Obama: Get on board America

The Obama speech: get on board America, the ride is about to begin.

The fear:

But while the decline of the stock market is devastating, the consequences of the credit crisis that caused it will be even worse if we do not act and act immediately.

Because of the housing crisis, we are now in a very dangerous situation where financial institutions across this country are afraid to lend money.  If all that meant was the failure of a few big banks on Wall Street, it would be one thing.

But that's not what it means.  What it means is that if we do not act, it will be harder for you to get a mortgage for your home or the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. What it means is that businesses won't be able to get the loans they need to open new factories, or hire more workers, or make payroll for the workers they have.  What it means is that thousands of businesses could close. Millions of jobs could be lost.  A long and painful recession could follow.


But I thought the reason why this happened was because credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it?  But... nevermind.

The post-partisan:

This is one of those defining moments when the American people are looking to Washington for leadership.  It is not a time for politics.  It is not a time for partisanship.  It is not a time to figure out how to take credit or where to lay blame.  It is not a time for politicians to concern themselves with the next election.  It is a time for all of us to concern ourselves with the future of the country we love. This is a time for action.

...And at each and every moment, we have risen to meet these challenges - not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans.  

No comment.

The "crisis" and the "rescue" points:

This is no longer just a Wall Street crisis - it's an American crisis, and it's the American economy that needs this rescue plan.

Uh huh.

On your money:

I've also said that if I'm President, I will review the entire plan on the day I take office to make sure that it is working to save our economy and that you are getting your money back.
Why doesn't he just review it before voting for this determination?

And "getting your money back"? Holy b*******, what's that smell?

OK, vote 'yes' for the children:

For the rest of today and as long as it takes, I will continue to reach out to leaders in both parties and do whatever I can to help pass a rescue plan.

...Let's give our children the future they deserve, and let's act with confidence and courage to show the world that at this moment, in this election, the United States of America is still the last, best hope of Earth. Thank you Nevada, God bless you, and may God bless America.

Think no longer of the $700B plan as a bailout, but instead, as a rescue, and not just for Wall Street but for all of America.


Is there a way to vote 'present' this election?


In a couple of days, I'm heading out to California for a week; a bit of a break, like hanging out with some friends in Venice:



Update [2008-9-30 12:48:36 by Jerome Armstrong]: Get this right people. This is about something more than Obama. Way more. If this $700B to $1 Trillion farce gets passed, it's the end of a progressive platform to govern with the next few cycles.

Yea, I am mocking of Obama. The underlying attitude I have is: why he is abandoning his self-proclaimed skepticism of Bush here, why? Can anyone say with a straight face that his argument for why Democrats should go along with Bush and back this bill that he's presented is sound? I don't even see an argument. All that he's offered is a bit of fear mixed in with post-partisan and some language changes to go along with a few platitudes.

Yea, he's better than McCain, but that doesn't make his b******* smell any better.

I support a bill that addresses the financial matter in a progressive manner, but that's not the one that Bush put forward.

Tags: 2008 (all tags)

Comments

159 Comments

Re: Obama: Get on board America

i have enjoyed my time on this site, but jesus, i might as well be reading alegre at this point.

see ya.

by ihaveSTILLseenenough 2008-09-30 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Seriously.  I thought I was reading a Democratic site until now.

by lorax 2008-09-30 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Wow, I see the mocking of Obama on this site is alive and well. Well done, Jerome.

By the time the progressive left realizes that no magically delicious bill that restructures the entire american economy could possibly get done before the election, the market will have tanked 3000 points.

Even the darling of this site, Paul Krugman, wrote that the bill put to vote on Monday was worthy of passage.

Of course, the 95 congressional Democrats who received hundreds of letters against "bailing out wall street" got want they wanted. Sometimes, however, it is the politicians' duty to explain to the voters why something needs to be done (or not), not the other way around.

Starting from scratch will merely deepen the crisis, causing more suffering for the people who get screwed the most when something like this happens: the middle class.

If you are in your 20s or 30s, you can afford to ride this thing out for another 10-15 years. For those that are living on fixed incomes, neither party cares about you.

Somehow, I guess all this is Obama's fault. That's what John McCain keeps telling us anyway.

by KoolJeffrey 2008-09-30 10:32AM | 0 recs
J. Armstrong, one of the last Hillary dead-enders

Armstrong doesn't even try to hide his contempt for Obama.

Hey, Jerome, at least be honest, like your fellow anti-elitist Lady de Rothschild, and come out in support of John McCain, that champion of "rednecks."

by John Campanelli 2008-09-30 08:46AM | 0 recs
Yep

And where is the sainted Hillary in all of this crisis? Bill already said the bailout wasn't enough. He thinks 700 billion is not enough.

by Lolis 2008-09-30 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re:

gaed, will you people get over Clinton. She lost, like, months ago, ya know?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 09:50AM | 0 recs
Wow

I guess this is a PUMA site now.

by fladem 2008-09-30 08:49AM | 0 recs
No, I don't think so...

Last I checked, Todd & Jerome & Jonathan & about 90% of all of us users are Democrats... And we're all supporting Obama-Biden now.

Still, I have no clue what's happening with Jerome right now.  Sure, the current package isn't perfect. However, we can't allow a complete credit collapse. I'm glad Obama sees that, and I'm glad he's acting like an adult right now while McCain runs around and has a complete psychotic meltdown.  

by atdleft 2008-09-30 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Wow, Jerome,

You can disagree with the man without being disagreeable.

And what's with posting the kid video.  That's for Drudge not this site.

Freaking boo on you.

by Tad 2008-09-30 09:45AM | 0 recs
Still trying to work out...

...what you actually think Jerome, above and beyond the parsing of a stump speech of Obama's

by brit 2008-09-30 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Still trying to work out...

For this bill?  I've been pretty clear in opposition to it. But that basic orientation is confirmed by the few Representatives that I have a lot of respect for, and they voted no.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Still trying to work out...

