  Yes, he is intelligent and yes he is a very good spokesman for the Neocon economic philosophy but   other than that I am not sure what he is bringing to this particular table.

    Parent

    Nothing at all (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:13:56 PM EST
    Except he helps expose how much of a boob Bush is.  Even the ultraright realizes it.

    Parent
    ha (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    Yeah, McCain should talk. John McCain had about 7 different positions last week and wound up with both the Wall Street Journal and George Will calling him "unpresidential".  

    Has anyone thought about this: (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:14:42 PM EST
    1.  If the bailout passes with that "unfettered authority" ...

    2.  And somehow McCain wins....

    3.  In 4 months, it might be very likely that Treasury Secretary Phil Gramm will have $700 billion to spend on whatever the hell he wants.

    NOW I'M WHINING!

    If the bailout money comes from the (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ding7777 on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    current Social Secuirity surplus,  Bush's privatization plan succeeded beyond his wildest dreams; only this time the tax-payer has absolutely no say in how the money is "invested".

    This (none / 0) (#47)
    by sas on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:06:29 PM EST
    bailout is WORSE than you think

    http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/

    Parent

    Thanks for the Link... (none / 0) (#54)
    by santarita on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM EST
    the anonymous staffer that wrote in touched on something I've been having trouble with - what is the simplest way to achieve the results needed.  Of course, at this point, other than avoiding a near term Doomsday scenario, what is the end result that Paulson is hoping for?  Recapitalized institutions free to go about business as usual with some window-dressing regulations?  If that's necessary, fine but there needs to be a little sacrifice on the part of these institutions.

    And while I don't think it does any good to punish CEOs and boards for honest errors in judgment, what was the purpose of having CEOs and Board chairmen signing those certifications on the annuals and quarterlies?  To get some - accountability.  Well, here is the opportunity to show that SOX has some teeth.

    Parent

    "honest errors in judgment" (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:06:31 PM EST
    Oh, puh-leeze...

    Parent
    Yes he did: a year ago (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:19:05 PM EST
    at the "embrace the change" concert event. Remember Donnie McClurkin?

    I can assure you that I have not forgotten about that; I never will. Obama can make amends, but he starts with a negative balance as far as I'm concerned.

    You have three neg. comments (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:23:27 AM EST
    left.  <snark>

    Parent
    Blank checks (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Prabhata on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:07:15 PM EST
    "NO BLANK CHECK" is what Pelosi promised when she became house speaker.

    Obama and McCain should (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:24:56 AM EST
    call off Friday's debate and the pre-debate week of prepping and high-tail it to the Senate.

    This whole (4.57 / 7) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:33:10 PM EST
    statement says to me "Well, I don't like it but I'm going to find an excuse to vote for it."

    That is what it says to me too (4.62 / 8) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    I am not reassured.

    Parent
    Glad he said no (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by TheRizzo on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:42:31 PM EST
    But not happy he didn't offer any kind of alternative plan or solution to help fix the issues out there.  

    I am not totally against some sort of bailout package that gives the taxpayers a deep discount for taking on the risk, but a blank check I think goes way to far and it seems that we are paying a hefty premium instead of a discount.

    So now that you said no to the blank check, I want to hear what your actual plan is Obama.   I really feel it will hurt him to say no to this plan and then offer nothing else to help fix things.

    Read the article (none / 0) (#3)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    He didn't say no, nor should he.

    "In his first comments about a $700 billion government bailout package meant to help stabilize Wall Street, Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday stopped short of saying whether he supports the proposal, as he laid out some broad economic goals he believes such a plan should include."

    Parent

    There's nothing in it for the regular taxpayer. (none / 0) (#80)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:38:41 PM EST
    It's all for the financial sector.

    Parent
    There is no actual plan (none / 0) (#4)
    by wasabi on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    That is the beauty of the Paulsen proposal.  Only vague outlines and a need for no oversight.

    At least Obama is trying to make a point about what safeguards need to be added to protect the little guy.  It needs to be hashed out with the leadership in the next few days.

    Of course there's a plan (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:08:07 PM EST
    The plan is to give the Bush administration $700 billion dollars with no accountability.

    That is the plan.

    Read the legislation, especially Clause 8.

    That is the plan.


