home

The Cost Of Dithering On The Financial Crisis

Joseph Stiglitz:

• Delaying bank restructuring is costly, in terms of both the eventual bailout costs and the damage to the overall economy in the interim.

• Governments do not like to admit the full costs of the problem, so they give the banking system just enough to survive, but not enough to return it to health.

• Confidence is important, but it must rest on sound fundamentals. Policies must not be based on the fiction that good loans were made, and that the business acumen of financial market leaders and regulators will be validated once confidence is restored.

[More . . .]

• Bankers can be expected to act in their self-interest on the basis of incentives. Perverse incentives fuelled excessive risk-taking, and banks that are near collapse but are too big to fail will engage in even more of it. Knowing that the government will pick up the pieces if necessary, they will postpone resolving mortgages and pay out billions in bonuses and dividends.

• Socialising losses while privatising gains is more worrisome than the consequences of nationalising banks. American taxpayers are getting an increasingly bad deal. In the first round of cash infusions, they got about $0.67 in assets for every dollar they gave (though the assets were almost surely overvalued, and quickly fell in value). But in the recent cash infusions, it is estimated that Americans are getting $0.25, or less, for every dollar. Bad terms mean a large national debt in the future. One reason we may be getting bad terms is that if we got fair value for our money, we would by now be the dominant shareholder in at least one of the major banks.

• Don't confuse saving bankers and shareholders with saving banks. America could have saved its banks, but let the shareholders go, for far less than it has spent.

[. . . ]• Lack of transparency got the US financial system into this trouble. Lack of transparency will not get it out. The Obama administration is promising to pick up losses to persuade hedge funds and other private investors to buy out banks' bad assets. But this will not establish "market prices," as the administration claims. With the government bearing losses, these are distorted prices. Bank losses have already occurred, and their gains must now come at taxpayers' expense. Bringing in hedge funds as third parties will simply increase the cost.

. . . The era of believing that something can be created out of nothing should be over. Short-sighted responses by politicians – who hope to get by with a deal that is small enough to please taxpayers and large enough to please the banks – will only prolong the problem. An impasse is looming. More money will be needed, but Americans are in no mood to provide it – certainly not on the terms that have been seen so far. The well of money may be running dry, and so, too, may be America's legendary optimism and hope.

(My emphasis.)

< Late Night: Death Cab for Cutie | Will Obama Own The Economy? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This weekend on Fareed Zakaria (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by CST on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 07:58:46 AM EST
    A woman was on and she said something very telling I think.  She said the Obama administration understands the gravity of the financial crisis, what they don't understand is the level of class anger that exists right now.  That the average citizen is furious at the people responsible.  We expect rich people to be greedy and selfish to some degree, we don't expect them to be stupid.

    The American people got robbed by the wealthy.  We are not gonna just sit back and be o.k. with them taking the rest of our taxpayer dollars.  Personally, I would like to see some heads roll.  Bernie Madoff would be a start, but only if it costs him all of his money.

    The administration needs to find a way to address this anger, while saving the system.  Otherwise, 2010 and 2012 will be very bad years for those in charge.

    The class anger.... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:26:47 AM EST
    is there, but I see it as being slightly different than the traditional have vs. have not or rich vs. poor struggle...it has morphed into a responsible vs. irresponsible thing regardless of income or net worth.  Or a connected vs. unconnected struggle in this rigged economy of ours.  On the dole vs. off the dole.

    I feel like me and my bosses are on the same side of this struggle, though their incomes and net worths dwarf mine.


    Parent

    Is it possible (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ricosuave on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:13:46 AM EST
    that you are not on the side of the "class line" you think you are on?

    Here's a fun experiment.  Take a guess at where you fall on the percentile map.  For example say something like "I have a higher income than X% of the population."  You probably think you are somewhere in the middle.  Make a snap judgement of what range you believe includes "middle class" (e.g. 30%-70%).