I'm not enamored of the bill, but the point Obama makes about the credit freezing up is dead on.   Basically it all comes down to the banks being afraid of lending out money to other banks in case they don't have funds to cover it.  So they won't lend it to other banks or to people and that means others don't get paid or slower and things grind to a halt.  I agree we don't need $700 million though... I'm in favor of starting with a smaller number and proceeding from there... a stop gap until after election day.

  ABC had a great animated summary of it that I'll post if I can find.

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-30 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Still trying to work out...

Obama speech was about the collapse of credit - the bailout bill is just a stop gap, we all know. But on the salient and actually more pressing problem of national solvency, he's on the money. We've gone beyond bailing out a few mortgage lenders and banks to shoring up confidence in the whole credit system.

Nobody knows quite the instruments to stop the spiral for this but clearly the two far poles of opinion: economic laissez faire a la 1930s and far left hopes for the collapse of communist meet at the extremes.

Obama has been consistent on his calls for regulation of this failing market. McCain has been all over the place.

by brit 2008-09-30 08:53AM | 0 recs
Freudian slap

Parapraxis. Should have read

far left hopes for the collapse of capitalism

by brit 2008-09-30 09:05AM | 0 recs
Obama trying to stop a credit collapse?

Jesus, Jerome. It sounds like the guy is acting like a total... leader.

What do you want him to do? Egg on a total credit collapse to prove a point? That's what bloggers do.

by iohs2008 2008-09-30 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Still trying to work out...

Jerome, the market is up in anticipation of the bailout bill passing.  This is not a corection of a correction.

by ChitownDenny 2008-09-30 09:07AM | 0 recs
Krugman supports this bill

He says it is better than nothing.

Do I wish it were "better"? Yes. But ultimately none of us know how this bill or a lack of action will play out. Anyone who acts like they know what to do is a liar. Nobody knows.

by Lolis 2008-09-30 09:11AM | 0 recs
The cost of this

won't be close to $700 Billion.  

I have more than a few problems with this bill, but something like it needs to pass.

The far greater risk to the progressive agenda is to not this bill and wind up with a deep recession next summer.

The greatest progressive economist who ever lived, Keynes, would have been supporting this bailout.  He understood what conservatives do not: that that free markets cannot exist without government regualtion.

I have been very dissapointed in the reaction in blogsphere: which seems completely ignorant of history and of a basic understanding of economics.  

by fladem 2008-09-30 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Still trying to work out...

Turtlescrubber TR's Jerome.  Hilarity ensues.

by fogiv 2008-09-30 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

There are other options, including McCain, McKinney and Barr.

by RandyMI 2008-09-30 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Ah yes... a bitter old man, a RW nutjob, a LW nutjob whose arrogance helped cost us in 2000 and someone with decent progressive creds who also struck a police officer.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-30 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

I'm just saying, he has other options.

by RandyMI 2008-09-30 09:12AM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

by fogiv 2008-09-30 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

Seriously.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

Jerome has a real bad taste left in his mouth from the Primary.

A lot of us think he kinda wants Barack to lose just so he can say "I told you so."

Which would equal disaster for the country.

by Tad 2008-09-30 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Incisive comments Jerome!  I'm just curious which one you are:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

by Steve M 2008-09-30 08:24AM | 0 recs
My money's on Statler

I mean, I have issues with Jerome, too, but he's no Waldorf.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-30 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

He's the one not on T.V.  Sirotas on T.V. Markos is on T.V. but where is Jerome?  Is that why he's so bitter?

by venician 2008-09-30 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

I think I agree with those who think that Obama will need to be pushed to do the right thing at times, because he always figures political equations in his head when decision making.  In other words, he somewhat "Clinton-like".

He's still far superior to the alternative, BTW.

"Now, anyone that calls this $700B plan a 'bailout' instead of a 'rescue' and not just for 'Wall Street' but for all of 'America'... well, whatever."

I heard Laura Tyson refer to it as a 'credit expansion' bill last night.

by howie14 2008-09-30 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Jesus Jerome could your bias show any more? A couple of points.

But I thought the reason why this happened was because credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it?
Don't confuse what got us here to what it might take to get us out.

As to the rest of your editorializing your is highly colored by your deep deep dislike of Obama and not anything resembling a fact.

by jsfox 2008-09-30 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Oh Jerome, I'm soooo sorry your guy McCain is sucking so bad. It must really hurt to keep on losing and losing.

pathetic.

by Metrobot 2008-09-30 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Even if you don't know anything about economics or have a plan of your own, at least you know how to complain.  I guess that's a skill.

by rfahey22 2008-09-30 08:29AM | 0 recs
The individuals who are responding to you

in the way they are illustrate exactly why I have never become a genuinely active member of MyDD(and why I ultimately left DKos, of course).  

It's not undying loyalty to Clinton as so many wish to believe, but a willingness to doubt Obama - or any erstwhile leader of the Democratic party.  Better than Bush? Yes. Better than McCain? Yes.  But that doesn't make them sacrosanct.

Pitiful, really, these reactions.

by aggieric 2008-09-30 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

Typical too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

Typical?  What's typical is this post.  No one minds balance on Obama.  Go check out TalkLeft.  They aren't falling at his feet.  But every post from you is more BS about how he can't win or can't lead.  So don't tlak about "typical" and act like we're drinking kool-aid because we're sick of your constant, relentless attacks on our candidate.  

by proseandpromise 2008-09-30 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

I think the key difference is "expertise."  Krugman has also been highly critical of Obama, but he's actually an economist, so when he criticizes him on economic matters, he's not just flinging poo.

by failsafe 2008-09-30 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

yes, and even Krugman reluctantly supports the bailout.

by Lolis 2008-09-30 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

My point exactly.  He supports it for economic reasons, instead of opposing it for emotional ones.

by failsafe 2008-09-30 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

Cmon, Jerome, I've defended you against most of these same individuals in the past.  But I'm entitled to say that this diary doesn't even represent an attempt at constructive criticism.

by Steve M 2008-09-30 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

On being "constructive" in the face of this?  Which really means "get on board" right?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

There's an awful lot of room in between "get on board" and "what's that smell?"

by Steve M 2008-09-30 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

I agree.  Big gap between the two.

I've decided Jerome is kind of a dick.  Probably no one I would kick it with in real life.