    Parent

    There is at least part of a plan. . . (none / 0) (#50)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:15:42 PM EST
    it's clear from the news articles that the bailout does involve the government purchasing debased mortgage securities at current market value.  Now, that's from when the plan was $180 billion -- now that it's $700 billion there are more questions to ask.

    Parent
    Obama's outline is good (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    This is in the right direction.

    However, I must say that McCain's rapid response is very good here. Just enough sarcastic FUD to be included in articles on the subject.

    What direction? (3.14 / 7) (#9)
    by Miserere mei on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    Obama didn't say anything substantial or tangible, nor will he now or in the next few weeks. It was the same political happy talk that he has been feeding everyone from the very beginning.  

    He didn't even consider Clinton's ideas for the same reasons he rejected her as VP - he doesn't want to be showed up even if the trade-off for being showed up is what is good for the country.

    As for what McCain said he is right:

    "Two days after he confessed to not having a plan for the banking crisis, Barack Obama called for 'decisive action' while offering absolutely no new ideas, policies or concrete solutions...

    There is nothing inaccurate or sarcastic in that statement at all. It is right on target with what Obama said -or more so didn't say.

    Obama better hope that a lot of voters don't get to listen to or read his statement because they will come to the conclusion that his small lead in handling the economy that they give him is severely misplaced.

    Parent

    hm (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    What exactly could he say other than what he did? McCain looked like a boob running around saying random things and was called "unpresidential" by both the WSJ and George Will.

    Obama looked like he was absorbing facts and giving measured reponses.  McCain looked weak and confused.  Even George Will didnt give the week to McCain.

    Parent

    I agree- Obama said NOTHING (4.50 / 6) (#17)
    by kenosharick on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:59:43 PM EST
    once again, and his nothingness was so vague that people are interpreting it however they want. Brilliant! He will get another free pass, like on FISA and "don't ask,don't tell"

    Parent
    How are those McCain points coming? (3.66 / 3) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    I just figured something out. . . (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:11:37 PM EST
    there's two posters here named Molly!  And I thought it was just one -- Dr. Molly and Ms. Hyde (or vice versa).

    Parent
    I am the original (none / 0) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:20:56 AM EST
    Accept no substitutes!

    I was here long before this election.

    Parent

    Right (3.33 / 3) (#10)
    by borisbor on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:29:10 PM EST
    So you're saying his small lead in the economy part is misplaced meaning McCain is better suited to help the econonmy? Gimme a break. Have you been paying attention this week? McCain looked old, out of touch, and struggling to stay on point.

    Parent
    Quit being a typical boring poster (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Miserere mei on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    trying to put words in other peoples mouth. If you could read you would see I said nothing of the sort that you are trying to say I did.

    Please don't respond to my posts anymore.

    Parent

    Right, because McCain is soooo great (3.85 / 7) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:48:15 PM EST
    on the economy.

    How about this: don't respond to MY comments--ever.

    Parent

    The second silly person (4.25 / 4) (#20)
    by Miserere mei on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    to try to put words in my mouth.

    You know trying to put words in the mouth of a poster on this site is not going to do a thing to improve Obama's lack of a solution to the mess we are in. Just thought you would want to know that.

    Now if you want to comment on what I said in response to 'your' post upthread be my guest andgarden. But then of course if you had anything substantial to say in regards to my comments to your post you would have voiced yourself already. Instead you just do a drive-by here that serves what purpose?

    Parent

    Please note: not a "meta" site. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:33:45 PM EST
    And Tucker Bounds' Statement (none / 0) (#11)
    by borisbor on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:31:10 PM EST
    about Obama attacking simple concepts related to allowing people to use ATMs? Yeah that's not ridiculous. All John McCain is in favour of is letting people use ATMs right?

    Parent
    Substantial and tangible (none / 0) (#44)
    by Realleft on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:39:55 PM EST
    First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money.

    Second, taxpayers shouldn't be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street.

    Third, taxpayers should be protected and should be able to recoup this investment.

    Points 2 and 3 are huge, and if he could manage to lead the way to make them reality it would make all the difference in this bailout, which will go through.  

    Also, enough already with the Obama/Clinton shtick.  You have no idea why she wasn't chosen for VP and there's no particular reason why he should be talking about her ideas in his speech.

    Parent

    You can be sure if he purloins her ideas (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:51:43 PM EST
    as he has in the past, he certainly won't credit her with them in the HOLC proposal.

