Friday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:11:45 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I will say this for the last time - McCain loving clueless PUMAs are NOT welcome in my threads. EVER. McCain supporting Republicans are welcome. J and Chris have more patience than I do so I suggest you try their threads instead.

Tonight I will be liveblogging the debate with Jeralyn and before that, I will write a preview of what I expect to come. I am also scheduled to discuss the debate by phone on C-Span either before or after the debate, not sure yet. Obviously, my point of view will be that of a Democrat supporting the Democratic candidate for President. But I will be honest in my appraisal of their performances, as I always have been in these things.

This is Open Thread.

< The Humiliating End To McCain's Stunt: He Will Debate Tonight | Sleepless Nights for Joe Nacchio Ahead >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Friday Open Thread | 166 comments (166 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Support Your Down Ticket Dems (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by kredwyn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM EST

Just posted a diary on Gary Peters...MI-9.

: Thanks for the diary (none / 0) (#74)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:36:59 PM EST

I'm a fan of Gary Peters. Very winnable race in a district that hasn't been blue since, gosh, before the war at a minimum. And I don't mean the Iraq war.

Parent
: Amen to that (none / 0) (#111)
by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM EST

I'm still waiting for our House and Senate Dems to grow some backbone. Maybe increasing their numbers will increase their gutsiness.

Parent
: Seconded (none / 0) (#143)
by Claw on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST

Remember to vote down ticket. Also, to BTD's PUMA point; I don't really think they're PUMAS. I think that 95% of PUMAS have gotten over it and are realizing that Palin/McCain would be a disaster. No need to attack a movement based on a perceived slight, just because republicans are able to pretend to be PUMAS. It's just like all those "I'm a dem supporting McCain" people. I believe about 1 out of 20 is a real dem supporting McCain.

Parent

thanks for the open thread, BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:18:00 AM EST

A question or two for the readers: given the two or three (possibly more) competing bailout plans, what are the merits of each? I have been trying to find information, but I'm not having a lot of success.

question two: what is the pressing need to pass this legislation ASAP?

thanks in advance, folks.

Any bailout plan generated by the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:22:37 AM EST

likes of Eric Cantor and Dick Shelby has no merit. The Paulson/Dodd? plan has the merit of "it might work but we're not sure, it's the best we've got".

The pressing need is that the financial system is falling apart. AIG last week, Washington Mutual this week, what next week?

Parent

hopefully the entire rotten edifice. (none / 0) (#10)
by Salo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:24:22 AM EST

Then we get a New Deal democrat by default.

Parent

Even if that happened, I'm not willing to (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:27:03 AM EST

spend 10 years on a bread line waiting for it. We'd also need another World War to pull us out.

Parent

Not if it's a world war you lose of course (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Salo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST

and really do you think any bail out will actually work?

The last year was all about stimulus packages and that now looks like a financial blackhole. This year it's bailouts.

Once the US starts manufacturing goods the rot will stop. Not until then.

Parent

I think that the stimulus checks and the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST

current action are pretty different things. The first was "Here's some cash, buy some crap". That doesn't do much to alleviate this problem. I don't know if the bailout will work, but Frankly I'm fairly desperate, and a drowning man will grab the first life preserver thrown to him. I haven't heard anyone come up with any better ideas.

And you're right, we need to manufacture alot more then we do now.

Parent

Yes. Durable goods sales sharply down now (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST

or actually down before this but reported now, along with home sales. I learned last time that's the sign of how much the rot has been spreading well before this week. It is bad, and probably beyond rescue by these bailout proposals.

I think you have been telling us that, Steve M. I am watching for your posts. Please keep writing.

Parent

: Oops, sorry -- for tigercourse (none / 0) (#56)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM EST

but you and Steve M. seem to be on the same page on this, seeing beyond the political "stunts."

Parent

You probably wont though. (none / 0) (#17)
by Salo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:29:28 AM EST

Parent

: You're right. I'll bring a folding chair. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM EST

Parent

It need not be a world war.... (none / 0) (#97)
by kdog on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:07:22 PM EST

Perhaps it is possible, but it sounds like an empty threat of looters, like how we were told a mushroom cloud was coming if we didn't hand over 600 some odd billion for the Iraq invasion and occupation. You can only cry wolf so many times...

And need not be a world war to get us manufacturing again...how about a 21st century version of JFK and the race to the moon, design and mass produce an automotive engine that runs on something other than oil within 10 years.

Parent

Wasn't WaMu in dire straights for some time? (none / 0) (#24)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32:29 AM EST

Since it has already been purchased, does this alleviate the problem?

I'm asking, because from where I look, I am trying to understand the scope of this crisis. Yes, I've been following the news, but there's a lot that is unclear about this mess.

Parent

: Yeah, it's been in bad shape for awhile. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST

But alot of other Banks and institutions are in bad shape as well. We don't know the extent. And JP Morgan can't take over all of them. I'd say that the extent of the problem is pretty vast.

Parent

There are no merits (none / 0) (#128)
by bridget on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:53:49 PM EST

They rescue plan was always the same once the thieving financial system was to fall apart -

(which was just a matter of time with the GOP hoping it would happen not under their own Admin.) ...

But even that wouldn't make any difference in the end thanks to all that lovely bipartisanship.
No candidate received more money from Wall Street than Obama AFAIK. What does that tell you? Besides, Grimm or Rubin, same thing.

Reps or Dems: Bailout is Bailout. There are no merits here except NO BAILOUT, something super centrist Obama will never consider, of course.

So without Change in Washington which You cannot expect from Obama: Today we pay, next time our kids pay.

Parent

The pressing need (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:39:54 PM EST

Couple things to read.

First is Steven Pearlstein, Pulitzer-Prize winning business reporter-turned-columnist in the Washington Post, who's been the most knowldgeable and sane voice in this whole discussion, IMHO. His latest is titled "Gut Check."

Key sentences: "The financial situation is now downright scary. Don't look at the stock market -- that's not where the problem is." And "Banks and big corporations and even money-market funds are hoarding cash, refusing to lend it out for a day or a week or a month. Even the best companies are having trouble floating bonds at reasonable rates."