I'll be over at FiveThirtyEight, the real winner in this election cycle.  

Nate Silver does a great job and doesn't let petty comments masquerade as commentary.

by Tad 2008-09-30 10:01AM | 0 recs
Yes, what happened?

Sure, there have been times when I disagreed with Jerome (think "drill, baby, drill!"). However, I've always found before that Jerome makes good, logical arguments. That's one of the reasons why I came here more often while Kos was becoming uninhabitable during the primary wars.

But now, I don't know what to think. What happened to Jerome? Honestly, this is something I'd expect at some PUMA McTroll site like Flowbee's Got No $0.25 or Riverdaughter's Den of Lies. I wouldn't expect this at MyDD

by atdleft 2008-09-30 09:10AM | 0 recs
Yes, what happened?

Sure, there have been times when I disagreed with Jerome (think "drill, baby, drill!"). However, I've always found before that Jerome makes good, logical arguments. That's one of the reasons why I came here more often while Kos was becoming uninhabitable during the primary wars.

But now, I don't know what to think. What happened to Jerome? Honestly, this is something I'd expect at some PUMA McTroll site like Flowbee's Got No $0.25 or Riverdaughter's Den of Lies. I wouldn't expect this at MyDD

by atdleft 2008-09-30 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

Jerome, the thing about you that is infuriating isn't the obama criticism. It's the sulky attitude. At least when you blog about obama, you have the emotional maturity of a 12 year old.

by Metrobot 2008-09-30 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

I'm sorry, was there analysis in this diary or a few three-word sentences between various quotes?

by rfahey22 2008-09-30 08:32AM | 0 recs
Rocks, glass houses and all that.

Just a quick look at your diaries show an intro sentence or two, a big chunk of block quote and a closing two or three sentences.

Just sayin'.

by aggieric 2008-09-30 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Rocks, glass houses and all that.

Did I miss the bit when rfahey became a front page poster and proprietor?

by brit 2008-09-30 08:39AM | 0 recs
Did I miss the bit

where we shouldn't hold an individual to the same standard s/he is trying to hold others to?

I realize it's useless to try to debate these things, but there it is.

by aggieric 2008-09-30 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Did I miss the bit

It's the refuge of the intellectually weak to search for hypocrisy rather than taking the time to rebut the actual argument.

by Cincinnatus 2008-09-30 09:09AM | 0 recs
That's very high minded of you...

Following your own procedure of holding every poster to Jerome's standard, I note you've written a total of three diaries, one of them asking Jerome if you can troll rate them

What was it you said again about stones and glass houses?

by brit 2008-09-30 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: That's very high minded of you...

Pwned.  RedCoat style.  :)

by fogiv 2008-09-30 09:24AM | 0 recs
oh. owwwie.

I said at the start that I don't engage here, which would suggest a lack of diaries, but perhaps you missed that point.  Since you seem to feel you scored a point, though, I'll announce myself utterly defeated and retire from the field in shame and dishonour. ;-)

Sorry it took me so long to concede; I was out in the real world, doing real work.

by aggieric 2008-09-30 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: oh. owwwie.

Yet another resort of the intellectually weak. "I don't have time to actually make logical arguments because I'm SO IMPORTANT."

by Cincinnatus 2008-09-30 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: oh. owwwie.

Memo to self: never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man

by brit 2008-09-30 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

These are pitiful reactions to a paucity of arguments. Anyone's allowed to doubt Obama's policies. But without any argument or critique, it's just a trade off in confidence.

Obama isn't sacrosanct. But he is in a tight election if you hadn't noticed. And politics isn't about being right from the sidelines, it's about taking power and having the chance to put your policies in place.

Please, remain a skeptic who never has to sully their hands with power. But don't kid anyone this is a political program.

by brit 2008-09-30 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

It's actually a bit of what Obama refers to himself as being while he's in DC, which is skeptical of Bush's programs. Why he's agreed to fully take them on as his own is deserving of at the very least, skepticism, which the mocking aims toward.

Has he convinced you why he's abandoned his skepticism with this speech?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 08:42AM | 0 recs
Here we go with issues of trust...

From what I've seen over the last year and half, Obama has convinced me that he's generally good at responding to events, and while not micromanaging every detail, provides the aims and objectives while trusted lieutenants in various fields fill in the detail.

In a dynamic situation like this, that's all you can hope for. Obama provides a pretty thorough critique of the crisis in modern conservatism, and has distanced himself from elements of the Democratic party who also cashed in on the financial free for all of the last ten or so years.

I think he's still completely sceptical about this bail out plan, but knows that while the Republicans fight their own President, we could see a complete market crash if there isn't some kind of government reassurance that the market won't be allowed to fail.

That's pretty compelling politics IMHO. And certainly a million miles better from the twisted tumult of the Republicans

by brit 2008-09-30 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

Uhhh, Obama is detaling his skepticism on live television RIGHT NOW.

by fogiv 2008-09-30 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: The individuals who are responding to you

Triple mojo to that, Brit.

by mady 2008-09-30 08:51AM | 0 recs
mojo, mojo, mojo!

but i will say that jerome would have been better served in outlining in this piece what his proposal/solution is.  im with krugman on this one.

by canadian gal 2008-09-30 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Don't worry, Jerome.

Battleground still has McCain up!

by Zephyr 2008-09-30 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

As in "Zephyr Teachout"?  Speaking as a former Deaniac, how on earth did he end up working for Dean in '04?

by failsafe 2008-09-30 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Nope, different person.

by Zephyr 2008-09-30 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Sorry bad news Jerome even you precious battleground is swinging our way.

You can always start a MYDD/AlegresCorner tracking poll that uses a LV of just republicans.

by kbal 2008-09-30 09:16AM | 0 recs
Obama is not up to the job

The situation is dire, but the essential problem is that we consume more than we produce.

Obama does not understand that.

Obama just reads what is written for him.

by Paul Goodman 2008-09-30 08:32AM | 0 recs
Quick questions

Would Obama expounding on the production-consumption gap be in any way helpful right now?  Would it improve consumer or voter confidence?