    Parent
    Regarding CEO compensation (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lengyel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    CEOs should not be rewarded for their contribution to the biggest financial crisis since 1930s. The Paulson plan asks for a blank check; the political implications of this should not be underestimated. For example, "a key banking industry trade group called for key refinements to the Treasury rescue plan, such as temporarily suspending mark-to-market accounting rules for all mortgage-related assets". Marking opaque financial instruments to model helped to exacerbate the crisis.

    Instead, any proposed legislation before Congress should include this modest proposal.

    Maybe mark-to-market helped (none / 0) (#37)
    by santarita on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    precipitate a crisis that was going to come anyway.

    I think tying CEO performance to achievement of long term goals makes a lot of sense. Long term as in 5 years or more.  

    Parent

    In fact, giving the money to the bankers (none / 0) (#60)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:54:35 PM EST
    does not assure they will use this money to issue new mortgages and credit to businesses.  According to what I read, the bankers can indeed raise CEO salaries, buy up other assets(and you know they will do that)giving them a free hand to spend the money as they see fit.  Is that what the Democrats will agree to?

    Parent
    Hello Goodbye (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    Obama says "no blank check". That infers no bailout.

    Then we read that " taxpayers must be protected, be able to recoup some of the investment they might make in a bailout". That infers yes bailout.

    Nuh-uh (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    I'm not going to play What Obama Really Meant on a $700 billion bailout plan, and I don't want any of "principles" either, that's just more meta. I want a concrete policy proposal. Leaders lead, and if we leave this up to Harry and Nance, we are so f***d. I hate to say it, but leadership from Obama is our best chance in this thing [bangs head on desk].

    Parent
    Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! (none / 0) (#45)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:04:00 PM EST
    Implies.

    In any event, "no blank check" is not the same as "no bailout".  It simply means that money used to bail out the financial system will be limited, or come with strings attached, or both.

    Parent

    strings? (none / 0) (#46)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:05:37 PM EST
    Wanna bet?

    Parent
    Wanna bet WHAT? (none / 0) (#48)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:10:16 PM EST
    I have no idea what's going to happen -- but you stated that Obama's statements were self-contradictory, and they're not.

    Will the final plan have strings?  I'm sure it will -- but whether they'll be meaningful will, I'm sure, be widely debated.

    Parent

    What I'm saying is... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:16:47 PM EST
    that Obama will huff and puff about it, and will wind up voting for whatever bill the Bush administration combined with the spineless democratic leadership present to him.

    At this point, phase one of his style, he is against a bailout.
    No blank check. Then, phase two: If there is a bailout, then the little fellow should get something from it. Right.

    Wall Street will get it's bailout.
    We will get nothing.
    Obama will vote for it.


    Parent

    Well. . . (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:36:39 PM EST
    there will have to be something like a bailout, or else we're all sunk.  Something will have to be done.  (Of course, we could all be wrong -- this could be the kind of thing the market could work through by itself.  However, there doesn't seem to be a single knowledgeable pundit pushing that line.  Furthermore, as someone who believes in intelligent regulation of the market, I find it neither desirable nor very believable that this will work itself out in a laissez faire scenario).

    The way the Senate works is that people barter back and forth to get what they want and if they get "enough" they wind up voting for the bill.  In order to get the thing they want, what they have to trade is their vote.  That's why people wind up voting for compromise legislation all the time and also why Senators -- especially those with a long record -- make such lousy Presidential candidates.  They've voted for all kinds of weird provisions in bills.

    So it's probably true that pretty much everyone will wind up voting for the final legislation.  The only way that wouldn't happen is if the Administration were to take their usual "my way or the highway" route.  But they've made it clear they won't.  So yes, it's likely that Obama will vote for the good parts of the final legislation -- those inserted by Democrats in negotiations.

    That doesn't change the fact that Obama's statements, as quoted by you, are internally consistent.  What might happen in the future, I don't know (you do, or feel you do -- I don't).  But based solely on the statements you quoted, I think Obama has taken a consistent, intelligent (if fairly flexible) stand on the issue.

    The only thing I feel is absolutely certain is that no matter what the plan looks like, and no matter whether Obama votes for or against it, he will be roundly condemned for his action here in the Talk Left comments section.