Seriously, read the whole thing. It's the best summary of what's going on and why action is needed urgently, not somewhere down the road.

Brad Delong in Salon
article yesterday goes at it from a different angle.

Key sentence: "In large part because the market thinks banks and other financial institutions are way risky, they are. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy element here. No bank or other financial institution can survive for more than a month or two when market risk is at current levels."

Parent

thanks for the links-- I'll read them when I get (none / 0) (#77)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST

time later today.

Parent

Good articles! (none / 0) (#102)
by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:13:48 PM EST

Here are my key comments.

From Gut Check:

The reality is that these guys will be operating in uncharted territory, making things up as they go along. That means there are no assurances that any particular approach will work and no assurances that this will be the final solution. It also means that, just as we entrust generals to fight a war, we are going to have to trust the Treasury to find a way out of this crisis.

So, do we get a General McClellan, a Sherman, an Eisenhower, a Patton, a Lee or McArthur or ???

From Salon:

Corporations give broad grants of power to executives to use their best business judgment. The United States government does not give unreviewable grants of power to Cabinet secretaries.

And I think that is a good thing.

Parent

: Generals (none / 0) (#127)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM EST

I've heard Paulson referred to repeatedly as the "General Petraeus" of the financial crisis. Um.
From everything I've read and how I understand the situation, we are extremely lucky that we happen to have a guy in charge of the Treasury right now who practically invented the financial instruments that are now causing us so much trouble, and a Fed chairman who's a scholar of the Great Depression.
Paulson's a capitalist through and through and has strenuous capitalist biases, no doubt. But he's no ideologue and a very human guy. Goldman Sachs is not a bastion of fat cat social Darwinists, it's actually moderately liberal, for a Wall Street firm.
As for oversight-- you're right, of course, but this is an unprecedented situation with an unprecedented kind of solution in a very fast-moving environment in which there is an ongoing need to be able to act quickly, and not necessarily in the ways that were planned out in advance.
I hope there's a way to provide oversight while still giving Paulson very wide latitude to act without having to go through another idiotic partisan/ideological drawn-out battle in Congress to get approval.
Bottom line is, I guess, I trust Paulson far, far more than I trust any of those jokers on Capitol Hill, and that goes for Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as well as Pelosi and Hoyer.

Parent

Thanks for the Links... (none / 0) (#112)
by santarita on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:41:19 PM EST

I read the Salon article and all of the letters in response to the article. Kudos to both Brad DeLong and Eliwatkins(one of the letter writers) for trying to provide information and clear up misconceptions in a polite and clear manner.

The more I listen and read the more I understand that what is going on in Washington with the negotiations is about 20% substantive and 80% politics.

One of the interesting questions for historians will be why Paulson's initial proposal was so skimpy on details.

Parent

Great question! (none / 0) (#118)
by indy in sc on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:56:12 PM EST

One of the interesting questions for historians will be why Paulson's initial proposal was so skimpy on details.

With a situation as serious as this and with a true goal of getting the right thing passed quickly--why did Paulson give congress 2 1/2 pages of a proposal asking for a blank check with no oversight and no possibility for any tribunal to review the decisions made once authority is granted? That was clearly going to die on the vines.

Parent

: He was a CEO, it was (none / 0) (#146)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:56:40 PM EST

what they want: an executive summary (in front of the 500 pages for their staffs to read).
I don't get the sense that he's good at working with Congress, with the wonks who want all that other stuff. And thank heavens for them, for our sake.

Parent

According to Paulson (none / 0) (#124)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:40:08 PM EST

he consulted in advance with congressional leaders, and that's what they told him they wanted from him-- a bare-bones outline of what he'd ideally like, and leave the details of oversight and other add-ons to them to wrangle about among themselves.

Legislation on this kind of thing as it's initially filed is always just a starting point for negotiations, and that's never been more strongly the case than here.

You will not find a single person in congressional leadership or the banking committees who says anything but that Paulson has been a willing partner from the start in working with them to come up with a mutually acceptable bill.

Parent

I guess that the bare-bones approach ... (none / 0) (#138)
by santarita on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:46:35 PM EST

must have been a little too bare-bones because of the way the various Congressional leaders talked about it.

Perhaps a brief preamble to the original bill could have set a better tone - something that identified the problem and then talked in general terms about how the broad authorities would be implemented.

Parent

: Preamble (none / 0) (#141)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:03:49 PM EST

would have made a lot of sense. Good idea!
The congressional yada-yada was just yada-yada. Every single one of them knew then and certainly knows now that their constituents were going to freak out about it, so they had to posture and shriek and wave their arms around in indignation. It's just for the cameas, is my impression.
A great deal of what goes on publicly on Capitol Hill is essentially Kabuki theater, on the "left" (to the extent there is one, which isn't much) and on the right both.

Parent

Politics versus substance (none / 0) (#125)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:42:31 PM EST

Forgot to say I think you are exactly right that 80 percent or more of what we're hearing from the pols, from opinion columnists and frankly from blog posts in the "leftosphere" has been about politics and ideology, not the substance of what's actually going on here and why something fairly drastic and far-reaching -- and expensive, at least in the initial outlay -- has to be done, and fast.

Parent

: Exactly. It's so tiresome (none / 0) (#147)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:59:26 PM EST

to try to cut through that clutter there, here (but for those who know what they're talking about here, who are appreciated), everywhere.
I actually am searching for an economics blog or bankers blog or something. And that is, well, too weirdly wonky.:-)

Parent

James Galbraith in WaPo (none / 0) (#40)
by oldpro on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST

yesterday..."A Bailout We Don't Need"...

Very thoughtful alternative.

Parent

Ras: O +5 in Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by magster on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST

Seven point swing from last Sunday.

Virginia seems to move in tandem (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST

with the national numbers.

Parent

Changing too fast. .. (none / 0) (#9)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:24:11 AM EST

for three day polls to mean much.

I imagine Obama's actually up a good deal more after the last day and a half.