    Then look it up.  Most people (including me...I am not digging at you here) think they are much lower on the totem pole than they are.  I am not rich, live in a modest house, and drive a 12 year old car.  But by every objective measure, I am wealthier than almost everyone else in america and I don't even remotely fall into any "middle class" category I can think of.

    We live in a bubble, surrounded by people like us.  There are a few hundred milion other Americans whose lives we never come into contact with.  And even though there are people who make lots more than I do and are REALLY wealthy, those folks only make up a tiny fraction of the population.

    From the all knowing Wikipedia, people who make around $50K household income have a higher income than 54% of the population.   People with $90K household income make more than 80% of the population.  People making more than $250K household income (what politicians seem to define as rich, based on the poliices they talk about) are in the upper 1.5% of the population.

    Maybe your income is dwarfed by your boss, but you are probably only a few points apart on the income distribution chart.  Stay late tonight and talk to the part-time, subcontracted cleaning person at your office when he gets off the bus and see if you are on the same side of the class divide as him.

    (And don't read further down on the wiki page; I find it really annoying to know that I live in a country where 1/3 of the income earned goes to the top 5% of households.  And I am more annoyed to know I am on the evil side of that line, not the good and populist side.)

    Parent

    These past few months I have (none / 0) (#33)
    by vml68 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    started to realize how very true this is for me. Seeing the numbers in terms of what constitutes middle-class in this country and the % of the population earning that has been quite an eye opener.

    We live in a bubble, surrounded by people like us.


    Parent
    Actually our cleaner... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    is the guy who owns the cleaning company...just him and his wife clean small offices together...I think he makes more than me, but he should, he works harder:)

    But you're overall point is well taken, put my and my 3 roomates incomes together and we're doing pretty damn good.  I didn't mean to imply any "woe is poor me" sh&t, as far as I'm concerned anyday you eat and have a place to rest your head is a good day, and puts you ahead of far too many in this world.  

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#56)
    by ricosuave on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:28:00 PM EST
    on the roof/food stuff.

    Personally, I have a hard time reconciling my purchases of expensive Scotch with my liberal guilt.  But I find drinking the Scotch makes the bottle and the guilt go away.


    Parent

    Really... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:38:08 PM EST
    vice is one of the few things I have no guilt about spending money on...drink, drugs, gambling is all money well spent on pleasure, as long as you don't use the milk money.

    otoh, I'd poke out my eyes before I'd buy designer label clothes or jewelry or that kinda stuff.

    Parent

    I think Obama will have an easier time (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    giving money to homeowners to pay their mortgages, than to bankers to do ...well, what again?  Both groups of people may have been irresponsible, but at least the homeowners aren't going to go hire a corporate jet together and fly to a spa for a retreat.  

    Parent
    If we have to give money away... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:47:01 AM EST
    then hell yeah, I certainly prefer it go to people with little money than to those swimming in it.  

    But that's what I'm trying to get at...the boards at Citi and BOA are on the other side of the struggle with the homeowners having trouble making their payments, looking to get on the dole or get more dole...while I, a renter with no material wealth, am lumped in with my millionaire boss.  It's a weird new kind of class struggle that defies traditional class lines.

    Parent

    how is that a class struggle? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:09:37 AM EST
    is your boss not still raking in the bucks?  When things get better, will your boss not be able to grow his/her wealth?  Unemployment is going to hit lower-income employees/renters more than business owning millionaires.  I really do like my boss...but I don't really feel too much sympathy re: her finances!

    Parent
    Not a financial class struggle... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    a struggle between the connected and unconnected.  Party member insider class vs. outsider class.  My boss likes to think he's an important man...but he's an outsider schmuck just like me, only with more cheese.  The unconnected masses who are allowed to fail includes those making 250k a year on down to those making 25k.

    Yeah my boss is still doing quite well...without a bailout.  Just as I'm still getting by...without a bailout.  That's the point...I don't fault him his wealth, and I certainly don't think either of us should be forced to subsidize the connected, especially the connected making 25 million a year.

    Parent

    it's not really fair (none / 0) (#26)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    to compare the homeowners with the banking big shots though.  The homeowners are looking to get on the dole...because they are screwed - they are not personally doing well.  No $$$, maybe no home.  The bankers are looking to get on the dole...because banks play an important role in our economy...but the bankers themselves are personally doing just fine, lining their pockets, and laughing that the system gives them the big bucks whether they succeed or fail.  

    If you look at the polls, the sentiment of anger is directed at bankers, less so than homeowners I think.  Nationalization of the banks is supported by 66% of Americans.  Homeowner help, I don't know any polls off the top of my head.

    Parent

    Laughing all the way (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:32:08 AM EST
    to the bank, eh?

    I think you're actually quite wrong about that, Liburro, though it's clear that's the widespread perception.  Those guys aren't going to be homeless ever, but they are scared s***less.  I was just thinking to myself last night I wonder how many of these people have been able to get much sleep in the last few months without chemical assistance.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't feel even slightly sorry for them.  But I think it's a mistake to imagine them lolling around eating gourmet meals and laughing themselves silly over this situation.


    Parent

    Many of them ... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:53:44 AM EST
    have been sleeping (or not) with chemical assistance for a long time.  This probably explains some of the bad decision-making.

    Parent
    Drugs don't make decisions.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    people do...lets not drag poor, much-maligned, and under-appreciated dope into this:)

    Parent
    Depends on the kind of dope... (none / 0) (#48)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    What's happening now makes me think some of the Wall Street guys were taking some bad acid trips.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#37)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    that was my impression from reading Deep Capture...

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    they're playing us for fools and resting quite well.

    They're still granting bonuses but recharacterizing them with terms like 'retention award,' etc.


    Parent

    Totally different... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:24:01 AM EST
    motivations to get on the dole...no doubt.  Homeowners to save their homes, in some cases to keep from being homeless.  Bankers to save their golden goose that provides bloated lifestyles of the rich and infamous.

    For sure the bankers make us angrier...banks don't bleed...but I have to question the righteousness of any of it.  Granted, the message from above is we can't afford principles and righteousness right now, and that may well be true.  I just don't know if I believe it...maybe we can't afford not to be righteous, has anyone thought of that?  What if by saving homes from foreclosure and saving banks from failure we destroy our nation in the process?  Destroy our principles of self-reliance and personal responsibility for your actions, destroy exactly the thing that gives our nation a chance to be so great...the belief in egalitarianism.

    Parent

    meh (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:21:39 PM EST
    if those values survived the first HOLC in the 30s, they'll survive a second.

    Parent
    Did they survive? (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    Or are those chickens just coming home to roost now, a generation or two later?

    Parent
    well I don't know what you're talking about (none / 0) (#45)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    in particular...but I think the Great Depression and the period afterwards combined resiliency, individual imagination, and a helping hand from the government pretty well. Did the Great Depression breed something unappealing or latently harmful into us?  Not that I can see.

    Parent
    How about a sense of entitlement? (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    Seems to me we've forgotten the personal sacrifices of so many during the great depression...Hooverville in Central Park, people scavenging for food.  The assistance office was the last place you went, now it is the first.

    Now we fall to pieces when they threaten to take the 6 figure bonus away, or the McMansion away.  Cry like babies, as if these are things we are endowed with by the creator...even as if they were earned.

    Parent

    The US taxpayers (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    actually made a profit on the HOLC.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    Most of us are modern folks here, we couldn't grow a crop or hunt or butcher our own food, or live as genuinely hard a life as real self-reliance requires, if it came down to it -- I mean some of us could, not very well, but many people, most, if the great natural disaster strikes, say, are utterly unprepared to survive more than a few days and wouldn't.  We are all, or very close to all, a bunch of folks utterly reliant on others, and so many others we'd get dizzy trying to count them all.   The only people who are genuinely self-reliant are those who live completely subsistence lives, and we, largely, consider them freaks.

    We are, obviously, whether we want to admit or not, face it or not, deal with it or not, at the end of money as we know it.  The entire paradigm is mortally wounded.  "Wild wealth is just around the corner for me!" is the paradigm that has held up the value of our currency for far too long now.  "A safe and secure and fully employed neighborhood is right here for all who need it, and so might wealth be if you work hard, invent, imagine, achieve, innovate, jut get lucky, etc." is a much better paradigm, and one we desperately need to embrace.  Boogeymen words like socialism, however, could easily, and on their own, keep it from happening for an even longer and more deadly amount of time.

    Egalitarianism of the real sort is something we have paid lip service to but, with rare exceptions, never actually practiced.

    Now is the time.  If not yesterday.

    Parent

    Here is where I can't get my mind (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sj on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:38:26 AM EST
    around your viewpoint:  I have no problem with homeowners in trouble getting assistance, while I -- who have been current on my mortgage payment for going on 12 years now -- would not be eligible for a benefit.  I don't care whose fault it is that a flawed loan was extended.

    I don't care because if I ever need help -- even if it's my own fault -- it would be good to know that there is a helping hand available.  Not a crutch to help me continue to limp along.  A genuine helping hand.  

    And if some people take advantage of that helping hand?  Well, I'm thinking it costs us less to help average citizen who might be undeserving than it does to bail out a huge corporate conglomerate person.

    And while I don't care whose fault it is, I find I that I do care who gets assistance.

    Parent

    Are you in banking? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    Not at all... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:57:39 AM EST
    banking gives me the creeps.  If I was paid in cash, I'd never step foot in one of those houses of pain.


    Parent
    But you are in an industry (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    that at this time is being blanket labeled as inhabited by the irresponsible bad people?  I mean I can relate, I'm not pointing fingers at you.  When soldiers kill children in Iraq I'm married to a baby killer.

    Parent
    I guess we all are to some degree... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    I'm not in finance, but I'm in an industry that has been a big part of the big sell-off of manufacturing to China, and have the associated guilt of being party to it...you bet.

    Parent
    Well I'm a capitalist so you can chuck (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:12:42 AM EST
    the guilt with me.  There is a difference between incentive and perversity, and that's what is at the heart of what we are going through right now.  Trade with China has changed so much for the better in my opinion because if we were to find ourselves in a fight with China and no means to converse, that wouldn't be good for the planet.

    Parent
    OT: You are an interesting lady MT..... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by vml68 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:35:55 AM EST
    Buddhist, military wife, capitalitist, nudist, dog breeder/lover...... :-)

    Parent
    Some moran told me I was an aquired taste (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    last week.  He has no idea.

    Parent
    Sometimes it seems like (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    being yourself is becoming more and more a revoloutionary concept.

    Parent
    Who cleans lots of toilets (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:43:43 AM EST
    From a previous thread.

    I agree -  very interesting!

    Parent

    And I will never buy another house (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    with three bathrooms, anyone who has more is totally nuts!

    Parent
    Something I've never quite understood... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by vml68 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    When you look at the more expensive homes, most of them have more bathrooms than bedrooms. I don't quite get that.

    Parent
    Don't most people with three or more (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:29:08 AM EST
    bathrooms have a butler AND a maid?

    Parent
    Did you miss a housing McMansion bubble (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    or something?  My house is one of the oldest and smallest in my neighborhood but at one time it was built by the mayor of this podunk.  It was not glamorous though four years ago, it was old, it needed paint and updating.  Nobody loved it but me.

    Parent
    Pretty much. My house was built in (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    1958 and is classified as "old."  3 bdrms. 2 bathrms.  No library.   2 car garage.  Big yard!!!

    Parent
    "1968" (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    This house came of age in the very early 80's (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    like me.  It is somewhat simple in design but structurally it is rock solid in a land with no building code (Alabama is very scary).  It helps having a dad who was a builder though, I knew this house had awesome bones and then the home inspector confirmed it for my husband.  My husband has come to understand home building though now much better, he is a student for life - one of the things I love most about him.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    Does that make her a "Nudist Buddhist"?

    Parent
    When I go nudist it does (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    I haven't actually gone nudist yet, but I thought doing something totally new and different would help me get in touch with my beginners mind.

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    I think you're precisely right. (Can't believe I just typed those words...)

    Parent
    You today, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    cal1942 yesterday...you guys are scaring me with all this agreement.

    I feel like a blind squirell with a nut in my lap:)

    Parent

    Yeah, well (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    even a stopped clock and all that...

    Parent
    If you move (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    the sprockets long enough some cogs will eventually mesh.

    Parent
    Interesting comment, Kdog... (none / 0) (#35)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:52:28 AM EST
    What I worry about  is that the media and the people who benefit from sowing the seeds of discord will eventually find a way to turn the factions into the good guys and bad guys - with the bad guys being whatever racial, ethnic, religious or socio-economic group that happens to be considered as "outsiders".  After all it's not an accident that Hitler and Mussolini arose when the conditions in their countries were horrible.

    Parent
    That is a concern... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    or it could bring us together like we haven't seen since 9/12/01 or WWII.  Rich and poor and middle.

    It's a slippery slope perhaps, but if the only ones ostracized are banks and corporations on the dole, that sounds like an improvement.  Banks and coporations are not flesh and blood.  And we'd have to be careful to only help homeowners in modest homes who are struggling, helping a McMansion owner who should be a 2 bedroom owner or renter will only stoke anger.

    Hitler rose from a horrible condition, but so did Ghandi and MLK....it could go either way.  

    Parent

    Personally, I'm hoping (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    all this brings back the concept of shame into U.S. capitalism.  Ronnie Reagan put the final kibosh on it. ("Greed is Good")

    Parent
    Good point... (none / 0) (#49)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    it may take someone of the stature of Ghandi and MLK to avoid some really ugly times.  

    Parent
    Oops... Gandhi. n/t (none / 0) (#57)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    It was Barbara (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:56:06 PM EST
    Ehrenreich who made the comment.

    Parent
    I like me some Joseph Stiglitz today (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:44:46 AM EST
    In a mean big way, everything said in this write up is the way it is!

    really? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    We expect rich people to be greedy and selfish to some degree, we don't expect them to be stupid.

    *bold emphasis mine.

    why would you think that? these are the very same people that gave us the S & L and commercial banking crisis of the 80's. some of them the exact same people. and for the exact same reason: big loans on overvalued assets, to people who couldn't repay them. history is repeating itself with much greater frequency.

    oddly enough, the last major banking collapse occured during the 12 year run of republicans in the white house. coincidence? i think not!

    the supposedly smart people were smart, they got their money, and left the rest of us holding the bag.

    Stiglitz and Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by koshembos on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    Stiglitz and Krugman say very similar things. It's the Obama crowd that tries to remake reality to suit their unrealistic beliefs.

    Krugman about the cost of dithering (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Jacob Freeze on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:00:07 AM EST
    Krugman is also warning abou the danger of dithering, in slightly different terms, here.

    So here's the picture that scares me: It's September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it's still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.

    But he can't get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted.




    And the reason (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    which, as I recall, Krugman stated in his op-ed is that the initial Obama Recovery plan will have been judged a failure because it didn't halt the decline.

    Fair or unfair that may be the public's judgement.

    This is why so many of us were so critical of Obama.  Some people said 'give him a chance, he's only been in office for a very short while.'

    The problem was that there was no reason to undershoot the mark and to offer a compromise in the original plan before any compromise was needed.  Dithering on the bank situation has only inceased the possibility that the decline will be steeper with a deeper bottom. The way to halt the decline is no mystery, it's not like we haven't been here before.

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jacob Freeze on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    I can't understand how Obama could have been so far wrong about how Republicans would respond to his concessions about tax-cuts. He and Axelrod are just about as acute about politics as it's possible to be, IMHO, and if Obama really thought Republicans would compromise about taxes and spending at some reasonable level...

    What happened?

    Now he wasted a lot of time and money, with not much to show for it.

    Why?

    Was it just a ploy to look "bipartisan," and pump up the polls?

    Parent