    Parent

    Do you think Obama might stand up and (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:08:11 PM EST
    say "this is what needs to be in the bill and this is how it will work."  Have him lay it out line by line and tell the Democrats to fall into line behind him or else. No one at Talk Left would complain about that.

    Parent
    Obama has no authority. . . (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:15:49 PM EST
    to "tell" the Democrats to line up behind whatever he says, neither as a very junior Senator nor as the likely head of the Executive branch.  He can propose, the Senate will dispose.

    Unlike, say, your average commenter at Daily Kos, I think Obama is smart enough to know that this is a difficult and fraught situation without an easy answer.  Indeed, I think the full extent of the problem is probably not yet understood (and I include the possibility that the problem could be less bad than it now appears).

    Attempting to govern from the position of a candidate would be a mistake, in my opinion -- can you imagine the vitriol that would be directed against Obama here if he were to "tell" the Democrats what to do?

    Parent

    As the person who claims to be one (none / 0) (#94)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    who can bring people together, I think that he may indeed have tremendous power with them at this moment. They want a Democratic president and he can deliver the goods.  Now is the time to (okay you don't like tell) to strike a deal with them by saying that these are the things that he is willing to support and unless they deliver he will have an extremely difficult time in office.   After all, if the Democratic congress screws up it will be Obama's hands that are tied in the next administration. If he rolls over now, he has no understanding of bargaining power.

    Parent
    Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:22:40 PM EST
    People on the left are calling for leadership from Obama.

    Obama has never exhibited leadership on an issue of national importance to date.

    Obama said"...this initial outlay of up to $700 billion is sobering. And in return for their support, the American people must be assured that the deal reflects the basic principles of transparency and fairness and reform." He doesn't oppose the bailout, but it should have some regulations attached. I'm sure that the bill he gets to vote on will include fairness and reform - in a pig's eye.

    McCain, on the other hand, calls for a bailout and regulations. He issues a "direct call for updated, effective regulations that will protect Americans' homes, savings and jobs". Uh huh. In the pig's other eye.

    There isn't enough difference between the two of them on this issue to fit a hair. So it is a non-issue, politically speaking. Not that this stop either of them from posturing as the friend of the working man.

    Wall Street will get bailed out.
    The taxpayers will pay for it.
    People who have lost their homes ain't about to get them back.

    Parent

    I don't disagree. . . (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM EST
    Wall Street will get bailed out.
    The taxpayers will pay for it.
    People who have lost their homes ain't about to get them back.

    with any of these statements.  

    Not bailing out the banks in some way would be a radical conservative solution to the problem.  I presume you are not advocating a "let the market fix all problems" solution.

    Whatever bailout is effected will not be paid for by Martians, nor by tax-payers from some other country.

    There is no talk about reversing any existing foreclosures.  There is talk about preventing as many new foreclosures as possible.

    Parent

    Obama needs to work to get... (none / 0) (#61)
    by santarita on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:03:26 PM EST
    what he wants in the bill and do so behind the scenes.  Then he needs to vote against the final product (unless he is 100% happy with it.  As Pres. he will need to be able to disown the plan if he wants to make fundamental changes.  It's a variation of plausible deniability.  

    I won't condemn him.  Criticize, yes, condemn, no.

    Parent

    I see your next successful career (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:21:23 AM EST
    as follows:  a language stickler on public radio.  

    Parent
    Dems Primary Job (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:45:36 PM EST
    By my lights is, prevent this from going Shock Doctrine.

    The GOP--AKA, ideologues whose baloney policies and incompetent managers ran both our economy and our government into the ground.  This Part shouldn't now get to use the damage they wrought, as a hammer to effect more damage.  As a way to tgake apart Social Security, end the Health Care conversation, ramp up the anti-Education Rhetoric, etc.

    Shouldn't, but they very well might.  Dem rhetoric is key here, and Obama's is of course  gonna be the keyest.  

    What do you mean, "going"? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:52:34 PM EST
    That's exactly what it is. I'm not sure it's necessary to write the $800 billion check at all. Stirling Newberry:

    1. Expansion of the FDIC to include money market funds, brokerages, and other financial funds. Institutions which are out of this expansion, if any, will be allowed to fail as a class. Assign the CBO as the Congressional means of oversight and give the CBO authorization to extend credit to the FDIC, which can be waived if, after Congressional review, the money is justified. Basically, anything that Bush does on the way out the door must be subject to review by the incoming Congress and Administration.

    2. Authorization of an HOLC type cram down of mortgages with government liens, the profits of which are split between home owners and the mortgage system, now in taxpayer hands anyway. Place this process in the hands of the FHA, and have the CBO assigned to continuous oversight. Authorize some 20 billion dollars in stock to be purchased by the government.

    3. Declaration of a national emergency, without expansion of the debt ceiling, and also with explicit judicial review. In the national emergency specific authorization can be given to review any transfer of effective control of banks or other financial entites. In this declaration can be rationing of gasoline, imposition of conservation and other austerity measures.

    4. Dramatically expand safety net programs for the inevitable economic shock: food stamps, unemployment insurance, suspension of interest on student loans, loans to the government by members of the National Guard, active Military, or Reserve and so on.

    Hey, why not restore Congress's Constitutionl prerogatives? We've tried everything else but Constitutional government.

    Parent
    The point is to stop it (none / 0) (#72)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:10:10 PM EST
    By putting it so bluntly to the American people that they will be unable to avoid seeing it.

    Too much GOP/Lucy moving the football between 1980 and now.  Eventually.  Eventually people in this country will wake up, drop their petty divides and differences over lifestyle and race and gender and religion.  And see, finally, the Shock Doctrine.  See that there is an elite economic cadre that has screwed the Republic for its own economic advancement.  

    And why not let that eventuality be now?  

    It is not "incompetence" that has brought us here, but the intent of a truly elite few.  Elitism having nothing to do with arugula.  

    Parent

    The bailout is pointless (none / 0) (#83)
    by bob5540 on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:50:42 PM EST
    I believe that what Paulson already knows (but we don't) is this:

    The financial sector is already toast. Virtually all of the actors who have been dealing in this toxic debt are already insolvent (if the securities were priced at fair value). This $700 billion won't save them -- or more precisely, enough of them to prevent a collapse -- and the result will be a calamity, regardless.

    The only way to save any of them is to overpay for the debt. Not only is that unconscionable, the Treasury can't print enough money fast enough to save most of them. Therefore, all this plan would accomplish is to put $700 billion at the discretion of Paulson and the administration to save some of them -- their friends and the ones with the most influence.

    Once we realize that the financial sector will collapse in any case, our thinking changes drastically. Instead of pretending to try to stop the unstoppable, we need to figure out how to mitigate the effects of this disaster on the people and taxpayers of the United States, especially the homeowners going into foreclosure.

    Meanwhile, I think we should let the free market forces do their will. Let the unregulated financial firms just go belly up -- and straight into the arms of Federal receivership, just as if they had been regulated S&Ls and banks. We can set up a real RTC just as we did in the 1980s.

    This thread is about (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:52:07 PM EST
    the bailout

    Sorry. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Realleft on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:01:30 PM EST
    Obama supports the 700 Billion bailout (none / 0) (#87)
    by Andreas on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:50:27 PM EST
    ... recoup some of the investment they might make in a bailout ...

    In other words: Obama supports the 700 Billion bailout.

    SEP: No to Wall Street bailout! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Andreas on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:22:51 AM EST
    The SEP states:

    The Socialist Equality Party and its presidential and vice presidential candidates, Jerome White and Bill Van Auken, unequivocally oppose the plan to bail out Wall Street with hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds announced by the Bush administration and embraced by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership.

    The plan, which is being rushed through Congress for passage this week, is the response of the government and the entire political establishment to what is acknowledged to be the greatest economic crisis since the Wall Street crash of 1929. It calls for an unprecedented transfer of public funds to the major banks and the American financial elite at the expense of the broad mass of the people.

    Both the plan itself and the manner in which it is being imposed are deeply undemocratic. Exploiting the breakdown in US and global financial markets, the financial aristocracy, which is responsible for the crisis, is exercising its control over the government, both political parties, and the media to implement policies of the most far-reaching character without any genuine debate or discussion. As in the aftermath of 9/11, it is seeking to utilize the crisis to push through policies that would otherwise be considered entirely unacceptable.

    None of the measures being carried out address the underlying causes of the financial meltdown, nor will they resolve the crisis. At most, they will only postpone the day of reckoning.

    No to Wall Street bailout!
    The socialist answer to the financial crisis
    Statement of the Socialist Equality Party National Committee, 22 September 2008

    Parent