Parent

Please explain your last sentence. (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:29:09 AM EST

Parent

If this is a three day. . . (none / 0) (#26)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:35:38 AM EST

average tracking poll (andgarden says not) then it still includes about half its data from before McCain pulled his suspension stunt and while he was actually on TV claiming to put country first.

Parent

: But you're spot on re Gallup (none / 0) (#148)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:00:35 PM EST

with the three-point rise today from a tie. That must mean a big boost yesterday.

Parent

Three day poll? (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM EST

Ras is infamous for doing one day polls, as I'm sure they have here.

Parent

In that case. . . (none / 0) (#25)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:34:35 AM EST

never mind.

Parent

Ras state polls (none / 0) (#29)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:37:56 AM EST

are almost always conducted in one day. I believe this Virginia poll was conducted yesterday exclusively.

Parent

Even still. (none / 0) (#35)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST

Things are moving so fast. McCain looked one way yesterday, a different way today, and will probably look completely different tomorrow.

Unfortunately for him, I think he's going from bad to worse to worst so I think the polls are just going to move more in Obama's direction.

Parent

Probably (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:54:24 AM EST

What McCain has to pray for is that Obama makes a foreign policy gaffe tonight. If he doesn't, expect camp McCain to invent one.

Parent

The press won't declare Obama the victor (none / 0) (#52)
by magster on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST

unless McCain has horrid gaffe. The press wants a close election.

Parent

: A draw is fine (none / 0) (#98)
by MKS on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM EST

Just avoid a a gaffe or a clear loss.....

Parent

I hear you on the PUMA thing, but (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM EST

what about a non-PUMA, non-McCain-loving, non-McCain-voting and non-McCain-supporting Democrat who, nevertheless, cannot in good conscience vote for Obama and instead intends to vote for Cynthia McKinney?

Counseling. . . (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST

will be made available.

Parent

Thanks (none / 0) (#95)
by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST

I've had other offers, yet my position is already well-thought-out. I'm not at all happy about this election coming down to McCain v. Obama. Frankly I don't want to see either one in the WH. Of course no one else has a shot in hell, but then again my one little vote isn't going to make or break the election.

Parent

Vote your conscience. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST

I agree with you about the "candidates". Whatever, I'm in the bluest of states, so definitely, my vote won't change anything.

Parent

It depends where you live (none / 0) (#106)
by wasabi on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST

What state are you in?

Parent

A swing state (none / 0) (#107)
by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST

But my one little vote still makes no difference. It's not like the state will be decided by one vote.

Parent

The Election in Florida in 2000 was decided by 12 (none / 0) (#113)
by gtesta on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:44:24 PM EST

guys in Boca.
I have a hunch that this election is going to be decided by the lunchtime crowd at the Charleroi VFW.

Parent

I thought Florida 2000 was (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST

decided by 4 guys and 1 gal in black robes.

Parent

: It was. (none / 0) (#149)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:02:20 PM EST

If the problems in Florida hadn't happened, Jeb Bush would have invented them.
Actually, some of those, he did.

Parent

That's what I want to know (none / 0) (#129)
by echinopsia on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:54:33 PM EST

I don't love either pres. candidate and don't want either one in the WH. I wish there were a way to vote for "none of the above."

Parent

: The way to do it (none / 0) (#140)
by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:02:49 PM EST

is to leave it blank. It's definitely not as satisfying as a "none of the above" vote, though.
This is why we ought to have more than two viable parties.

Parent

Moving right along: great AP (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:15:28 PM EST

headline:

AP via LAT

I can safely report (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:33:57 PM EST

that John McCain is an official laughingstock today on Wall Street. The posturing on the negotiations, combined with vowing to skip the debate and now vowing to show up, has led to a lot of snickering.

I am surprised that the market is doing OK today, I expected a bad day. The consensus seems to be that no one views the House Republicans' objections very seriously and everyone thinks a deal will get done in spite of the know-nothings.

A few people have asked me about the political context and I've explained that John McCain is the last person to mediate this dispute, not just because he knows nothing about the underlying issues, but because he simply has no political capital with the conservative wing of his party. My half-joking suggestion is that instead of sending John McCain, they should send Sarah Palin. It does seem to be her base, and not his, that is causing the disruption.

Good to hear about the snickering (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:45:15 PM EST

I'm also very surprised the Dow didn't totally tank today between the breakdown of the "bail-out" (isn't there a better word? It's not a bail-out) negotiations and the WaMu nick-of-time seizure.

McCain has made a total ass of himself the last few days, and it's good to know the Wall Street types noticed.

Parent

Well (none / 0) (#80)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:51:38 PM EST

People have been following the WaMu situation for quite some time, and so this didn't really come as a shock to the market, even though no one expected a seizure by the regulators. One reason it hasn't really hurt the market is that the scenario which actually played out is actually highly preferable to the alternate scenario, where the FDIC has to bail out WaMu's customers. Supposedly that would have depleted half of the FDIC's funds and created substantial doubt about whether the FDIC would have the wherewithal to continue covering future bank failures.

Parent

You're no doubt right (none / 0) (#87)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:58:00 PM EST

about the WaMu circumstances, but it seems everybody is so jittery right now and has been for so long dreading the inevitable failure one way or another of WaMu that the shock of it might have tripped some kind of mental wire.

I can never figure out when Wall Street is going to go nuts over something irrational and when it's going to just take a deep breath and soldier on, so to speak.

From my limited understanding, it does sound like the gummint handled the WaMu thing pretty expertly, including managing to keep a tight lid on the rumor mill until it moved in.

Parent

: Yeah (none / 0) (#93)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST

I still wouldn't be surprised to see a significant dip during the last half-hour or hour of trading. It seems like a LOT of trading days have been ending that way of late.

Parent
: I can only imagine the behind-the-scenes... (none / 0) (#116)
by santarita on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:47:25 PM EST

discussions between Washington and Wall Street and that those discussions were probably going on for some period of time. It does make me think that at least some people in the higher echelons of this failed Administration have had some foresight. I wonder if at the end of all of this if one of the heroines may be Sheila Bair at FDIC.