Seriously, of what possible use would Obama discussing that be useful to the current situation?  I assure you that he understands this breakthrough concept you're espousing.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-30 09:13AM | 0 recs
Hmmm... what does Jerome's Mark Warner say

Mark Warner on bailout

Warner said he's convinced major federal intervention in the financial markets is needed soon. He said he understands the frustration of taxpayers who see the $700 billion bailout being discussed on Capitol Hill as a welfare program for Wall Street moguls, and he wants plenty of safeguards for taxpayers to protect whatever federal investment is made in troubled securities.

But however justified taxpayers' anger is, Warner argued that they need to understand that the stakes are far higher than the balance sheets of Wall Street financial firms and their leaders.

"Like it or not, we're all caught up in this," he said.

If money stops flowing through the financial markets, and banks can no longer borrow from one another, millions of Americans will find teller windows closed and ATMs locked when they try to cash their paychecks and use their debit cards, he warned.

by John DE 2008-09-30 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm... what does Jerome's Mark Warner say

It DOES sound pretty much like Obama said.  But then Obama isn't a Southerner Governor so maybe its excusable then.

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-30 08:41AM | 0 recs
If Jerome supports Mark Warner...

...and Mark Warner supports Obama's plan.
...and Jerome hates Obama's plan.

Wait... my head is exploding.

by iohs2008 2008-09-30 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm... what does Jerome's Mark Warner say

Consistency isn't Jerome's strong suit.

by brimur42 2008-09-30 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

But I thought the reason why this happened was because credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it?

Yes, the reason this happened is because bank-to-consumer credit was too loose, and banks just leveraged away that risk into the system, which took it on past the breaking point.

But what Obama's talking about is a total credit market meltdown, which several economists argue is happening right now (for an example among many, see Tyler Cowen).

This is about more than home loans.  This is about the fact that virtually every major company in the world uses credit.  And when the credit markets break down, our economy has the potential to cease to function.  See Cowen's worst-case scenario:

Credit markets freeze up within the next week and many businesses cannot meet their payrolls.  Margin calls cannot be met and the NYSE shuts down for a week.  Hardly anyone can get a mortgage so most home prices end up undefined rather than low.  There is an emergency de facto nationalization of banks to keep the payments system moving.  The Paulson plan is seen as a lost paradise.

As for the tone of your post, Jerome -- I've been coming back here in spite of you.  But this might just push me into being unwilling to support you in any form.

by randomscientist 2008-09-30 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

I think using "facts" and "laws of economics" may be a waste of time here...  Hopefully we'll get a deal with more equity, along Krugman/Roubini lines, but the point is that we need some kind of deal.

by failsafe 2008-09-30 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

You know, I really thought we were the reality-based party.

But now my faith in liberal blogs is shaken.  Both Kos and Armstrong seem way more interested in politics than in educating themselves about the issues behind those politics.

You're right that it's possible Dems will use this opportunity to step up and actually improve the bill.  But very few people around here seem to be interested in discussing what improvement actually means beyond repeating populist propaganda.

by randomscientist 2008-09-30 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

This is why I left Kos a number of years ago -- it was turning into a left-wing equivalent of Limbaugh's radio show.  I think the truth is on the Democrats' side (though the Republicans have their share of it as well), but the sad fact is that you need to rile people up to win elections.  

I just come here for a bit of light-hearted trading of jokes and jabs, rarely for serious debate.  TPM Cafe used to have some interesting discussions before it got too big and switched over to the new, worse software.  Now I'm sort of cruising for a new place for serious discussion.

by failsafe 2008-09-30 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Check my sig.  Discussion and fun.  Plus free corndogs.

by fogiv 2008-09-30 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Thanks.  I'll give it a look once I figure out why your captcha for registration doesn't work through my proxy.

by failsafe 2008-09-30 12:05PM | 0 recs
Hey!

I just got my warning! I'll wear it with pride!

by IowaMike 2008-09-30 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey!

The irritating thing about the warnings is no one will actually take responsibility for them.   You'd think someone would be willing to stand by their feelings and sign them.

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-30 08:43AM | 0 recs
Start Over In January

I say, kill the bailout plan, because it's a bailout and not rescue plan. The financial crisis is a sympton and not the cause of the current economic downturn. The economy is in a mess because people can't pay their mortgages, and energy prices have risen.

In the last couple of decades, financial crisis have not caused recessions because of New Deal reforms and, despite their bad reputations, economists at the Fed really do understand the macro economy better than they did in 1929. For example, the stock market crash of 1987 and the subsequent savings & loans disaster caused no recession in the United States. The sky simply is not falling. Yes, we are in a recession, but this is no Great Depression unless we elect Right Wing Republicans who will repeal FDIC insurance.

We should kill the bailout and elect as many Democrats in Novemember. Then in January, we should increase the insurance on bank deposit accounts from $100K to $300K, help people be able to pay their mortgages, re-institute a social safety net in America, rebuild American infrastructure, and implement an ambitious energy program. That's what will ease America's financial crisis, not bailing out the fat cats on Wall Street.

by Zzyzzy 2008-09-30 08:41AM | 0 recs
If tragedy strikes before then...

...who takes the blame? I think they fear the situation is dire.

by iohs2008 2008-09-30 09:10AM | 0 recs
Constructive would have been...

something to the tune of...  Asking why he is pushing this.  Trying to understand WHY he might want to wait until he is President to review it.  Did it occur to you that there might be a reason?

Do I believe the bail-out as it stood was good?  No.  Not at all, but I do believe something has to be done.  I feel that was what Obama was saying.  Also trying to explain what might happen if nothing is done, not even a band-aid, cause let's face it, this IS a band-aid.  Major reform needs to happen, and it's NOT going to happen before the next President is in office.  

by Pa Woman 2008-09-30 08:41AM | 0 recs
Its easy

Obama would wait to review it until it's had a chance to work or not work.

None of us can see the future.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-30 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Jerome, perhaps you should remove yourself as a commentator, at least on issues regarding this election, from MyDD until you can resolve whatever biases you have against Barack Obama.

I understand you had strong feelings that Clinton should have been the nominee, I voted for her as well and I was, for a while, angry that she didn't get the nod.

Looking through your past front-page entries, it seems that you really have never had anything good to say about Obama ever. Some of your posts downright remind me of things that I read on RedState.

Hopefully you'll take your time in California to reassess where you think you fit in in the progressive community, perhaps mature a little bit and come back to help restore MyDD to what it was before the 2008 Democratic primaries: the intellectual counterpart to the grassroots-oriented DailyKos.

For the record, I'm against the bailout as well.

by UMassforObama 2008-09-30 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Oh get a grip. This JA post isn't gonna make a bunch of Democrats  vote for McCain. He's been even worse about the Big Bailout.

by JohnS 2008-09-30 08:45AM | 0 recs
That Video

is just adorable!

by JohnS 2008-09-30 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: That Video

I know, can't wait to meet up with them.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Is there a way to vote 'present' this election?

I figured that was what you were doing anyway, based on your posts?

Jerome, I think it's been easy for you to throw pragmaticism out the window, and just be a contrarian, because, again, you DON'T like Obama, and anything he says, you are going to poo-poo because of the source.

I hate to be obstinant, but would you be quite so negative if Senator Clinton was saying this same stuff, if she was the nominee?

Some of us believe not....

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-30 08:44AM | 0 recs
Careful...

this would smack of intellectual honesty

I hate to be obstinant, but would you be quite so negative if Senator Clinton was saying this same stuff, if she was the nominee?

Some of us believe not....


by jsfox 2008-09-30 08:50AM | 0 recs
Beautiful!

This is the sneering, disdainful Jerome we all knew and loved!

by failsafe 2008-09-30 08:45AM | 0 recs
Yeah, c'mon Jerome

Sing along with failsafe and the Hope Kids:

We're gonna spread hope,
We're gonna spread freedom...
etc.

by JohnS 2008-09-30 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, c'mon Jerome

Ahhh, now I know what the "S" stands for.

by fogiv 2008-09-30 08:59AM | 0 recs
This is the kind of comment...

Content free and abusive, which the site guidelines say I can hr.

by brit 2008-09-30 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: This is the kind of comment...

And Iowa mike - hiderating me for pointing out site guidelines is kind of stupid dontcha think?

by brit 2008-09-30 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: This is the kind of comment...

the comment you said was "insulting" wasn't.

Follow the rules yourself.

by IowaMike 2008-09-30 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: This is the kind of comment...

excuse me, abusive, it wasn't.

by IowaMike 2008-09-30 10:54AM | 0 recs
Krugman

Jerome Armstrong on Krugman:

"If there's one person that I would point to in the establishment press that was there during the wilderness, the period of '01-'03, before Dean arrived on the scene, it was Paul Krugman. The guy should be awarded some sort of Presidential award by the next President for his truth telling while nearly all the rest of the establishment press could only be found on their knees in front of BushCo during the beginning of this decade."

Krugman on the bailout:

"It's true that some parts of the real economy are doing OK even in the face of financial disruption. But commercial paper, which is important to a lot of businesses, is in trouble, and I'm hearing anecdotes about reduced credit lines causing smaller businesses to pull back. Plus there's a serious chance of a run on the hedge funds, which could make things a lot worse. With the economy already looking like it's headed into a serious recession by any definition, the risks of doing nothing look too high."

by Hatch 2008-09-30 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman

Doing nothing isn't the alternative; this "rescue" is not the alternative.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman

That post was written specifically about the bill that failed to pass yesterday. Krugman  indicated that it was a far from perfect piece of legislation, but absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of the American economy.

by Hatch 2008-09-30 08:56AM | 0 recs
by Hatch 2008-09-30 08:57AM | 0 recs
It would seem that on a progressive site...

one might expect that if you're going to attack the Democratic nominee, even if you're the site's owner, that you should have data to back up your attacks, some alternative solution, and perhaps some objective discussion. Just a thought.

by Travis Stark 2008-09-30 08:51AM | 0 recs
Define Progressive :)

It's not clear to me that the poster is analyzing Obama's position from any kind of political perspective at all.  

Really, if you just look at the comments in the post, you would almost think the poster is buying into the House Republican narrative that the "taxpayers are not buying the bailout".  

That's certainly not a "progressive" framework.  No, that sentiment is derived from the ideology that government should not take corrective action in "free" markets.  That's conservatism, um, my friend.

by vinny 2008-09-30 09:07AM | 0 recs
Wheres the contradiction?

Obama said "What it means is that if we do not act, it will be harder for you to get a mortgage for your home...businesses won't be able to get the loans"

and Jerome wrote

"But I thought the reason why this happened was because credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it?  But... nevermind."

I honestly don't see the contradiction Jerome seems to be trying to point out. Credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it; and now, because of the resulting strain on the credit system, credit is too hard to get even for those who can afford it.

I'm still ambivalent about the bailout; though I think some form of bailout or buy in (like the kind Krugman has written about) is probably necessary, I do have questions about the proposal that is currently on the table. But I didn't think there was much doubt that credit had been given too loosely (and dishonestly) or that it is therefore now too hard to get?

by slvn 2008-09-30 08:54AM | 0 recs
For once, I agree.

I've been a reader here for quite a while and an occasional poster.  I support Obama and he will get my vote regardless of his stance on this issue.

But,for the first time since before the primary battles, I agree with some of Jerome's criticisms.

Obama either needs to stay as far away from this mess as he can, or he needs to provide bold, progressive leadership now.  He shouldn't try to split the middle.

Of course this bears political risks for the upcoming election, but I think Obama is up to the challenge.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-09-30 08:56AM | 0 recs
Wow...

I don't comment often,
but this filth (and yes I mean this word)
is just beyond....

If I will be banned for this comment, it will be
worth it.

A whole lot of fairly respected econimists
worry about the same credid dry-out Obama talks
about (e.g. krugman) but ofcourse they are
just fearmongers....

by lolo08 2008-09-30 09:00AM | 0 recs
Wow, I totally disagree with you Jerome

I think, as written, this is a good speech with a substantively correct argument.

by andgarden 2008-09-30 09:00AM | 0 recs
First time poster

I am a first time poster and long time lurker.  I am also a last time poster, and a last time lurker.  It's September 30th, it's time for real democrats to get on board.  This site needs to put a leash on the negativity.

I encourage other lurkers to do the same.

Bye.

by martellpdx 2008-09-30 09:00AM | 0 recs
This website has become an embarrassment

my first time back in a while and I see this on the front page.  No wonder everyone has gone over to Kos.

by Bargeron 2008-09-30 09:03AM | 0 recs
This IS a rescue.

When there is a liquidity problem, only cash will resolve it.  Holding out to load it up with everything we want for the long term will just exacerbate the short term problem.

That's how I see it and it has nothing to do with whether I support Obama as a candidate or not.  Apparently Obama and his team of economic advisors see it that way too.

I look at the problem like I would a similar problem in my own life.  When the grandson calls and says his car caught on fire on the freeway or he can't come up with his rent money, I go immediately to Western Union with my vacation money in hand.  After the crisis has been resolved, then I work with (on) him about budgeting and saving and preventing future crises from derailing him.

by GFORD 2008-09-30 09:04AM | 0 recs
I'm confused Jerome

Is the problem that Obama supports the bailout, or that he supports it poorly?

The disconnect here (and perhaps the source of some criticism) is it's unclear whether you are condemning his economic naivete for believing we need a bailout, or accusing him of knowing we don't need a bailout and supporting one anyway.

I support the bailout, so perhaps I don't understand your scorn. IF you supported the bailout, would you have the same criticisms?

by Neef 2008-09-30 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Jerome - Well intentioned people are opposed to this plan, and I respect that, but your mocking tone is troublesome. I have an economics background, I could sit here and riddle off reasons why we need credit in the economy, or how the alternative proposals to the bailout package (include the imfamous "insurance" proposal) are nonsense, but I can sense I would make little ground with you.

What I implore you to do, is to listen to Economists like Dr. Paul Krugman. And if you still aren't willing to support the bailout package, at least treat those of us who do support it, with a little more respect.

When you mock Obama for thinking it's a good plan, you mock all the economists that agree with him.

BTW - In case you're interested in reading my editorial on this subject at The Guardian, here you go:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ cifamerica/2008/sep/29/economy.wall.stre et.bailout

by washingtoncritic 2008-09-30 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

So, Jerome, how many banks need to fail before you actually concede there is a crisis?  50?  100?  How many more jobs need to be lost?  I know... I know... Bush said there is a crisis, so he must be lying.  Well, take a look around you!  If he's lying, there must be a whole heck of a lot of people in on the job as well!

I'm not of the opinion that we sacrifice the American people in order to have some cash for a chance at "progressive" government....

Besides, we aren't going to have that cash anyways.  Time magazine is reporting that we're on pace to spend that trillion via the FDIC and other regulatory bodies within the next few months anyways.  We may actually even spend more than what's currently being offered 'cos there is no structure or plan.

These regulatory agencies are some of the last vestiges of FDR... definitely very progressive... and they are pumping money into the system...  FDR felt that saving banks and the financial system as a whole was a progressive thing to do, maybe we should heed his advice?

by LordMike 2008-09-30 09:08AM | 0 recs
Only thing I would say here is

If you apply this amount of scorn to Obama, you must also apply this amount of scorn to Dodd,  who has signed on to something very similar.

And, by the way, any Democratic leader UP on the Hill.

So the only thing that is missing in this post is - why is the scorn ONLY POINTED at Obama?  Who, as you know, is trying to win an election?

Why not Dodd - who has a super-safe seat, and if anyone can afford to pursue a more progressive course, he can, as he did on the FISA issues.

You need to admit, there is a difference of opinion here.  A lot - not all, but a lot - of economic experts, say that the freezing up of credit is a VERY BIG DEAL.

That has to be addressed.  

Now - HOW this is addressed - this is where politics come in, and as progressives, we push for addressing that freezing up of credit, in a way that works, and is the most progressive way possible.

But the scorn directed at just Obama is counter-intuitive, at the least.

by jc 2008-09-30 09:09AM | 0 recs
Jerome, you'd sound smarter if you didn't add

this: But I thought the reason why this happened was because credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it?  But... nevermind.

This has nothing to do with that, this has to do with the fact that NO ONE will be getting loaned money, even those who have a vast history of paying it back, including most of the biggest financial institutions in the country...Including most of the companies that pay our paychecks...

by Dingaling 2008-09-30 09:11AM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton on the bailout

" On the question of the government assuming the toxic assets of the mortgage world: "In a perfect world, that might not be the case, but we don't live in a perfect world. We live right now in a world that is fraught with psychological feelings that may or may not be reality-based...We need to stabilize it and that is exactly what Secretary Paulson is proposing... We will be fine but we got to start, we got to make some tough decisions, and I'm urging that we do that."

Jerome, I know it's not your strongest suit, but try to see the bigger picture here.

by syntag 2008-09-30 09:11AM | 0 recs
Yep, Hillary's right...

This isn't a perfect world, so we can't just sit on our hands and wait for the perfect bill. I know Hillary knows her economics well, so I'm glad she gets it. I just can't understand why someone as smart as Jerome doesn't.

by atdleft 2008-09-30 09:19AM | 0 recs
the absurbity continues.

You are not seriously suggesting that our government should do nothing, are you?

I can't think of a more risky scenario than just letting all the chips fall like they did in 1929.

And I do disagree with your notion that whatever bill might be passed will prevent further progressive legislation.  In fact, history indicates that this crisis will probably provide an impetus for major progressive legislation.

by d 2008-09-30 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: the absurbity continues.

Yea, I would support a Dem bill that presses Bush.  Heck yea.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: the absurbity continues.

Ever heard of Congress? They have to pass things.

by Cincinnatus 2008-09-30 09:36AM | 0 recs
I agree...

..that a Democratic bill that puts Bush in the position of wanting to veto it would be best both politically and practically.

But, no matter how much the public may want to punish the companies that have screwed the country, it will be very hard to both punish them and shore up the financial industry at the same time.

Republicans are disadvantaged on this issue because the public will punish them at the voting box if they are seen to be catering to the powerful and the wealthy- and almost any bill that addresses financial institutions will probably appear as a "bailout" of some sort.

Any solution will have to be Democratic bill that relies almost solely on Democratic votes.  The main issue is timing- there just is a limited amount of time to both craft legislation and campaign for the november election.

by d 2008-09-30 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Obama's top economic adviser visited our school last week and spent a good deal of his lecture explaining the current financial crisis. Your post here shows a laughable lack of understanding of economics, as well as a sad lack of maturity in dealing with a serious issue. Maybe if you can get over the high you get from being able to say "I told you so" (even when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about) then maybe you can settle in and, I don't know, actually make some constructive arguments about the bailout. Kos is opposed to it too, but at least he's making his arguments clear and acting like an adult, rather than turning it into an opportunity to feel superior. Hope you can get over it.

by Cincinnatus 2008-09-30 09:16AM | 0 recs
Review now vs. later

This isn't like McCain's secret plan to catch Osama Bin Laden; reviewing the plan now (in excess of what he's already done being in close contact to the congressional leaders working on it) is pointless becaue it hasn't done anything yet.

Would it be fair if the professor handed you a blank test with an "F" at the top on the day you're supposed to take the test?

Obama is suggesting that they do something and then check in a few months, when he has the power to apply real political pressure on the situation, he reviews it and makes changes as necessary.

Why do people on this site always want everything all at once?

by Dracomicron 2008-09-30 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Are you in Dean Baker's camp:

The basic argument for the bailout is that the banks are filled with so much bad debt that the banks can't trust each other to repay loans. This creates a situation in which the system of payments breaks down. That would mean that we cannot use our ATMs or credit cards or cash checks.

That is a very frightening scenario, but this is not where things end. The Federal Reserve Board would surely step in and take over the major money center banks so that the system of payments would begin functioning again. The Fed was prepared to take over the major banks back in the 80s when bad debt to developing countries threatened to make them insolvent. It is inconceivable that it has not made similar preparations in the current crisis.

And of the opinion that the truth does not have to be sold using a pack of lies? It is a legitimate argument, but dangerous if he is mistaken. I'm not able to evaluate the details of each economic argument, but I tend to trust Krugman and Galbraith more than Baker. DeLong has an interesting description.

So on this I will buy Obama's BS, though I wish he understood the issue well enough to cut through the smell.

by souvarine 2008-09-30 09:25AM | 0 recs
I agree with Jerome

I didnt like yesterday's bill one bit. I thought it was too weak on enforcement (there were no enforcement provisions) and too weak on oversight.

If 700 billion (1 trillion after interest etc) is going to be given to wall street for this mess, it should be a loan with payback. It should be enforced and regulated heavily.

It was a "quick fix" and no one can say what the long term effects would be.

Something HAS to be done, I just dont think Bush/Paulsen's plan is the right plan.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-30 09:26AM | 0 recs
Embarrsing yourself

With this line: "But I thought the reason why this happened was because credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it?  But... nevermind," you really showed you don't understand enough about the financial markets to strike a sarcastic tone. Do you understand that there's a difference between a cause and an effect?

by brimur42 2008-09-30 09:26AM | 0 recs
I find myself agreeing with Jerome here

I am an Obama supporter, but his stance on this whole thing troubles me. This is a chance for him to really stand up and take the bull by the horns but instead he is playing it safe and going in the wrong direction.

For every economist who thinks this bailout is a good idea you can find two or three who disagree with that assessment.

by Jon Niola 2008-09-30 09:27AM | 0 recs
Man Up Jerome.

You don't think a rescue is needed?  You don't think this financial meltdown will spillover into the greater economy?  You think that if indeed business can't credit to float payrolls they should go under?  You think that its good that business can't expand through lack of credit?

So Man Up Jerome.
What's your plan?

What is a "progressive manner?" How do you propose getting a "progressive" plan through congress?

by gil44 2008-09-30 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Man Up Jerome.

Hold off, don't pass anything before the election is over.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Man Up Jerome.

That "do it tomorrow" mentality is what happened in Japan 15 years ago, and they are JUST now coming out of a recessin that lasted a decade

by Tad 2008-09-30 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Man Up Jerome.

How long do we have then?

If it can't wait 35 days, geez, when?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Man Up Jerome.

So you think a banker like Paulson and a depression era historian like Bernanke are wrong and there is no pending crisis?  These staunch capitalists are willing to accept socialist methods to solve this problem...Its like Paul Wellstone saying its necessary to go to war.

If someone is urging us to do something that is complete outside that person's normal ideology, it bears listening to.

by gil44 2008-09-30 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Man Up Jerome.

You're right, it's not like the economy is a complicated and fragile thing. It'll keep.

by Cincinnatus 2008-09-30 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Man Up Jerome.

You do realize, that W will be in office until January, right?  I mean, TELL ME you understand this...  Seriously, you used to be a lot smarter.  What happened to you?

by SpanishFly 2008-09-30 11:43AM | 0 recs
Taxpayers ARE culpable???

I've been thinking, that the taxpayers SHOULD BE on the hook for this one.  We've been hearing quite a bit about how deregulating and failing to regulate has been the main cause, and is the main fix to this crisis.  The blame for the failure to regulate is being hitched to past elected officials, who were, um, elected by the taxpayers.

If we are being liberal democratic about this, in a poli-sci sense, then collectively taxpayers are to some degree culpable for not ensuring government did it's job.  So if we are concerned about harm to individuals, helping those disadvantaged, promoting the greatest common good, then a liberal democrat might be inclined to support the bailout on the basis that the taxpayers and their representatives - who are now crying for more regulation - were collectively asleep at the wheel.  It's therefore necessary to mitigate the harm being done to individuals through a financial system meltdown.

eh?

by vinny 2008-09-30 09:41AM | 0 recs
In All Seriousness, Jerome

Put the blame where it lies. If you're upset about this crisis, your anger needs to be directed at more than just Barack Obama, who has watched his party and seen them stay fairly united while the Republicans split apart.

It is an unfortunate problem that objectively, the subprime mortgage problem is easiest to tie to Democrats. If it were any other Democrat (say, Hillary Clinton), it would be supremely easy to tie them directly to the bailout. As it is, the best they can do is say, "Look, one of his thousands of fundraisers was the CEO of one of these companies".

Is Obama coming up with these policies? No. But he is selling them in a relatively convincing way and generally picking the best, most viable options.

by vcalzone 2008-09-30 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

So which Jerome entry exhibited the behavior of a 4 year old better - this one or the one in the primaries mocking Obama for looking dandy in jeans?

by PSUdan 2008-09-30 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

You probably still sneak back to peak at that vid.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Of course. I bookmarked it.

But thanks for essentially proving my point.

by PSUdan 2008-09-30 11:10AM | 0 recs
What if Obama throws in a gas tax holiday?

Will that make it ok?

by JJE 2008-09-30 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: What if Obama throws in a gas tax holiday?

That will probably do it. Hillary amd McCain supported that idea so I'm sure Jerome would like it too.

by PSUdan 2008-09-30 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

It looks like the McCain campaign's efforts to pin the failure of the bailout on Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats aren't getting any traction, according to the new ABC/Washington Post poll, the first survey to look at this issue.

The numbers: Among registered voters, 44% blame the Congressional Republicans -- that is, the ones who actually voted against the bailout -- compared to only 21% who blame Congressional Dems, and 17% who blame both equally.

Also, the Democratic arguments over who is to blame for the crisis appear to be winning the day. George W. Bush is seen as the single most important cause of the crisis by 25% of voters, followed by financial institutions with 18%. Congress is blamed by only eight percent.

by venician 2008-09-30 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Ugghh. What is the point of having somebody write on this website who sees everything through the bitterness of Hillary's defeat. What happens if Hillary supports the plan, because you can be sure as hell if she was the nominee she would be supporting it?

Obama is trying to compensate for the failure of Washington over the past two weeks. I'm glad we don't have Hillary as our nominee right now. He involuntary partisanship would have rendered irrelevant McCain's posturing. Compared to Obama he's exposed for what he is.  

by Graham1979 2008-09-30 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary does support the plan

Isn't that like walking around with a "ban me" sign on your back?

by failsafe 2008-09-30 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

The entire shadow banking system is collapsing and taking down the investment and commercial banks that underpin the economy. Forget the stock markets look at the credit markets. They are at panic levels. This crisis is real.

The last time the Republicans controlled the government they brought us 1929 - the result of the collapse of a massive over leveraged credit bubble they created. As Yogi Berra would say it's deja vu all over again.

A 1929 level deflationary collapse would put a lot bigger dent in the ability to enact health care then purchasing 700 billion in paper for 50 cents on the dollar that might be sold back into the market later for something close to the purchase price.

by hankg 2008-09-30 10:19AM | 0 recs
And Paul Krugman is another wimp?

PK, who I trust a hell of a lot more on economics than JA, says the bailout bill was worth passing.

Not because it was perfect, but because a hell of a lot of damage could be done in the next few months.

So, I don't know much about the underlying substance here, but if even PK is warning me that the sky could fall, I tend to believe him.

by TL 2008-09-30 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

But I thought the reason why this happened was because credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it?  But... nevermind.

This really demonstrates that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  Yes, credit was too easy, and banks overextended themselves because they figured the government would back their loans.  And now that they're dealing with the repercussions of these bad loans, credit has entirely dried up.

This concept isn't complicated.  It's utterly simple.  And if you don't even understand THIS, then you don't understand anything about this crisis.

In which case you should probably learn a lesson from Palin and just stop talking before you look not only petulant but stupid as well.

by ChrisKaty 2008-09-30 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Thank you Jerome for putting words to my own thoughts and feelings.

by linfar 2008-09-30 11:29AM | 0 recs
Ouch

I would be so embarrassed if I ever had a comment by linfar thanking me for "putting words" to her "own thoughts and feelings".

by mikeinsf 2008-09-30 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

My concerns were also given voice.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-09-30 12:24PM | 0 recs
Obama is trying to lead the country

This is a good opportunity for Obama to demonstrate post-partisan leadership and leadership in a crisis, not the time to be hyper-partisan, unless you can end up with that result without it looking like that is what is happening.

by MDMan 2008-09-30 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

by MDMan 2008-09-30 11:35AM | 0 recs
Jerome is a troll

Is there a way to get him banned from this site...  Serious question.

by SpanishFly 2008-09-30 11:39AM | 0 recs
ObRepoMan

No can do.  He's the manager.  King!  God!

by failsafe 2008-09-30 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: ObRepoMan

He's a sad, pathetic little man.  His post, his comments herein, his update, the video...

More of the same from the guy who took this site into the toilet during the primaries.  Interesting that he's happy with it this way.  A typical front pager here gets 10 responses anymore these days while Kos does 500 to 1,000.  But Jerome can whip people into a frenzy and get people pissed off, generating 100 or so.  That's his deal these day.  He trolls his own site to generate traffic.

by SpanishFly 2008-09-30 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: ObRepoMan

I'm not sure exactly how ad revenue works nowadays, but I think it is usually paid per click, not per page hit, so I'm not sure that helps him.  Well, he gambled on long odds and lost...

by failsafe 2008-09-30 12:09PM | 0 recs
Look at it this way Jerome,

now instead of voting for McCain or just writing in Hillary's name, you can simply write-in the word "Present".

Now you've got three options:
John McCain
Write-In: Hillary Clinton
Write-In: Present

by RussTC3 2008-09-30 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

hehe, now this is the Jerome I remember.

by Skaje 2008-09-30 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Why don't you make that break for a month, rather than for a week, Jerome? The other front-pagers write some decent stuff but you have done nothing but spout shit this entire campaign, and this mean-spirited and puerile spew is the worst of the lot. It seems the better Obama does the more bitter you become.

That's it for me with MyDD. It used to be a decent blog but you have fucking killed it.

by al1 2008-09-30 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Get on board America

Heh.

by spacemanspiff 2008-09-30 08:04PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads