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

see ya.

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

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

Serious question.

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

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.

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?

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

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

pathetic.

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.

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.

Don't worry, Jerome.

Battleground still has McCain up!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.  

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.

is just adorable!

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....

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

Sing along with failsafe and the Hope Kids:

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

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."

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.

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?

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.

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....

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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...

" 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

Will that make it ok?

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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

hehe, now this is the Jerome I remember.

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.

Heh.