Parent

My workplace too (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by CST on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST

Although I work in Boston...

But my republican co-worker was just going on and on about how foolish McCain looks. Basically, she said if he was gonna suspend his campaign, he should have at least followed through with it. Since he didn't, he just looks like he was trying to pull a stunt - and it didn't work.

Parent

Laughingstock or no laughingstock on Wall Street (none / 0) (#135)
by bridget on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:14:21 PM EST

What counts now are the opinions of the voters who may look at McCain's "stunt" completely different thanks to the media who wrote the heroic maverick narrative in the last two decades. What they are seeing may very well be "leadership." And that's what they are looking for these days more than ever.

Media pundits may also turn against McCain now and do some snickering (something I would have enjoyed witnessing during the last eight years therefore no snickering on my side, since too late ...) but they can't erase all those years of fawning over McCain, of "disappearing" his mistakes, lies, and "stunts" or whatever he was fooling everyone with all these years esp. since campaign 2000.

Don't underestimate the power of a straighttalking centrist GOP candidate. It worked for Bush in 2004 easily. And John Kerry, a war hero himself, had more of a chance to get into the White House than Obama has now IMHO.

Parent

This didn't take long.... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by kdog on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM EST

The classless act himself, Rudy G., is angling to cash in on the proposed bailout, offering his indider services to Wall St., so no unsuccessful firm loses out on a chance to cash in. Link

Even though it will hurt his boy Mac, he still can't keep his snout out of the trough...un-freakin'-believable.

: McCain may be despicable (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:59:06 PM EST

but Rudy is below despicable to the point where there are no words sufficient to characterize him.

Parent
: Maybe he's got a touch of (none / 0) (#86)
by Fabian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:55:59 PM EST

financial insecurity?
Join the ranks, Mister G!

Parent

Rush Holt agrees with HRC (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by pluege on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:46:33 PM EST

from Representative Holt (the best dem in Congress):

"...For any problem, you should go to the root in order to solve it. The root here is that the bad mortgages mixed with the good mortgages have poisoned the financial papers. In buying those papers, taxpayers won't know whether they are getting any value for their dollar, and neither Secretary Paulson nor the market will be able to determine the value. So go to the root of the problem: repair the bad mortgages. The Administration approach is to help Wall Street and hope eventually that helps Main Street. That is backwards. Helping Main Street will help Wall Street, and it will restore confidence, liquidity, and solvency.

There is antecedent for this: the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC), which the Federal Government created in 1933 in that mortgage crisis. This program, which lasted 20 years, shored up a collapsing market by purchasing delinquent mortgages at a discount and working with homeowners to restructure the mortgages into more manageable terms. Congress and President Roosevelt authorized HOLC for $4.75 billion - or $76 billion in today's dollars. With this investment, in its first two years, HOLC helped more than 1 million homeowners. In fact, when the HOLC finally ended, it showed a net $14 million surplus for taxpayers. Congress would be wise to consider the HOLC as it works to pass a financial bailout package..."

: If Obama supports this solution (none / 0) (#137)
by Newt on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:33:03 PM EST

and presents it via the debate, he'll win votes from fiscal conservatives and people who mistakenly think McCain will maverick away from BushCo polities.

Parent

Since... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by kdog on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM EST

the extorters...err "experts"...say we will all be dying of starvation shortly, I really hope my Mets can pull it off in the last 3 games and make it to the postseason....I could starve and die happy with one more title:)

Hope Mike Pelfrey has got the good stuff tonight, we've got the rook Niese going tommorow, and he got shelled in his last start...tonight is huge with our #1A going. Lets Go Mets!!!

Yes, Go Mets! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:06:27 PM EST

Give my Cubbies the pleasure of dispatching you from the playoffs...

Sorry kdog, I can't be postpartisan on this one!

Parent

Me either friend.... (none / 0) (#123)
by kdog on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:39:34 PM EST

Any other season, if the Mets are out of it, I root for the Cubbies to break their curse.

But not this year...you better hope we don't make it otherwise its a repeat of '69...Cubs choke, Mets win!

Parent

No way, brah! (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:03:53 PM EST

Cubbies in '08! The Northsiders shall prevail...

I am happy that the Yankees are getting near the play-offs this year and the stinking Red Sox won't get past the lowly Tampa Devil Rays (sorry CST!).

Parent

: "aren't" getting near the play-offs. (none / 0) (#132)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:09:32 PM EST

Too much caffeine this afternoon!

Parent

Doesn't matter for either team (none / 0) (#126)
by CST on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:48:09 PM EST

Since the red sox are clearly gonna win again this year :)

Parent

Nah.... (none / 0) (#131)
by kdog on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST

Beantown has had a good run lately, but I think the knee injury heard round the world is an omen of things to come.

Gotta root for the Rays out of the AL...what a story.

Parent

: The pats (none / 0) (#134)
by CST on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:12:15 PM EST

have reminded me temporarily what it was like to be a Boston fan pre-2004. Whenever things seem edgood, something came to kick you back down.
So I think the knee injury was more a sign of things past never dying, rather than things to come.
The pats lose, and guess what, the Celtics win.
These days, there is always a silver lining in Boston Sports.
Honestly, I don't think any team in MLB can best our top 3 pitchers, and pitching wins play-off games. I am a little concerned about the pen, but Dice-K and Lester have been beyond anyone's expectations this year and Beckett is still Beckett.
As for the Rays, bring em' on!

Parent

If ever you had the impression (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:18:42 AM EST

that Dick Morris was anything other than a hack, this should put that to rest for you.

Oh, and Ras sez Obama +5 in VA

He's a hack alright (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Radiowalla on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:21:34 AM EST

an oleaginous, smarmy, synchophantic hack.

Parent

: Is that better or worse than McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:26:59 AM EST

Parent
: He was on O'Reilly (none / 0) (#18)
by dutchfox on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:30:14 AM EST

the other night. I'd actually never ever seen O'Reilly's show. Both are blustering idiots, IMO.

Parent

And I don't (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM EST

know why so many in our party have been listening to him this past year. He doesn't have the best interest of dems in anything he says. He should be completely ignored imo.

Parent

The formats are supposed to be different (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST

this time. Nine minute segments with two minutes to each candidate and then five minutes of discussion between them.

Parent

: Sorry. Posted reply in wrong place. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:44:25 AM EST

I'm gonna have to send this medicine to kdog.

Parent

predictions on talking points. (none / 0) (#5)
by Salo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:21:26 AM EST

what will Mccain say and what will Obama say about the bail out plans?

and

what will they say about Iraq? You know that 300 billion boondoggle we got mired in because...

satellite feed (none / 0) (#12)
by Jlvngstn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:26:18 AM EST

or just your voice on the phone? I assume you will post the time when you are notified.

Who will you be discussing with?

Tonight's debate (none / 0) (#15)
by magster on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:27:15 AM EST

It goes against Obama's style, but should he turn to McCain and say "you just sat there, you don't know what you're doing?" The press already has backed up this version, and Obama can give witness testimony.

I don't (none / 0) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM EST

know about his debate but there has been agreements in previous debates where you can't talk to the other candidate.

Parent

: Supposedly (none / 0) (#32)
by call me Ishmael on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:40:21 AM EST

they are going to allow each candidate time to pose questions to the other. But given how little time there is for each issue I don't know that that will get anywhere beyond talking points. And yes, I think that we can expect Lehrer to ask economic questions--otherwise he looks almost as clueless as Palin did in her Couric interview.

Parent

I'm wondering if there was a pre- (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST

agreement to keep the content of the meeting confidential. Spirit of bi-partisanship, keeping politics out of bail out etc.

Parent

Is this now an economic debate? (none / 0) (#28)
by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM EST

Have they switched the subjects again or will it just be partly economic and then go to foreign policy. Have they even said what it will be now?

Lehrer said (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by CST on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST

he doesn't feel constrained by the topic and will probably be asking economic questions as well. I imagine it will be a bit of both. Which I don't think is a bad thing.

Parent

: Good. I'd really prefer economics only but (none / 0) (#36)
by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM EST

that would probably be this crisis and nothing else domestic. I never liked the domestic policy debate and then the foreign policy debate formats. I think a mixture is better and takes into account current events.

Parent

BTW (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM EST

A number of people have been banned from my threads. I have done so in stunningly insulting and offensive language - for a reason.

Most of therm did not respect my directive that they remove themselves from my threads.

I have found that giving them a story to tell their blog friends about how mean I am does the trick.

It worked with the Clinton hating Obama Bots in the primaries and it seems to be working with the McCain loving clueless PUMAs.

Now that my threads are made up of the creme de la creme of blog commenters, let's get back to a civil debate.

I will be setting an example - everyone will be treated with the utmost civility now.

Sorry for the ugliness of the past few days but I felt it was necessary.

Now, back to intelligent debate, including what Obama is doing wrong, what is wrong with the bailout, why Obama is gonna stink tonight, etc.

I eventually will be cleaning threads of (none / 0) (#38)
by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:52:28 AM EST

personal insults and attacks.

Do you think Obama will do poorly tonight or were you throwing that out as a possible topic for discussion?

Parent

Hey, Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:55:26 AM EST

that surely did not need a snark tag!

Parent

I'm a little worried (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:58:17 AM EST

I'll explain why in my preview post.

Parent

Really????? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by oldpro on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:05:09 PM EST

Waiting.....waiting....and looking forward to hearing your concerns.

Parent

Me too. Obama improved a lot in the debates (none / 0) (#53)
by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST

and McCain is no Hillary Clinton at debating. I do think people underestimate McCain in his ability to make an unreasonable statement sound reasonable to the average voter.

Parent

: NYT seems to think McCain will do (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST

fine, based on his past performances in debates.

Parent
: I agree once again with Teresa. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:20:59 PM EST

Obama is in a weird position tonight. The expectations have been lowered for him because of people who simply hate Obama insisting somehow that debating a complete contrast in McCain is the same as debating a person who is similar to Obama on at least 90% of all issues. Obama has to cut through the bull though and just state his positions and not try to get cute and score points and he will win.

Parent

I am worried (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by CST on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM EST

Because due to all of McCain's posturing, his expectations for tonight have been lowered drastically. Obama is the front runner now, he needs to show that he will hold up. No one expects McCain to have a good night, not after the last few days.

Obama really needs to not screw up. And millions will be watching.

Parent

: Got that right. (none / 0) (#81)
by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:51:45 PM EST

Parent

Join the club (none / 0) (#62)
by Dadler on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:16:40 PM EST

I'm afraid now that it's time to debate hard, one on one, face to face, and attack McCain for his positions, statements, actions, etc., that Obama will once again fall back giving McCain the entirely unearned political respect that he somehow garners -- I fear Obama will be post-partisan in a manner that could easily become his post-mortem.

Parent

: Heh, I was just about to say (none / 0) (#70)
by nycstray on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST

I think he'll do well. I forgot about that post-partisan crap.
I do think being in DC yesterday helped him. When I heard him last night, I thought he sounded good in a way that he doesn't with second hand/advisers info.

Parent

Not banned. . . (none / 0) (#39)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST

they've simply decided to suspend their participation in your threads pending the advent of world peace.

Parent

Not that lofty a goal. (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:56:31 AM EST

I think it's waiting for a personal apology from Obama.

Parent

That's unfair (none / 0) (#150)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:09:05 PM EST

Some people were quite wounded, and it was not by Obama. Some of them felt they had been contributors to this site in many ways, and including as donors. Not that they expected any quid pro quo, but any supporters have to be prepared for change that came quite suddenly -- and not always courteously.

Parent

: To complete the thought (none / 0) (#165)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:18:04 PM EST

any supporters have to be prepared for sudden change if it is to be accomplished without such a result. If that and the loss of support is not a concern, of course, that's a different matter.

Parent

That's right, creme de la creme (none / 0) (#43)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:55:18 AM EST

Parent

Oh goody, I came back just in time. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:15:08 PM EST

Parent

heh (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST

Parent

ODS instead of Obama criticism (4.00 / 1) (#69)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:25:49 PM EST

was the reason I took a hiatus from the comments section. Now we can get serious (I hope).

Parent

: Good to see you back with us, CA n/t (none / 0) (#109)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:29:57 PM EST

Parent

I'll bite on what is wrong with bailout... (none / 0) (#105)
by gtesta on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:19:52 PM EST

It seems to me that the only way that a relatively small number of foreclosures (I thought I saw 4%) can result in huge, huge losses for I-banks is that the I-banks positions in mortgage backed securities were highly leveraged (i.e. they borrowed tons on money to buy these things) resulting in huge losses for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean the mbs's are "bad debt" (just a small portion). I really need more details of the i-banks asset holdings and how much of their own cash did they put up to make an informed opinion on this bailout.
By the way, I strongly suspect, but haven't been able to find for sure, that the Gramm act of 2000 is what changed the regulations on debt ratios when buying mbs's. If I can find that, I can lay this mess right at the feet of Gramm and McCain.
I guess that I already do, but on a more theoretical level. I'm looking for the smoking gun. Any help with a link would be appreciated.

Parent

: I can't help, but I'm sure intrigued (none / 0) (#162)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:07:42 PM EST

and hope you stay on it. Gramm is a stinker in this and so much else. Btw, the first part of your comment is useful, too, and I hope that you're correct. Thanks, and come back with more when you find it -- and you sound like you know how to do so.

Parent

NRO: Palin must go (none / 0) (#42)
by scribe on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:54:59 AM EST

and she must do it herself.

Like that's going to happen. Sarah the pure will never pull herself out; she knows that right now she's in as good a position as she will ever get and, if somehow she and McCain win, she will be one 72 y/o heartbeat away from fulfilling her ultimate ambition.

She also knows there is no way she will ever get another chance. Not being as doltish as she's shown herself to be....

I'm still betting the over.

No way. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM EST

Palin's withdrawal would amount to an acknowledgment of McCain's incompetence. He absolutely can't afford it.

You'll see Palin de-emphasized and perhaps other prominent Republicans (like Romney) show up in more prominent rolls. But they can't afford to give up their VP candidate.

Parent

: If he fires Palin (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by votermom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:14:02 PM EST

he might as well kiss his base good-bye.
More likely they'll be playing up who his advisers will be to take the focus off her in the media.

Parent
: That'd be a shock (none / 0) (#55)
by Lil on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST

but she sure does look dumbfounded lately. I keep picturing a comic bubble over her head, saying, "what the heck did I get into here?"

Parent
: I think you are right (none / 0) (#67)
by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST

They got what they wanted out of her so far - distract the media and the country for a significant amount of time. Get someone young and female to balance the increasingly frail McCain. Etc.
Personally, while I find Palin's record and comments to be deplorable, I believe the McCain campaign pulled off a possibly brilliant maneuver, although it could still backfire. If only those poor Rethugs had had a GOOD female governor they could have used, but the pickings were slim. I'm a little surprised they didn't try for a female Rethug senator, but it is highly likely they specifically wanted someone with "executive experience."

Parent
: Don't Believe She'll Go (none / 0) (#101)
by daring grace on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST

But if she does it will not be a firing but rather some unexpected emergency related to her family would be my bet.

Parent

Looks like Jeralyn was right all (none / 0) (#48)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:01:31 PM EST

along.

Parent

Palin bows out for the same reason (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM EST

the guys use: spend more time with her family, which in her case might fly, as she still has 4 kids at home and one is special needs. Then McCain gets a re-do before the VP debate. Who would he choose this time?

Parent

: Romney. Isn't he supposed to be the (none / 0) (#50)
by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST

"best" on economics?

Parent

My only debate prediction (none / 0) (#60)
by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:15:12 PM EST

McCain will make at least one lame joke that makes only himself laugh. I hope Obama just looks at him like he's insane.

Oh, and back up in Gallup (none / 0) (#63)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:16:59 PM EST

Obama must have had a really good day yesterday.

: Yes. To move a 3-day rolling average ahead by 3 (none / 0) (#100)
by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST

points, means that the new day's results (Thursday's) must be about nine points better than the results for the day that was dropped (Monday).
Today's polling will be released tomorrow. I fully expect a further gain, of maybe two additional points, based purely on statistical momentum. (If Thursday beat Monday by 9, why shouldn't Friday beat Tuesday by at least 6?)
And even though it's illogical, since today's polling will be done before the debate begins, Saturday's announcement of a relatively large and growing Obama lead will tend to shape perceptions that Obama must have won the debate.

Parent

There's (none / 0) (#76)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:42:00 PM EST

an interesting article about the bailout here.

The package is being framed as "Bush's market rescue plan". The poll says that on 1 in 10 independents, 3 in 10 Democrats, and 4 in 10 Republicans support the plan. It also says that the majority of americans think a bailout is needed. I guess they just don't like this particular plan? That's what I seem to get from the article anyway.

Wall Street Bail-Out (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST

That phrase is what's making people crazy. It's totally inaccurate, but it's been the shorthand media and everybody else has been using. Who in his right mind would support such a thing? If they'd been calling it "bank rescue" or "credit rescue" or something, at least people would have to stop and figure out what that meant before having an opinion about it. Most folks hear "Wall Street bail-out" and think that's all they need to know to be against it.

Parent

That's a good point. (none / 0) (#83)
by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST

Parent

Well (none / 0) (#84)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST

of course. Who on main street wants to have their money used to bail out fat cats on wall street? The only thing that surprises me is that only 4 in 10 Republicans support it. It seems like those numbers would be higher.

Parent

Says something about (none / 0) (#85)
by Fabian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM EST

the public's perception of the Wall Street brand, doesn't it. In other words - greedy, selfish b@stards who'd sell their sainted grandmothers if the price was right.

Parent

: The public isn't (none / 0) (#91)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST

very far off on that.

