You are all so proud..

[BlackAsCoal]

I actually believe you have more of a say if he messes up and the supporters let it slide.

Problem is when he first started running...he had the hardcore anti-war people backing him. He's moved more towards center.

I think those people simply don't get it and will have a reality check when Obama takes a more centered view on handling Iran and Russia...which he will have to do.

not to mention redeploying troops to Afghanistan/ possibly Pakistan.

People who used to yell " Warmongering America " will be saying " Well some war is justified."

I'm only talking about the far far left. The ones who opposed Afghanistan. Not the slight left out of Iraq people.

Now you're making my argument .. I already know how this story ends.

 

[jschuck12001]

I'm a radical leftist socialist and I was against the bail out. It was the politics of fear and there being no real oversight in the Bush Administration dolling it out. Already we've seen the misuse of this money. And is it really shoring up the banks? We're in a recession but I don't see it being as disastrous (yet) as was predicted. And there were some who predicted it wouldn't be disastrous at all and the bail out was totally unnecessary.

Well, I was for it because I know the damage that would have been caused by job and pension loss. Those are some of the largest companies in the US, I worked at one of the big bad boys before we shut down in late Jan, 50,000 people lost their jobs, thats 50,000 people who are trying to get another job in a bad market, they are now on unemployment and they will probably start defaulting on credit and mortgages. Thats just one company, if you wipe out 4 or 5 of these plus all the small banks that have gone under that people dont know about, this causes even more stress on the economy and it will never stabilize until job loss levels and people are able to stay in their homes and pay their bills.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I actually believe you have more of a say if he messes up and the supporters let it slide.

Problem is when he first started running...he had the hardcore anti-war people backing him. He's moved more towards center.

I think those people simply don't get it and will have a reality check when Obama takes a more centered view on handling Iran and Russia...which he will have to do.

not to mention redeploying troops to Afghanistan/ possibly Pakistan.

People who used to yell " Warmongering America " will be saying " Well some war is justified."

I'm only talking about the far far left. The ones who opposed Afghanistan. Not the slight left out of Iraq people.

What you don't understand is that the far left support Obama in that they are against the GOP. We already know he's going to redeploy to Afghanistan, among many of the other social injustices we want to redress that he won't change. We don't mind that much because at least he's a big step in the right - or should I say left - direction.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I just can't give you enough positive reputation.

Thank you brother.

Much respect for you too.

 

[jschuck12001]

The bailout means exactly the same thing today as when it was first proposed. Americans have little actual say in their government .. AND, we exist in a plutocracy .. AND, they just stole about a trillion dollars right in front of our faces and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it.

The "education" is otherwise known as the mindfuck.

I disagree, how many people actually read the bill, or how many people actually know how the financial system works. Look, I'm biased because I'm in banking but letting everything go to hell was not the answer.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I disagree, how many people actually read the bill, or how many people actually know how the financial system works. Look, I'm biased because I'm in banking but letting everything go to hell was not the answer.

My brother .. these people have read the legislation and they know more than a little about the economy and banking ..

Economists Against The Bailout
400 World Famous Economists Speakout Against Bailout
Economists Against The Bailout — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress

200 Economists Against the Bailout

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm

 

[Diuretic]

When I saw Obama's speech at the DNC four years ago, I think it was, I thought to myself, this bloke is good. Now since then I've obviously kept up with things thanks to the internet (Obama was identified by some political commentators here as a man to watch, so I'm not prescient or anything). It struck me that some people were saying he was a good speaker and that was about all he had. I disagreed and still do. You have to be very smart to be a good speaker and to be a great speaker you have to be very, very smart. I thought it was a good sign.

Who knows what will happen during the new administration? I take BAC's points because they're well made and I acknowledge that Obama is not infallible and will have to face the reality of politics at a difficult time for the world, let alone the US. But I have hope that Obama will be a statesman and not a politician, although he will need to be wily especially in domestic politics.

There was a moment during his speech, well it was after it actually, where he waved and turned to his right and his eyes looked downwards and I got the distinct feeling that having won a long, tought struggle, he knew that the really hard work was still ahead of him. But he wasn't shirking, he wasn't frightened, this bloke has courage as well as smarts.

At this stage he just needs to steer the ship of state on a different course. That's why you voted Democrat, because you knew the Republican path was the wrong one. You voted for Obama because he gives you hope - heck he gives us all hope. Trust him, don't denigrate him even before inauguration.

I know I don't have a dog in this hunt (I love that phrase) and can only watch with some impotence from the sidelines, but give the bloke a chance. His first term will be about repair. His second term, if granted by the people, will be about renewal. His tasks are Herculanean, but I'm sure he's up to it.

Now you have to keep your Congress honest, make them work for you and not for themselves.

And another, much more erudite view from this part of the world.

Barack Obama did not materialise from a vacuum. He is America's response to the dramatic failures of George Bush. It was Bush who created the craving for change. Obama has now met that need.

More at link.


Spin fantasies eventually crash - Peter Hartcher - Opinion - smh.com.au

 

[jschuck12001]

My brother .. these people have read the legislation and they know more than a little about the economy and banking ..

Economists Against The Bailout
400 World Famous Economists Speakout Against Bailout
Economists Against The Bailout — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress

200 Economists Against the Bailout

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm

I've seen these articles, I'm not an economist so I dont pretend to know better than these professors but if it was their jobs on the line they might have a different view.

 

[tnhighc]

I know exactly why McCain did not win. He was not the right candidate. I voted for him only because I did not have to worry about who he would sell us out to. I was not thrilled with either candidate, but I feel it is our duty to vote.
I am REALLY hoping and praying that Obama does even half of the good his marvelous PR people taught him to preach about. I just hope people keep a close eye on how it is done and exactly what is done.
He is our president, I will give him the respect he earns.

 

[Caligirl]

of course he'll do half - it is the party platform and the party controls the government.

Health care will be fiirst - First for kids and presumably later for everyone.

Redefining the tax brackets will happen pronto too.

I don't know about the more fundamental issues like creating jobs - that takes more than legislation, that takes a decent economy (and creates a decent economy.)

 

[Nevadamedic]

I didn't want Obama to win the election. But I accept he is my president..unlike those mindless zombie Bush haters..

Why? because I believe in democracy more than any candidate.

I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt and my support to do what will help America.

However, I would like to remind all those Obama supporters, that if all that change rhetoric does not follow suit..to the degree in which the hype was warranted...you may want to start holding people accountable.

Sorry...no more blaming Bush for all your problems...

the agent of change has come...

we will see.

Obama has already lied to us and hes not even taken the oath of office yet.

He said he is tired of career polititians and wants all new faces in Washington and wants to bring change and get the old people out and bring in the new.

Let's see now...... His Vice Presidential pick, one of the longest serving Senator's in Washington. Ok, just one person no big deal. His Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, former political advisor to President Clinton and has worked in Washington as a Staffer for several elected official's since the early 80's. Ok, no big deal only two right? Now throw in John Kerry who has secured a position in his cabinet and rumored to be our new Secretary of State. Next throw in Chris Dodd who is getting a position in Obama's cabinet. Dodd has been a memeber of the Senate since the 70's and im sure everyone remembers the Sandwich incident with the waitress during his Freshman Term.

Then add Bill Richardson, who really isn't that fresh, being he served as a Congressman for years, also was Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to the United Nations. Prior to all of that he was a political staffer in Washington for years.

Yea real change.

 

[Caligirl]

It is not my place to defend Obama and I am not interested in it, but I thought he said he wanted a new type of politics. You can do that with Washington savvy people, if they are willing to commit to a new way of doing business.