Parent

Agreed, a good and important point (none / 0) (#92)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:02:21 PM EST

as it's not Wall Street but the banks that promised, for example, to cut student loan checks for hundreds in my city this week, when we the taxpayers had to come through for them -- in hope that the checks will come to pay us back. Ha. But better than that people drop out of school now and join the fast-growing ranks of unemployed here, as I was trying to explain to a neighbor who kept blaming "Wall Street." He admitted that he knows the stock market doesn't cut student loan checks -- or auto loan checks or home loan checks -- but he hadn't put it together, because of the way this has been framed by the media.

Parent

Btw, it's probably in part the result (none / 0) (#99)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST

of history books' emphasis on the market crash of 1929 as athe cause rather than another symptom of problems that get much less emphasis, such as the massive bank failures then, the over-inventories from overproduction, and -- eerily -- the over-extension of credit throughout the '20s to feed a false prosperity then, too. The framing we see today shows how much more education we all need.

I managed to skip taking any econ courses in college. Three years later, working in the business world, I went back to take at least a few. I think I need some brush-up courses now.:-)

Parent

Oh, man, it's a brave new world (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:20:23 PM EST

and the old econ courses don't begin to address it.

And I never thought of it that way, but you're so right that understanding of the Great Depression is pretty much limited to the misery it caused, and a bit about what Roosevelt did to bring us out of it, than the cascade of crap that led to it.

One reason I have more confidence in Bernanke on this than I would have on Greesspan is that Bernanke is a virtually life-long student of the depression and what led to it. It's all very different now, but the thorough understanding of how even small things can upset the applecart, and how this leads to that which leads to the other thing is so critical.

Parent

I do remember the part (5.00 / 1) (#144)
by Fabian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:42:56 PM EST

about Joe Average borrowing money to play the Stock Market. It's hard for me to imagine the euphoria that must have fueled that kind of thinking.

Parent

the same kind of euphoria (5.00 / 1) (#156)
by of1000Kings on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:06:39 PM EST

that made people decide to buy real estate on really bad terms because they were being told that the value of the property would continue to rise and it would be really easy to refinance the loan because of the continued escalation of house values, before the hugely immoral interest rates were forced upon them...

or to take out an equity loan on a house to buy something frivolous like a new plasma tv, or a hugely inefficient suv...

Parent

Joe and Jane Average in the '20s (none / 0) (#151)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:16:17 PM EST

borrowed, with the new credit plans, to buy everything. Most Americans were renters then, but the new post-WWI burbs with the new working-class bungalows were made possible by banks with the new mortgage structures then. (Most often, people had to pay 100@ before then, I read!)

Ford offered credit to buy cars. Appliance stores offered credit to replace iceboxes with refrigerators. Sears Roebuck offered credit to buy the newfangled washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. And I think I read that the first credit card came then -- for the Diners Club.

Credit wasn't offered so widely then as now, of course. It has gotten out of hand. I think most people do not know all the stuff that gets stuffed into college students' books when they buy them, for example. Credit card offers you wouldn't believe for kids away from home for a week.

That has been curtailed a bit by wiser campuses, at least at their own bookstores -- but only after several suicides by kids getting barraged by creditors. I actually listened in on some of those calls, and there oughta be a law. . . .

Parent

My ex (none / 0) (#153)
by echinopsia on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:55:55 PM EST

borrowed money - via a HELOC - to short stocks as a day trader.

But he was a depressed alcoholic - not euphoric.

Deranged, maybe.

Parent

: Ow. (none / 0) (#154)
by Fabian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:02:40 PM EST

We use our HELOC for the house. It makes me a little uneasy even to do that.
I'm ever so glad I took my name off of mailing lists. Refinance your home! Take that vacation! Buy a new appliance! Plus my favorite: Affordable Monthly Payments!
As for refinance offers on the phone, I had a simple reply: "Cover all closing costs and we'll talk.". Shut'em right up.

Parent

Reading Fitzgerald books (none / 0) (#142)
by of1000Kings on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:13:41 PM EST

I couldn't help but think of the 20's whenever I thought of the last few years of our economy...

seeing all the kids driving new Land Rovers in college, seeing all these hugely inefficient SUV's on the roads, seeing all these McMansions being built badly and being sold for way more than they were worth based upon the quality, seeing the house prices and the stock market rise higher and higher and higher into unsustainable territory while everyone else says they'll continue to rise and rise...

anyone who couldn't see at least some comparison to the 20's 2 or 3 or even 4 years ago was just blinded by their newly-found 'wealth'...

I guess having no wealth actually comes in handy for once...

Parent

Good Point and I Think the Pols are ... (none / 0) (#117)
by santarita on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:55:10 PM EST

beginning to understand that this has been poorly marketed. Today they've been talking about it as a Main Street Bailout. I saw Rahm Emanuel and Judd Gregg on CNBC (not at the same time) and both were talking about the risk of people not getting their paychecks because lines of credit were beginning to dry up. That is something everyone can understand.

Parent

Wow (none / 0) (#82)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST

Fascinating Murray Waas piece with new details about the famous Ashcroft/Gonzales hospital room confrontation, as well as Bush's involvement with the warrantless wiretapping program in general. A juicy read.

: not sure (none / 0) (#121)
by dws3665 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:19:08 PM EST

which disgusts me more -- the corruption that permeates this administration or the arrogance that convinces them they will never answer for the corruption.
thanks for the link.

Parent

I never was a big fan of... (none / 0) (#90)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST

...Recreate 68, but this is going a little too far for my taste:

'A tongue-in-cheek T-shirt poking fun at Democratic National Convention protesters is selling fast and creating some minor controversy along the way.

The shirts were created and distributed by the Denver Police Protective Association, the union that represents most of Denver's 1,400 police officers.

The front of the black shirt shows the number 68 with a slash through it. One of the primary protest groups at last month's DNC in Denver was the Re-create 68 Alliance, harking back to the violent 1968 political convention in Chicago.

The back of the shirt features a menacing police figure, wearing what looks like a Denver police badge and helmet and clutching a baton. He's looming over the city of Denver along with the slogan, "WE GET UP EARLY, to BEAT the crowds." Also written on the back is "2008 DNC."'
--Rocky Mountain News http://tinyurl.com/3fcfq2

: That's disgusting (none / 0) (#94)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:02:53 PM EST

Something very, very wrong that a police organization would think that was a fun idea. Yech.

Parent
: Heh (none / 0) (#96)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST

It's simultaneously funny and not funny.

Parent
: Gotta love.... (none / 0) (#104)
by kdog on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM EST

the sense of humor of mercenaries....classy.

Parent

PUMA (none / 0) (#108)
by mpBBagain on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:29:01 PM EST

PUMA PAC has turned 100% into a GOP site.

i wonder if PUMA PAC was a GOP setup group from the get go.

I am happy OBAMA bashing isnt allowed here.

: I've always thought they were... (none / 0) (#110)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:33:36 PM EST

...a GOP diversionary group from the get go. A few well meaning Democrats got caught up in it, of course.

Parent
: That is a lie (none / 0) (#133)
by echinopsia on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:11:44 PM EST

And always has been. As little as you want to believe it, PUMAs are Democrats. Or were.

Parent

PUMAS (none / 0) (#139)
by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:49:54 PM EST

As a woman, as a Democrat, I simply don't understand their position.

I recently came across data (none / 0) (#152)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:23:05 PM EST

on the extent of crossover Dems to Repub candidates in previous elections, right through the last one. It's surprising. So this really is nothing new.

Focus on the largest demographic group that continues to consistently vote Republican. It's not women. It's not white women. It's white men. Focus on them, and Dems could win.

The focus on the wrong demographic groups has cost elections before by those easily distracted by the media and its simplistic thinking, its fondness for easy stories, and especially its tendency to scapegoating/stereotyping.

Parent

It's pretty simple (none / 0) (#155)
by echinopsia on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:02:51 PM EST

and it's been explained over and over.

I can explain it again - since I do understand it - but I can't understand it for you.

They believe the DNC corruptly selected the wrong candidate instead of letting voters decide. They believe that it would be wrong to reward the corruption of the DNC with their presidential vote. They believe four years of McCain with an imaginary Democratic Congress standing up for Democratic policies with something resembling spines would be preferable to four years of an unprepared, unqualified and illegitimate Pres. Obama.

Parent

so taking their ball and going home (none / 0) (#157)
by of1000Kings on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:09:34 PM EST

or worse, taking their ball and going to play for the other team...

mature...

Parent

And you think that is acceptable? (none / 0) (#158)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:22:46 PM EST

Thanks for explaining why I detest PUMAs.

Parent

I thought you said (none / 0) (#159)
by echinopsia on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:41:38 PM EST

that you don't hate PUMAs - you can understand why they have reservations about Obama - but you do hate stupid PUMAS - who think McCain is better on economics.

So now you hate any self-identified Democrat who has reservations about Obama?

Parent

I don;t (none / 0) (#160)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:51:24 PM EST

I hate what you describe as PUMAs. This is the first I head that non-clueless PUMAs support McCain.

I detest any person who says they are a Clinton supporter and a Democrat who supports John McCain.

I detest people like that.

Parent

: Huh? (none / 0) (#167)
by echinopsia on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:40:39 PM EST

This is the first I head that non-clueless PUMAs support McCain.
In my experience, most PUMAs do NOT support McCain - they just don't care for Obama.

Parent

Good explanation, from what I've seen (none / 0) (#164)
by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:10:20 PM EST

but it probably needs to be reiterated that it does not mean they will vote for McCain. Some say they will not vote the top of the ticket.

Parent

Levinson/Balkinization on John McCain (none / 0) (#145)
by dutchfox on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:56:17 PM EST

Sandy Levinson/Balkinization 25 September 2008

Thoughts on John McCain as our constitutional dictator

If one needs further proof of what is most scary about John McCain , it is provided by his grandstanding yesterday and today. The reason for my concern is linked to my previous post about the non-"authority" of George W. Bush. Well, folks, the same is true of both McCain and Obama, as a matter of fact. Neither of them has anything whatsoever to contribute to the negotiations going on right now, at least if one takes seriously the repeated argument that we are in a crisis that demands an immediate solution, and that the solution should be hammered out by people who really know what they're talking about (and are not engaged in crass political calculation). John McCain, by his own admission, knows very little about economics in general and, I am confident, about complex financial institutions in particular. His only contact with them was as a participant in the corruption generated by Charles Keating and Lincoln Savings. So, if we assume that the negotiations involve knowledgeable people, including Paulson, Bernanke, Barney Frank, Charles Shumer, and others, including, no doubt, Republican representatives and senators, McCain has nothing useful to add. Obama has many, many strengths, but I am not aware that knowledge of the intricacies of financial institutions is one of them. So Obama has nothing useful to add. It is as if one asked them their views about whether the new super-collider in Switzerland should shut down several months in order to engage in relevant repairs. There are people who know the answer, or at least the range of probabilities of different courses of conduct, but I am absolutely confident that neither McCain nor Obama is one of them. Both totally lack what philosophers call "epistemic authority," i.e., relavent knowledge about the topic under discussion. And that is true about the delicacies of responding to the ostensible financial crisis.

JLivingston can you please (none / 0) (#161)
by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:55:27 PM EST

stop reposting past comments? They are difficult to read and it's an inappropriate practice. We don't call people out here for past opinions.

: sure (none / 0) (#166)
by Jlvngstn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:08:37 PM EST

how do you recommend we call people out on their bs or in this case a wager?
Hard to read seems hardly a complaint when a substantial portion of comments here are unreadable.

Parent

Strange Naivete About "The Deal" (none / 0) (#163)
by WakeLtd on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:07:50 PM EST

To think that a "simple" bailout proposal involving at a minimum $700 billion would not attract its fair share of partisan interest strikes me as odd. Demurrals of "running it by House leaders" notwithstanding, something this big, and this costly, is certainly going to bring a lot of interest to the table. Can a deal get done by mid-week? More than likely, but at that point, everyone is going to have to walk away a little unhappy. There is nothing delicate or unseemly about this process. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a mandate that gives them total control over the process.

Friday Open Thread | 166 comments (166 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment