« Obama Maintains Big Lead In Today's Tracking Polls | Home | Report: McCain Campaign Threatened To Boycott Debate With NBC Moderator »

Obama Edging Into More Active Role On Crisis

Now that John McCain's first effort to corral Congress into passing a bailout has proven a bust, the question is how aggressively Barack Obama will thrust himself into the center of the action at a moment when McCain is attacking him daily for remaining "on the sidelines."

In Nevada today, Obama turned up the volume, reiterating his idea to increase the FDIC limit to $250,000, and suggesting that he would be taking on a more active and hands-on role in the days ahead.

"We must act and we must act now," Obama said. "We cannot have another day like yesterday."

"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," he added. "To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say -- step up to the plate and do what's right for this country."

The fact that two-thirds of House Dems voted for the bailout creates an interesting political dynamic for Obama. On the one hand, because most Dems are already on board for this plan and are unlikely to bolt should it be revised, it's hard for Obama to actually show meaningful concrete results in terms of delivering votes.

On the other, there's not really any room for the sort of failure that publicly claimed McCain. And the pressure is still on the Arizona Senator to deliver on his initial vow to rally his own party behind the plan, or a revision of it.

Barring more specific proposals as to how to address the crisis, one way Obama will likely try to show leadership is to use his skills at persuasion to convince larger swaths of the public that the crisis is real enough to demand unpalatable action (though again, success in this endeavor would be hard to quantify). And he is already staking out a role as the candidate who is setting an appropriately sober, measured, and reconciliatory tone in discussing the crisis.

Still, stepping into the role of man of action at a time of intense public anxiety is an extraordinarily delicate political operation, as McCain found out the hard way. As much as McCain has struggled, the politics right now remain very volatile and unpredictable, and it's hard to overstate how high the stakes will be in the days ahead. Full Obama remarks after the jump.

This morning - like so many others over the last few months - we woke up to some very sobering news about our economy. Over the course of a few hours, the failure to pass the economic rescue plan in Washington led to the single largest decline of the stock market in two decades.

Over one trillion dollars of wealth was lost by the time the markets closed on Monday. And it wasn't just the wealth of a few CEOs or Wall Street executives. The 401Ks and retirement accounts that millions count on for their family's future are now smaller. The state pension funds of teachers and government employees lost billions upon billions of dollars. Hardworking Americans who invested their nest egg to watch it grow are now watching it disappear.

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.

Let me be perfectly clear. The fact that we are in this mess is an outrage. It's an outrage because we did not get here by accident. This was not a normal part of the business cycle. This was not the actions of a few bad apples.

This financial crisis is a direct result of the greed and irresponsibility that has dominated Washington and Wall Street for years. It's the result of speculators who gamed the system, regulators who looked the other way, and lobbyists who bought their way into our government. It's the result of an economic philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else; a philosophy that views even the most common-sense regulations as unwise and unnecessary. And this economic catastrophe is the final verdict on this failed philosophy - a philosophy that we cannot afford to continue.

But while there is plenty of blame to go around and many in Washington and on Wall Street who deserve it, all of us now have a responsibility to solve this crisis because it affects the financial well-being of every single American. There will be time to punish those who set this fire, but now is the moment for us to come together and put the fire out.

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.

I know that many of you are feeling anxiety right now - about your jobs, about your homes, about your life savings. But I also know this - I know that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. Because that's who we are. Because this is the United States of America. This is a nation that has faced down war and depression; great challenges and great threats. And at each and every moment, we have risen to meet these challenges - not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans. With resolve. With confidence. With that fundamental belief that here in America, our destiny is not written for us, but by us. That's who we are, and that's the country we need to be right now.

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. I understand why people would be skeptical when this President asks for a blank check to solve a problem. I've spent most of my time in Washington being skeptical of this Administration, and this time was no different. That's why over a week ago, I demanded that this plan include specific proposals to protect American taxpayer - protections that the Administration eventually agreed to, as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

First, I said we needed an independent board to provide oversight and accountability for how and where this money is spent at every step of the way.

Second, I said that we cannot help banks on Wall Street without helping the millions of innocent homeowners who are struggling to stay in their homes. They deserve a plan too.

Third, I said that I would not allow this plan to become a welfare program for the Wall Street executives whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess.

And finally, I said that if American taxpayers are financing this solution, then you should be treated like investors - you should get every penny of your tax dollars back once this economy recovers.

This last part is important, because it's been the most misunderstood and poorly communicated aspect of this entire plan. This is not a plan to just hand over $700 billion of your money to a few banks on Wall Street. If this is executed the right way, then the government will temporarily purchase the bad assets of our financial institutions so that they can start lending again, and then sell those assets once the markets settle down and the economy recovers. If this is managed correctly, we will hopefully get most or all of our money back, or possibly even turn a profit on the government's investment - every penny of which will go directly back to you, the investor. And if we do have losses, I've proposed to institute a Financial Stability Fee on the entire financial services industry so that Wall Street foots the bill - not the American taxpayer. 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.

Even with all these taxpayer protections, I know that this plan is not perfect or fool-proof. No matter how well we manage the government's investments under this plan, we are still putting taxpayer dollars at risk. I know that there are Democrats and Republicans in Congress who have legitimate concerns about this, and I know there are many Americans who share those concerns.

But I also know that we can't afford not to act. Both parties are close to accepting this plan, and over the next few hours and days, we should seek out any new ideas that might get this done. This morning, I proposed one such idea that might increase bipartisan support for this plan and shore up our economy at the same time: expanding federal deposit insurance for families and small businesses across America who have invested their money in our banks.

The majority of American families should rest assured that the deposits they have in our banks of up to $100,000 are still guaranteed by the federal government. That guarantee is more than adequate for most families, but it is insufficient for many small businesses to meet their payroll, buy their supplies, and create new jobs. The current insurance limit of $100,000 was set 28 years ago and has not been adjusted for inflation. I've proposed raising the FDIC limit to $250,000 - a step that would boost small businesses, make our banking system more secure, and help restore confidence by reassuring families that their money is safe.

That's one idea. If there are others that can help shore up support for this plan and shore up our economy, I encourage Democrats and Republicans to offer them. But we must act and we must act now. We cannot have another day like yesterday. We cannot risk another week or another month where American businesses are afraid to extend credit and lend money. That is not an option for this country.

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. To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say - step up to the plate and do what's right for this country. And to all Americans, I say this - if I am President of the United States, this rescue plan will not be the end of what we do to strengthen this economy - it will only be the beginning.

People have asked whether the size of this plan, together with the weakening economy, means that the next President will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals. The answer is both yes and no. With less money flowing into the Treasury, it is likely that some useful programs or policies that I've proposed on the campaign trail may need to be delayed. And I've said that as President, I will go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

But there are certain investments in our future that we cannot delay precisely because our economy is in turmoil. You can always put off giving your house a new paint job or renovating your kitchen, but when your roof is crumbling or your heater goes, you realize that these are long-term investments you need to make right away.

The same is true of our economy. We cannot wait to help Americans keep up with rising costs and shrinking paychecks by giving our workers a middle-class tax cut. We cannot wait to relieve the burden of crushing health care costs on families, businesses, and our entire economy. We cannot wait to create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our roads and our bridges and investing in the renewable sources of energy that will stop us from sending $700 billion a year to tyrants and dictators for their oil. And we cannot wait to educate the next generation of Americans with the skills and knowledge they need to compete with any workers, anywhere in the world. Those are the priorities we cannot delay.

As soon as we pass this rescue plan, we need to move with the same sense of urgency to rescue the families on Main Street who are struggling every day to pay their bills and keep their jobs. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need to pass an economic stimulus plan that will help folks cope with rising food and gas prices, save one million jobs by rebuilding our schools and roads, and help states and cities avoid budget cuts and tax increases. A plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits for those Americans who've lost their jobs and cannot find new ones.

Beyond this immediate stimulus that I've called on both parties and the President to pass, we need an economic agenda to restore opportunity for Americans and prosperity to America. We need policies that will grow this economy from Main Street to Wall Street and everywhere in between - so that the 21st century is another American century. So that we're not borrowing debt from China and buying oil from Saudi Arabia. So that the jobs of the future don't go to better-educated workers in India and the cars of the future aren't made in Japan. So that we can leave a legacy of greater opportunity to our children and their children. That is how we will emerge from this crisis stronger and more prosperous than we were before, and that is what I will do as President of the United States.

I will begin by reforming our tax code so that it doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups, so that we can grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all workers and their families. And if you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime - because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

I will reform our health care system to relieve families, businesses, and the entire economy from the crushing cost of health care by investing in new technology and preventative care. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

To create new jobs, I'll invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure - our roads, schools, and bridges. We'll rebuild our outdated electricity grid and build new broadband lines to connect America. And I'll create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We'll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here the United States of America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced

And if I am President, I will meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Finally, I will modernize our outdated financial regulations and put in the place the common-sense rules of the road I've been calling for since March - rules that will keep our market free, fair, and honest; rules that will make sure Wall Street can never get away with the stunts that caused this crisis again. And I will take power away from the corporate lobbyists who think they can stand in the way of these reforms. I've done it in Illinois, I've done it Washington, and I will do it again as President.

These are the changes and reforms that we need. Bottom-up growth that will create opportunity for every American. Investments in the technology and innovation that will restore prosperity and lead to new jobs and a new economy for the 21st century. Common-sense regulations for our financial system that will prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

I won't pretend this will be easy or come without cost. We will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together. What this crisis has taught us is that at the end of the day, there is no real separation between Main Street and Wall Street. There is only the road we're traveling on as Americans - and we will rise or fall on that journey as one nation; as one people.

This country and the dream it represents are being tested in a way that we haven't seen in nearly a century. And future generations will judge ours by how we respond to this test. Will they say that this was a time when America lost its way and its purpose? When we allowed our own petty differences and broken politics to plunge this country into a dark and painful recession?

Or will they say that this was another one of those moments when America overcame? When we battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success?

I believe that this is one of those moments. I know that many of you are anxious about your future and the future of this country. I realize that you are cynical and fed up with politics. I understand that you are disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask you to believe - believe in this country and your ability to change it. I ask you what has been asked of the American people in times of trial and turmoil throughout our history - what was asked at the beginning of the greatest financial crisis this nation has ever endured. In his first fireside chat, Franklin Roosevelt told his fellow Americans that "..there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people themselves. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. Let us unite in banishing fear. Together, we cannot fail."

America, together, we cannot fail. Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save. Not when there are so many Americans without jobs and without homes. Not when there are families who can't afford to see a doctor, or send their child to college, or pay their bills at the end of the month. Not when there is a generation that is counting on us to give them the same opportunities and the same chances that we had for ourselves. Now is the time to make them proud of what we did here. 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.


153 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic
Still, stepping into the role of man of action at a time of intense public anxiety is an extraordinarily delicate political operation, as McCain found out the hard way. As much as McCain has struggled, the politics right now remain very volatile and unpredictable, and it's hard to overstate how high the stakes will be in the days ahead. Full Obama remarks after the jump

I agree except that the party that keeps contradicting itself and is the most volatile is the Repug Party - not us. And since the market tanked after the bailout failed, that ought to help with the message that something needs to be done.

Speaking as someone who watching their retirement portfolio lose value, I would like to see something done and I am willing to bet most people in my position are looking for something like I am.

user-pic

But, today the market has regained half of yesterday's loss. That may be reaction to the Fed's infusion of capitol, but it may also just be the typical fickleness of stock investors.

I emailed my congressional representative to ask that Congress slow down a bit, and first hear from a good number of outside economists about what their options are, what the probably consequences of each of those options is, and only then begin deciding on a course of action. I still believe that is the rational approach.

I rely on my stock investments for a sizable chunk of my retirement income right now, so I too have a personal stake in this. I'm betting that even if the market drops much more, it will most likely recover almost all of that drop very soon afterwards. Investors know there is no safe place to put money, so the stock market at least offers some chance to evade the ravages of inflation, unlike other investments.

user-pic

Darlin - the market always rises from this or some other point.

It's the some other point we need to worry about.

It's not just about whether the stock market is going up or down. There is a credit freeze and until they, this will remain frozen. And many businesses large and small depend on the short term loans to meet business expenditures, like payroll.

user-pic

Exactly.


Too many banks have bounced at this point to be able to just let the market handle this - it's not stable.

You're right about the credit markets. That's what's terrifying about this whole thing. This article gives a good overview of the possible implications:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/conservatives_pain.html

This is wrong. The stock market is only show the devastating hits on equity.

The unseen storm brewing is in the credit market. And there's now Dow index to easily guage that. But needless to say it doesn't look good. And if the credit market totally freezes up, it means no pay checks, a lot of layoffs, and businesses shutting down. This could happen in a matter of weeks.

Congress should not take this slow. Perhaps they can scale down the initial money and revisit this in Jaunary.

The worst is certainly ahead: Credit freezing, hedge funds collapsing, .... the dominoes are teetering folks. We'll have three big banks left in America after this is over. Anyone want to see those go to?


I hear from my finance friends in NYC that the next things to watch for are (1) the fall of European banks (and there is nothing like the Fed in Europe to come in and bail them out) and (2) a big withdrawal of money from hedge funds and conversion of that money into cash positions.

user-pic

But, today the market has regained half of yesterday's loss.

Dead cat bounce?

user-pic

Barack is best served doing exactly what he's been doing -- giving words of encouragement for bi-partisan action, but don't be goaded in to making the same mistake as McCain. The last thing he needs to do is pull a McCain and "inject" himself in to this mess. Let McCain keep playing the fool by attaching himself to the success/failure of the bailout.

Very true.

I don't know if I agree. If he had brought forward his FDIC plan 3 days ago, or if they could have included that in the rescue plan, I think this election would be just about over right now. That said, his deference to Bush and the proposals did shine a bright light on his willingness to listen to all sides especially during crisis. Imho he is doing the right thing as best he can, and to me it is obvious that he is the strongest leader -- both politically and in terms of popular opinion -- in the country right now.

user-pic
If he had brought forward his FDIC plan 3 days ago, or if they could have included that in the rescue plan, I think this election would be just about over right now.
That's a pretty big "if" and I don't think it would've made a big enough difference to have gotten the bill passed. The risk Obama runs by trying to look like the problem-solver here is the same thing that blew-up in McCain's face: If Obama's ideas don't get the bill passed, he'll look as ineffectual as McCain. Again, I think Obama is playing it just right here by offering advice and encouragement, but not trying to play the hero.

exactly. he's not making a big fuss about it and going behind the scenes to try to make something happen.

how much political capital does he have though? he is after all just a senator as of now.

He's the leader of a party that sees it could really be in control in the next admin if they play this right. He has enough capital to get more votes on the dem side. Even Bobby Rush said he would reverse his no vote if Barack needed him to.

If he would have injected his FDIC proposal earlier it would have looked as if he was meddling. Now that the vote did not pass, Barack has 95 people to convert and really look like a hero. I don't think this bill will fail on a second vote. He could gain a lot of good will converting some of those dems that would insure the bill would pass no matter what the repubs do.

True... And another thing going against any earlier Obama effort would probably have been attacked by the MSM/Fixed Noise as "there goes Barack the presumptuous blah blah blah" or worse.

Now that I've read the TP post bout Newt, I think this thing didn't have a chance from Day 1. Newt may be the leader of the GOP at this point bar none. Scary scary scary.

If he was really involved in whipping the House Republicans against this and caused it to fail, then he more than anyone is responsible for the economic fall-out of not passing the rescue bill. So McCain should be blamed from the national GOP leadership perspective, but Newt shouldn't be allowed to get away scot-free with his part in the collapse. Imho we should hammer that point around so Newt can't run for President in 2012 as some kind of pseudo-populist neolibertarian conservative. These people are shameless. It is their fault. They should pay (we should make them pay) politically for the next generation at least.

I like Obama playing the role of educator-in-chief. I'd prefer it if he would put forth his own bill, or at least propose some real changes to the bill that failed yesterday, so that he's not actually championing a fig leaf over a POS (which is what yesterday's bill was). What I and most Americans still want to know is, exactly how much cash is needed right now, and exactly where should it go, and how exactly it would unfreeze the credit market immediately. What I don't want to hear is, give Paulson the $700bilion (or $350 billion) and walk away.

He must be careful, because the republicans will try anything to damage his efforts. These guys only care for themselves and they won't stop at nothing.

God speed, Barack!

user-pic

I think he waited until the GOP got tarnished with the failure and is now slowly wading into the leadership vacuum. Note that he had a dig at Bush for poorly explaining the crisis.

He can't do nothing because at a certain point the press will start focusing on that.

user-pic

His explanation of things makes more sense than anyone else's so far. I think he should continue to do what he's doing. The main thing is that there should be enough protections in the legislation that if it's mishandled by this administration, there's accountability.

Seeing as the only thing the McCain camp can do at this point is say, "Well hey, at least McCain tried to do something!", it's good to see Obama out there explaining his views on the issue.

The VP debate provides good timing for Obama's work here. This way, he can work behind the scenes, while the spotlight is on Palin and her embarrassing knowledge, curiosity, well, everything.

user-pic
... her embarrassing [lack of] knowledge, curiosity, well, everything.

Life, the Universe, and...

Obviously both candidates are between a rock and hard place (McDuck's hard place may be a little harder). But I think Obama is right to step up. He is the nominee. It would not be out of line for him to do so.

Exactly what he can hope to realistically accomplish is another matter.

This is a no win for everyone. We can't all agree on this board, and have no agenda like Congressional members. To expect Congress to agree on anything that will resemble sanity is not going to happen. Hell, they have trouble managing their own finances but they will help us?

I wish they would let a few sane economists solve this thing. I still support the nationalization rationale. But in the end, taxpayers will take it in the ass; and screw the media, they should, by obligatory occupational standards, be discussing the S & L mess over and over. My kids don't know much about it, and McCain was SO guilty in that debacle. It should be mandatory public disclosure every time his name is mentioned regarding this issue without having to Google it.

user-pic
I wish they would let a few sane economists solve this thing.

How can you tell which among them is sane?  That's one of the problems with economics being such a "soft" science.  Not as much as sociology, but close...

user-pic

In defense of the science of economics, let me say that it has the added burden of huge spin pressure.  Its pronouncements are touted to support a lot of political decisions with vested interests on both sides:  raise/lower taxes and/or spending, hike/cut interest rates, etc.

Where's Diogenes when we need him???

I don't think Obama will meddle like McCain. It looks like he's more interested to reversing or increasing the public support for the bailout. If that's the case, it's a smart move.

No one wants to hear we lost one trillion dollars in a day.

user-pic

It looks like he's more interested to reversing or increasing the public support for the bailout. If that's the case, it's a smart move.

I think so, too. It's what President Bush should be doing and is not, probably because he doesn't have the understanding himself to do that. I was saying on another board just in the last day or two that I wish that someone involved with crafting this plan would come forward and explain to the American people just why this massive injection of cash is necessary and why they are taking the approach that they are; that is, explain what this solution is intended to do to change things. I realize that they have been working intensively at negotiation, but if they want broader support from the House, they need to get the people those Congressmen represent on board.

Right now some in Congress are saying that their mail is running 10-1 against any bailout, and it's a little hard to expect those guys to commit political suicide by voting for a plan their constituents are so dead-set against. People need to understand just what is at stake, and then even though they may still not be happy with it, they will possibly be less adamant about rejecting the only viable plan that has thus far been advanced to deal with it.

I really like the way Obama has approached this. He has been supportive of his party's efforts to craft legislation, he early on put out a clear list of basic principles that any legislative fix should meet, but he has not tried to hot dog the issue the way John McCain did. And now, he is addressing both Republicans AND Democrats to urge them to come together to craft a plan. This is a welcome contrast to McCain's blasts at Democrats and also to Pelosi's sharp criticism of the Bush Administration, which while factual was not helpful in the context of trying to forge a coalition to support the legislation on the floor.

David Brooks opened his column today by saying:

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis. He understood that his first job was to restore confidence, to give people a sense that somebody was in charge, that something was going to be done.

He went on to lament that the current generation had thus far failed to do that, to project the sense that anyone was governing.

I think Obama just stepped forward to fill that void. Bravo.

user-pic

Bravo!

How about a plan that's no cost and can happen overnight?

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/Why_Paulson_is_wrong.pdf

Free the debt!!

Please forward this to your federal legislators.

I think he knows that a bill will be passed this week. Also I think Gingrich, who reportedly pulled the strings yesterday, wants McCain to lose, meaning he might play ball here as well.

Unless Obama knows things that we don't I agree he should have stayed on the side lines, or he risks the same embarrassment that McCain suffered.

I mean what if next vote more GOP bail on the bailout after Obama has stepped up his profile in this matter? That will be seen as a shot at his claims of bipartisanship. I believe he could certainly deliver the Dem votes if necessary, however the plan was to ensure it was a bipartisan vote - Dems went in knowing how many yea and nay votes they had, and purposefully arranged it as such.

user-pic

Except that once the bailout bill failed, there were tangible results, guys - the market dropped like a rock.

That changes this in my opinion. It makes it harder, IMO, for Congress to do nothing.

And I am worried enough, though I don't trust Bush or believe him, the economists are all pretty much agreeing - something has to be done.

So it's not going to be pretty no matter what - but this is serious enough that maybe most people will get it.

user-pic
Except that once the bailout bill failed, there were tangible results, guys - the market dropped like a rock.

And when Congress did nothing today, it went back up.

Hey, maybe it's reacting to BigO being up in the polls???

user-pic

I think you're right about Gingrich. McCain/Palin would be disastrous for the country but more importantly (for Gingrich) they would grind the already shaky Republican brand into the dirt. Better to lose an election one cycle than lose all elections for a generation.

user-pic

As I see it they will need to tweak the plan. If I were Obama, I would tell the House Republicans that they can't have everything they want but they should narrow their demands down to something that can be worked into the current bill. I would tell them that if they are not willing to do that, the bill will be tweaked to satisfy the remaining House Democrats instead and passed without them.

I would tell them that if they are not willing to do that, the bill will be tweaked to satisfy the remaining House Democrats instead and passed without them.

That seems like a possibly good approach at this point. "We can tweak it to the right or to the left. Which do you prefer?" If public sentiment continues to move toward favoring the passage of a bailout/rescue plan, that might get some traction.

user-pic

And they would run to the nearest TV cameras, crying like children, saying 'Mean old GMFORD is trying to pass a bailout that you don't like on a party-line basis. He's giving ultimatums rather than negotiating in good faith. Pelosi-Obama-Reid want to take your money and give it all away to Wall Street Fatcats...' And the media, knowing that the bailout remains deeply unpopular, would take this opportunity to swing the narrative back the other way...

user-pic

I think Obama's speech was great! I watched it live. It gave the speech better than he has for a long time. No stuttering and Obama was very funny.

I think Obama's proposal of increasing FDIC to $250,000 was great.

In terms of risky, Obama isn't flying to Washington DC or "suspending" his campaign. He is just talking about the ramifications of not doing something.

Exactly. He wants to do something, but it doesn't want to make a big deal of it, like McCain did. He will continue his campaign, but probably do some phone calls and/or internet video conferences to proceed. He said to CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a recent interview that he prefers to work behind the spotlight, so I won't be surprised if he acts in this manner.

Look, Obama said a lot of very good things in that speech. Things I agree with.

What he didn't do is address the concerns members who voted it down yesterday. He offered nothing new except platitudes, promises and wishful thinking.

His single proposal of raising the insurance to 250K is really irrelevant at this point to the larger problem. Most sensible people have their money spread around in 100K accounts if they have that much.

Obama talks and talks and talks. And he really says nothing that isn't already on the table. He just pontificates and never persuades.

And what "concerns" do the House Repubs actually have? So far, all I've heard is that Pelosi hurt their feelings and that they want tax cuts, less regulation, and a two year suspension of capital gains taxes.

I hate this bill quite frankly....but from everything I'm reading, we're holding on by the tips of our fingernails right now. So, one of two things is going on: either the plan was to let the Dems be responsible for passing the bailout so the Repubs could turn around and use it against them politically...or, the Repubs are holding our economic well-being hostage until they get even more of what caused this melt-down in the first place. Neither one indicates that they really give a crap about this country.

Do you realize what the 250K FDIC proposal would allow banks to do?

1. The could assume more equity due to a higher yield on federally secured money. Real money from depositors.
2. It will allow those people you are referring to to consolidate into few accounts, thus few more robust banks.
3. etc.

This is something tangible to the discussion over the bailout.

Note, I don't like it but something has to be done.

I like the idea of debt-to-equity scheme that was implemented during the Great Depression to force creditors and debtors to agree on lowering the about of debt and converting it into equity into the effected company.

Fogu2... it helps if you are critical and constructive. Allowing yourself to do that would actually allow you to think before you post.

McCain was claiming the FDIC plan as his this morning...

Boehner just tried to slap FDIC 250k as BOTH candidate's ideas.

bullshit.

user-pic

Seems to me that the Obama campaign is always letting things simmer. Letting people think things through. Coming out with suggestions at the point where they will not be propaganda but sensible solutions that are on the tips of people's tongues or swimming around in their minds.

I find their timing to be pitch perfect. Whether in speeches or ads. Ok, every once in while, even expert musicians miss a note. But wow, what a track record they are amassing here.

user-pic

I agree with you Thera. He doesn't jump into anything and that's a very good thing IMO.

He waits and lets things develop and I assume he develops right along with them. It looks that way to me, anyway.

user-pic

We're seeing how he's going to govern.

I'm loving it!

user-pic

I think Obama's speech was great! I watched it live. It gave the speech better than he has for a long time. No stuttering and Obama was very funny.

I think Obama's proposal of increasing FDIC to $250,000 was great.

In terms of risky, Obama isn't flying to Washington DC or "suspending" his campaign. He is just talking about the ramifications of not doing something.

user-pic

Obama is also very likely to be the one who has to deal with the consequences of this, so he's much more motivated to get something that works. Contrast with McCain, who's willing to engage in high-stakes gambling with the economy to try to take the credit that might turn the race around.

In that vein, I hope that makes it more likely they'll now put together a better plan that can pass without wingnut support, rather than just tinkering around the edges of the outrageous Paulson proposal.

Oh, and again, hats off to Bill Clinton for once again giving McCain an ad insinuating the Democrats are to blame for this mess. I wish he would STFU, as I repeat every day it seems.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/mccain-ad-uses-president_n_130559.html

user-pic
Unless Obama knows things that we don't I agree he should have stayed on the side lines, or he risks the same embarrassment that McCain suffered.

I think it's a given that he knows more than we do.

But I seriously doubt he'll make the same mistakes as McCain - you won't catch him framing the debate as his action being the only thing that will bring about a resolution. He's way too smart for that (and it's also not his style to start with), and he's already seen how it worked out for McCain.

He'll probably keep doing what he has been doing - talking with all parties concerned and trying to move everyone towards a solution. He'll just be a bit less low-key about it now.

I mean what if next vote more GOP bail on the bailout after Obama has stepped up his profile in this matter? That will be seen as a shot at his claims of bipartisanship. I believe he could certainly deliver the Dem votes if necessary, however the plan was to ensure it was a bipartisan vote - Dems went in knowing how many yea and nay votes they had, and purposefully arranged it as such.

GOP votes are not his concern, and he has no control over them to start with. I think if he delivers more Dem votes, that alone will show his efforts as an improvement over the McCain debacle.

If more GOP House members bail, that is - and will be - their problem, not Obama's. They're already taking a hit for their actions yesterday.

If they get the Repubs who voted yes, plus 12 more Dems than they pass the bill. At this point I think most Americans still hate the bill but understand that it needs to be passed. Let the image of the House GOP be Cantor holding up Pelosi's floor speech and saying this is why they did not act.

user-pic

Yep. And if he delivers the Dem votes and it fails again, that gives an opening for surrogates to say 'Obama delivered his votes - why can't McCain do the same?'

user-pic

Co-sign, with bells on.

user-pic

that was for stranger.


user-pic

Thank you, ma'am. :)

I think O is dealing it very well. This issue can win or loose this election. Highly sensitive. I don't think no one running for office will support any bill without the public support.

The key here is to let people know why it's a bad idea not to support the bill. No one knows the depth of these waters, otherwise.

user-pic

I would not be so convinced that something had to be done if banks hadn't continued to bounce. One more goes under and I don't know if B of A can stay afloat.

I'm not kidding - this is really a serious situation and I'm not comfortable with just letting the market handle it.

They have to act. Credit is so tied up it is impossible to have any kind of situation but total fall out. No capital equals job loss, benefit cuts, frozen pay, and 401k balances that are sure to make people resort to rash acts of self destruction. The blame factor, actually, will have to be addressed at another time, although, Bill Clinton had a big hand in this, as much as he wants to pretend otherwise.

user-pic

O Yes he did.

Goddamn Bill - he is the one who helped gut the Glass Stiegal Act that kept this shit from happening.

All that global economy shit is what they used to say the old systems won't work anymore so let's get rid of them.

And here we are.

user-pic

can someone explain the idea of expanding FDIC to 250k? most folks don't even have the 100,000 in the bank that it guarantees. It doesn't seem like a solution thats going to help solve the crisis or even help out regular folks who are just struggling to pay the rent.

There is not enough money for the FDIC to cover all losses if there is a run on the banks, which actually was happening yesterday in B.C. due to huge numbers withdrawing their funds. It is just a measure to calm the masses not to panic to the point of collapsing any current banking institutions.

user-pic

I am scared shitless there will be a bank panic here. If there is, o fuck all of us.

We're fucked.


There already is on a smaller scale. How do you think WaMu got put out of business?

user-pic

I know.
I'm just talking full-on panic with lines out the doors all over the country with everyone taking their money out. That's all we need.

O god-

Dont panic!! Im sure our current, outstanding administration will take care of it promptly....

Obama is saying it's for small businesses more than families.

Small businesses could easily have that much. Businesses employ people and pay salaries, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's a great idea.

user-pic

i didnt realize fdic insured businesses as well. thought it was only individual personal accounts.

user-pic

And, in fact, an individual can shelter more than $100,000 in insured funds by spreading out deposits over different types of ownership. For example (as I understand how it works, and the rules have changed somwehat since I was instructed in this), a married couple could each shelter $100,000 in individual accounts; then another $100,000 each in a joint account; and another $100,000 each in a trust account, for a total of $600,000.

Small businesses would have less flexibility in the way the account was titled, I should think.

With a higher FDIC level, the greater the likelihood that people will put more of their savings into banks. And with increased deposits, banks can then make more loans to businesses. This allows businesses to continue operating and also means solvency for the banks which make their money from the fees and interest on those loans.

user-pic

thnks for that explaination.

user-pic

Plus, since banks pay into the FDIC, if you raise the limit, then I'm assuming all banks will be assessed a greater fee.

Absolutely right.

Raising the limit to 250K is aimed more at small businesses than individuals. For example, my condo association has a reserve account greater than 100k and we need to spread it around to several different banks to remain below the FDIC limit.

Small businesses often have accounts, like their payroll account, that goes above the 100k. Raising the limit would help them. But, it's not clear the government can cover that amount.

Obama is right here. Perhaps the money needs to be scaled back to pass. $200 billion, and revisit in January.

But something needs to be done. Or do we want to join the GOP nutcases who want to play russian roullette with our economy? Sure, maybe the people warning of a Great Depression type collapse are wrong? But do you really want to gamble with something like that?

user-pic

Hang on - the bill that failed called for the 700B as a total but I thought they had it worked out where up front and right now they were talking 250k. More to follow when needed.

Correct.

It was really $350 b up front ($100 b "at their discretion"). Still a lot of money.

Secondly, committing to a vote on the second half quashes any momentum for a new deal on this. IT would just turn into up or down vote on an admittedly flawed bill. Why not rethink and brainstorm until January?

user-pic

Because we do not have that luxury - my god, people in business rely on credit to pay their bills and their payrolls because it's always that way - you speculate on your future income - that's all you can do. No one has that cash on hand in a business - it's tied up.

My god - January is a lifetime and every bank in the country could go under by then. Don't you understand? We're paralyzed right now.

He is obviously trying to drum up public support, seeing that public resistance to the bailout plan is the biggest hurdle.

This is true leadership in display, precisely because there is still so much public resistance. However, I don't think he can argue that he is the best hope for America if he doesn't step up to the plate himself.

It takes a lot of courage. What he is doing may backfire. But cowardice is obviously not an option now that the country is in deep crisis.

There was a great NYT piece Sunday titled, On Bailout, Candidates Were Surely Themselves arguing that the past week has been so in-character for the two candidates that it is a good example of how they would lead.
The first paragraph:

It was classic John McCain and classic Barack Obama who grappled with the $700 billion bailout plan over the last week: Mr. McCain was by turns action-oriented and impulsive as he dive-bombed targets, while Mr. Obama was measured and cerebral and inclined to work the phones behind the scenes.

It's a more balanced piece than I would write, criticizing Obama because he "risked seeming too cool and slow to exert leadership," but it does point out that McCain didn't actually do anything useful; he just ran around acting like he was doing something useful.

They don't mention this aspect of Obama's style in the article, but I do think the above speech shows again one of Obama's greatest strengths as (potential) President: his ability to inspire, explain, convice and lead with those "just words" of his. It's not strong-arming behind the scenes or political horsetrading; it's not showmanship or stunts or playing hardball; it's his ability to reach out to the populace and create a mandate--the very essence of community organizing.

A new WPA and CCC could provide jobs for 6 million people and shore up our nation infrastructure/national security at the cost of $200 billion. Forgive the debt and exchange for equity. Total cost $200 billion-- all for jobs for the middle class and infrastructure and the financial system gets bailed out at the same time. 'Swhat I'd do.

user-pic

I totally agree.

I think though, Obama has to get in office before we can start talking about things like another WPA or CCC.

But I totally agree and have thought the same thing for days.

I agree on how we will have to wait, damn, I'd love it if we could force Bush to sign off on something functional and progressive like that, though.

user-pic

I think Bush would do anything anyone told him to right now.

Have you looked at him in his public statements on this? He's fucking terrified.

"deer in the headlights" comes to mind.

I'd love to hear him propose that in the next debate.

Can you say President McCain.

He is suggesting those types of inititives. Its just now there is a DOT that can manifest those projects instead of creating an extravigate program.

Many of the programs that FDR implemented can be realized to day in existing federal departments. Since they were not in play in the days of FDR to the capacity they are now, all Obama has to do is infuse them with funds and support/promote them politically.

Obama is simply behaving like an adult; he recognizes that the crisis is more important than political games right now. It's just that we're not used to seeing that from politicians. I could certainly learn to live with that attitude for the next 8 years.

Agreed. It's pretty upsetting that Obama seems like an odd politician just because he has a level head..

And once again McCain is taking the lead with actual, relevant proposals that can be accomplished without the obstuctionists.

Meanwhile, Obama has a 1000 word speech that offers nothing but "hope" and FDIC insurance for wealthy but stupid depositors.

McCain urges Treasury Department to take action

John McCain is urging the Treasury Department to intervene aggressively to limit damage from the financial meltdown, action that McCain says President Bush can take with the stroke of a pen.

McCain said he has urged the Treasury to use its exchange stabilization fund "as creatively as possible" to backstop the market crisis. He says officials also should use the authority granted in a housing bill to purchase up to a trillion dollars in mortgages.

McCain decried the defeat of the financial bailout measure in the House, and he warned that the nation's political leaders will have to take risks even though solutions to the crisis may be unpopular.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Another GOP thumbsucking crybaby.

Waaaaaaaaaah.

Just because he's tossing out ideas doesn't mean they are good ones. Quite the contrary. Purchase a trillion dollars in mortgages. WTF?!?

That's exactly what the bailout plan does.

This just sidesteps the obstructionist house members.

It's brilliant.

So anyone who relies on FDIC insurance is "stupid"?

And didn't you also claim that McCain "suspending" his campaign was some brilliant move?

But the current bailout plan has protections for the taxpayers if the loans go bad; buying the mortgages outright does not.

Senator McCain is basically supporting the original bill - no oversight, no taxpayer protection, unilateral Treasury decisions. I don't think that's in the best interests of the taxpayers, and as usual, Senator McCain is shooting from the hip.

Do you realize what the 250K FDIC proposal would allow banks to do?

1. The could assume more equity due to a higher yield on federally secured money. Real money from depositors.
2. It will allow those people you are referring to to consolidate into few accounts, thus few more robust banks.
3. etc.

This is something tangible to the discussion over the bailout.

Note, I don't like it but something has to be done.

I like the idea of debt-to-equity scheme that was implemented during the Great Depression to force creditors and debtors to agree on lowering the about of debt and converting it into equity into the effected company.

Fogu2... it helps if you are critical and constructive. Allowing yourself to do that would actually allow you to think before you post.

user-pic

By the way, can we shoot Bill Clinton? The latest McCain ad has him slamming the Democrats for stopping the him and the Republicans from regulating Freddie and Fannie.

It is obvious seeing Clinton that he is doing his best to undermine Obama. I know he is sore for being labelled a racist but the man owes the Democratic rank and file alot. We put up with alot of humiliation because of him. We rallied behind him and helped him stay in office.

It is going to take a long time before I can get over my anger at Clinton (Bill - I'm already over it with Hillary who has done her part symbolically for obama).

Bill Clinton has the luxury of being honest, and right.

user-pic
By the way, can we shoot Bill Clinton

works for me.

Now we're both going to get into trouble. LOL

What I hope reporters look into, is where and when that video was taken. I don't remember any previous news reports about Bill blaming the Dems for the Wall Street debacle.

user-pic

Fogu - your posts would be more credible with out the racist avatar.

But then I'd lose my fan base!
Amazing how people react to silly stuff. Sheesh.
Alright already, I'll make something new ASAP.

But then I'd lose my fan base!
Amazing how people react to silly stuff. Sheesh.
Alright already, I'll make something new ASAP.

user-pic

No, they'd still be just as stupid.

That's like asking a fish to ditch the gills.

A racist GOP troll = racist GOP troll

But then I'd lose my fan base!
Amazing how people react to silly stuff. Sheesh.
Alright already, I'll make something new ASAP.

user-pic

If Obama hopes to sway the public on this, he's going to have to stop painting it as a struggle between Wall Street and Main Street. Because that's not what it is. And voters are rightfully angry about bailing out Wall Street--that would be ludicrous. But this isn't about bailing out Wall Street. It's about bailing out banks. Sources of credit that we all rely on from time to time. And that's what everyone needs to start talking about. This Wall Street/Main Street garbage may sound good as a slogan, but as a principle, it's pure bunk. Obama needs to quit it and get real about what this bailout is really intended to do.

user-pic

I agree.

But I doubt that will happen - even his surrogates last night were emphasizing that Main Street meme.

user-pic

That's how people understand it. So you need to use language that fits into their frame of reference. In trying to change people, you need to go in increments and bring them along. I think the Obama campaign has been superb in that regard.

I'm looking at this as if Obama were a therapist, trying to heal the country. You can't go too far out ahead of where people are thinking. And you need to first talk to them where they are, then gradually extend their way of conceiving things, and then lead a little further. It's a process. And these folks are doing a brilliant job of this.

Change is my business. And these folks are pros!!!

He is looking ahead. If this financial meltdown is not stopped now, then, if he becomes the next president, he would inherit such a disaster that it would make it impossible for him to do anything, but spend four years trying to mop up the mess.

Unless a solution is put in place soon, the presidency will not be worth winning. He knows that, so why not step to the plate.

Senator Obama is behaving as a calm rational leader, some one has too, since McCain is clearly undependable, a silly willy nilly maverick, if yuo will, and Bush and his congressional cohorts are all completely useless.

user-pic

liam - I think you are right the hell on.

I totally agree with you - he's looking at what he's going to face and it's not going to be good.

If Congress doesn't do something - I don't know, but I'm not ready to spend my remaining years in bread lines.

user-pic

Well said.

Plus, he's making it clear that this is just the beginning. That there's more to come. That's like the "teaser." Like Obama saying, do this for me now. And we'll do more together later.

i am not particularly thrilled about this bill and my gut tells me that no dem with a sane mind would be....with that being said, i wish obama would stay as far away from this trainwreck as possible...mccain owns it, let him rise and fall with it...dems opted for bipartisan support of this very unpopular bill and repubs crushed it....

i think it is a mistake for obama to inject himself any further in this mess....the bill is not popular with main street.....unless the dems are going to modify this bill in such a way that totally alleviates main street's concerns, i think they should gladly allow mccain to own HIS bill...

Politically, you are right. But our nation is going down the tubes, folks! We have no leadership from anyone. Congress took a holiday to let a rudderless market flail about. Bush has no standing with anyone. McCain is an ass clown.

We certainly do need some leadership to tell the American people what to do and why to do it. Obama doesn't need to make any Superman like stunts (ala McCain) or suspend his campaign. But speaking out on this, and especially pushing for some real solutions -- now and for next year -- coudl provide some confidence and help relieve the panic.

user-pic

Absolutely. If the boat you are in is filling with water, it makes no sense to say that you are not going to lift a finger to help bail it out because it's not your fault there is a problem, or because you are afraid you will be blamed if it sinks.

From everything I can tell as a decided non-expert on these matters, the bailout bill is seriously flawed, but better than it was and probably better than doing nothing. For me, the ideal scenario would be for Dems to craft the right proposal, focusing on helping people facing foreclosure, the bottom up way to make the banks' shitpiles stink less, and on providing needed infusions of cash through equity so the government can profit it and when the economy returns. But the prospect of this actually happening now and getting signed by Bush is probably slim at best, and for Congress to do nothing until January or February would probably be disastrous. Maybe the best scenario would be to pass something temporary -- like six months in duration -- and let President Obama and his treasury secretary (Barney Frank, anyone?) craft the long-term solution.

Still, faced with a host of bad options, Obama is probably doing the right thing substantively. Politically, it may be risky, but calm, strong leadership means picking your spots for when it's time to go out on a limb. This may well be one of them, so long as he doesn't do it in a McShame-like, drama-queen way.

user-pic

i thought FDIC only insured personal money and accounts and not businesses. now that i know otherwise, perhaps its a smart thing to do insofar as it will calm folks down. Assuming of course, that tomorrow doesn't give us another reason to panic.

user-pic

I think raising the limit on the FDIC is brilliant. That could keep a bank panic from happening and that's one thing that would be totally fatal.

The entire globe would crash, just about.

Lots of people have more than $100K in their banks.

Yeah. Mostly childless lawyers with two houses and no mortgage.

That's a moronic statement. Why would childless lawyers be the ones w/100,000 in the bank and 2 houses? Oh, yeah, I guess people who CHOOSE TO BE CHILDFREE are selfish and materialistic, right? You are a simpleton with little in the way of critical thinking skills. I am part of a CHILDFREE (not childless!) family, and we are NOT materialistic, nor do we have two homes or 100K in the bank, and between the two of us, we have pretty healthy salaries. Your stereotypes are hilarious! Oh, and why lawyers? Are MOST childfree people lawyers? You are clueless.

Totally agree with das2003:
"I think he waited until the GOP got tarnished with the failure and is now slowly wading into the leadership vacuum. Note that he had a dig at Bush for poorly explaining the crisis. --- He can't do nothing because at a certain point the press will start focusing on that."

Also, I don't think he would venture out to any degree without having some good, solid inside knowledge that he will get support for what he proposes (if it becomes as specific as a proposal). The man is a pragmatist, remember?

As I'm piecing it together - the 'chips' in play are 1) FDIC increase (with which McCain agrees), 2) suspending capital gains tax (which the Reps. want), and 3) changing bankruptcy laws to allow bankruptcy judges to re-negotiate mortgages (which the Dems, esp Black Cong Caucus, wants). Anything else?

Personally, I'd like to see some more direct-to-people efforts (SBA loans, WPA and CCC type efforts, pay off and renegotiate mortgages) - let the bail-out be from the 'bottom up'. The banks can get their $$ from the people!

user-pic

suspending capital gains tax

Is anybody going to end up this year with net capital gains to report??

I think Obama is on the right track here. Calming people down, providing calm leadership, and explaining the best course of action.

If more americans knew the issues and what is at stake, people would be willing to support a fix (and punish the GOP kamikazes who voted against this)

user-pic

Totally. He's engaged in more than financial stuff. He's surrounding it all with a sense of calm. Of purpose. Of working together. Step by step.

His calm, purposeful approach will go a long way toward calming the markets and getting this bill passed. (by without any grandstanding whatsoever)

God, I love this guy!

user-pic
but better than it was and probably better than doing nothing.

That's basically what I've been hearing from those "experts" out there - like Krugman. That's just what he said -it was a viable option. And better than nothing.

If billionaire parents pissed away their entire fortunes, should we then punish them by refusing to give them food stamps, and thereby let their innocent babies starve.

Do you get my meaning folks. Think about it.

Well -- I think he has played it pretty well until now, and I think its appropriate for him to step in and help if he can. While I expect him to weight the politics, its really leadership we are all looking for now. Bush and McCain have tried and failed, so if he wants to make the case that he is ready to lead the nation, lets see what he can do. And that does not necessarily mean he has to go stomping around the Capital and make a spectacle of himself. Sometimes leadership is knowing how to work behind the scenes (and claim credit at the appropriate time). I have confidence that this is his moment.

user-pic

What a beautifully sane comment.

See, I think this thing is much bigger than politics and I also think it has looked really bad for the Repugs for playing politics with this yesterday and trying to blame the failure to pass on Pelosi's speech, which is a bunch of nonsense. And I guess some Repugs got that, cause some are backpedalling on that idiotic whine about her speech.

I think at some point (maybe right around now?), folks in Washington are going to start assuming that Obama will be the next president, and will begin working with him with that assumption. Maybe they are not going to come out and say it, and maybe they will continue with partisan messaging to support their party, but perhaps if they really want to get things done and lay some foundation for the next few years, they will start seeing Obama as someone they have to have a real relationship with.

user-pic

I think you're right.

And I also think that if I don't get up and get out of here I won't.

Later =

Well, the Chambers of Commerce, and all major business associations, have got to be filing for divorces from the Republicans, after the way they shafted them yesterday.

Watch for the business community to start going steady with Obama.

I'm also totally in agreement and I loved Barack's speech today. The plan failed for reasons I think are valid (too much requested up front at $250 B, oversight by those who caused it - especially Paulson and Cox), not enough protection for the middle class.

The Senate is planning to get together on Wednesday to work on the proposal. So, Barack's timing on the speech and the beauty of the speech work well in setting the stage for the next act, which is what type of Senate plan will come forth.

Barack's speech today proposed an "independent board" for oversight - Perfect. Paulson and Cox have already proven their incompetency, the Secretary of Housing (Preston) gave $2300 to mccain in the primary. This was the oversight proposed in the failed House bill. They should have been disqualified from providing any oversight. And I feel better about the FDIC limit being raised the $250K. That was a great idea. He also explained everything very well for those who are having high anxiety and fear about this crisis.

Why was this a crisis anyway - The Federal Reserve just released $630 Billion - That allows more time for careful discussion and development of a more rational plan.

Here's the link to the NY Times report on the Senate's schedule
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/01bailout.html?hp

user-pic

You know, this might be just to do what the Republicans have been very successful at for many years - in response to the crisis, push your agenda. Take a little more time to craft a more comprehensive bill that includes not only a short-term patch, but the long-term reforms that Obama's already been promoting. Obviously a "bipartisan" (aka milquetoast) bill isn't going to work. So craft a partisan one, and get all the House Dems in line to push it through. That and the handful of Republicans who would probably vote for anything right now could see it through. If they vote against it, or if Bush vetos it, that's their problem. But likely it would draw a lot of public support.

Quit compromising. A lot of undecideds are probably wondering, "if your plans are so good, then why aren't you seeking to implement them when they're most needed?"

Check out how fast the government of Ireland has moved to prevent a banking crisis, and how it obtained an immediate payoff.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/irelands-government-just-place.php

Imho, Obama took on the mantle of leadership when he *explained* what's going on and how important it is. And he did it deftly: he didn't talk down to us and he didn't talk over our heads; he empathized with our outrage and asked for our support of the rescue plan. Moreover, he appealed to all the players to put country first.

I'd say we are no longer leaderless.

user-pic

Amen.

While this is risky, it's the right thing to do, and as Admiral Moose says, he did it with grace and aplomb. No overheated rhetoric or finger pointing. Cool, calm and reassuring.

A leader, most definitely.

user-pic

Amen.

user-pic

I want the bankers to take their medicine but don't want the stock market to tank - too many good people have too much at stake

As for the bailout politics, I wish Pelosi and Reid (god they are worthless) would tell Obama and McCain to stay out of it, and the corollary to that would be that the final bailout plan be passed by huge majorities

Reid told McCain to stay out of it last week - Look what happened

I'm totally blown away by the people who think Obama should sit this out. This is the time to show real leadership and to differentiate himself from McCain's wild flounderings

The whole country is glued to watching the financial crisis, even if few of us have much idea how to get out of it.

Look, the current bailout plan is pretty unpopular on this board but it has wide bipartisan support in Washington. Both the D's and R's in the Senate are on board, as are 2/3 of the D's in the House, the Federal Reserve, and the Bush administration. The only serious holdouts are the wingnuts in the House and their hack libertarian economists. Which side here needs to show greater bipartisanship?

user-pic

Maybe you could get Obama to take you to his leaders.

Er, I meant phone them.

I was at this speech this morning. Obama has a great presence and the crowd was abuzz.

I strongly believe that there has to be a better solution than a bailout. There are strong regional banks that could accrue more responsibility and take over the business lending for the time being.

The market needs to heal itself. In order for banks to simply make money, they need to lend money. Perhaps the large banks are reluctant to at this point, but smaller banks which conduct their business in a more efficient and stable manner should be able to fill the void.

Assuming financial stability and growth is a mistake. In the long term, yes it is a very solid bet, but in the same vein, we can't allow the government to be seen as the safety net for every failing business. If a business fails, it has either lost its market, or is not run in such a manner to allow it to continue existing.

If there is one thing that Barack Obama brings to the table it is that he instills confidence in Americans. Near the end of his speech this morning he quoted Franklin Roosevelt:

"..there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people themselves. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. Let us unite in banishing fear. Together, we cannot fail."

This really captures my sentiments. Americans do not want to bail out failed economic structures. It provides the precedent and therefore future expectation that poor business and lending practices leading to failure will result in a government safety net. I fail to see how allowing these entities to continue salvages any sliver of confidence in the market. If they fail on the other hand, and other more efficient entities are given greater responsibility, my confidence would soar.

Anywho, this turned into a rant. Obama gave a great speech this morning and really has the presence to change the course of America by and through the confidence of Americans.

Obama is correct in taking his current position to work behind the scenes on the deal, but not to inject Presidential politics into the process. That's where McCain went wrong last week when he "suspended" his campaign. A steady hand and calm mind is invaluable at this point.

Instead the Democrats must play up the Republican gimmick that they defeated the financial bailout bill because Nancy Pelosi "hurt their feelings" speaking bad about G.W. Bush. That was pathetic!

CHECK OUT THE STORY AND VIDEO HERE:
http://okwassup.blogspot.com/2008/09/crash-bang-boom.html

"I like the idea of debt-to-equity scheme that was implemented during the Great Depression to force creditors and debtors to agree on lowering the about of debt and converting it into equity into the effected company."

Now that's a plan. McCain's is a worse bailout than Bush's would've been.

user-pic

About fucking time. I wrote a post demanding leadership last week and received a lot of shit for it.

user-pic

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how far the Obama worship can go on this board. He made a speech today, and you people think it's going to make a whit of difference? The reason nobody's looking to either McCain or Obama for "leadership" on this is because they know neither guy has anything to do with crafting the bill. Obama is the leader of the party pro tem. John Kerry was the "leader" of the Dems, too, until sometime around Novemeber 3, 2004. Once Obama wins ( which I'm confident he will) then the equation will change somewhat. But Congressmen don't swoon quite as easily as most of you do. Do you really think Pelosi's going to step back and let a Senator work on her membership, even if he is the candidate? The horse trading and arm twisting that goes on in the House has very little to do with Presidential politics.

A lot of the reason so many Congresspersons got behind Obama in the primaries is because they knew the Congress would have increased power in his administration. Kennedy knew that a Clinton Presidency would always have Bill as the Big Dog. When Kennedy made the most significant move of the primaries to swing things Obama's way, do you think it ever crossed his mind that he would be the Big Dog in an Obama administration?

None of this is to disparage either Obama or Kennedy. It's called politics. But just because you people are all dewy eyed over Obama, don't kid yourselves into thinking that Pelosi and Reid are waiting around for Obama to "lead" them.

As for Bill being in the McCain ad, you guys just can't let go of your hate and conspiracy theories, can you? McCain takes an Obama quote out of context in an ad, and it's further proof that McCain is slimy. McCain takes Bill out of context in an ad, and it's "proof" that Bill has a hidden agenda. You may think it would be helpful for Bill to go on TV and claim the Dems have never done anything wrong, but he's smart enough to know that doesn't help his credibility.

You're all so critical of Bill for not doing more for Obama. When am I going to hear your criticisms of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore? Have you heard a peep out of either of them? The fact is, most of you think the Clinton's have to somehow do penance for the unpardonable sin of campaigning against Obama. They had the nerve to not treat him like the nominee from the beginning, and you'll never forgive them for it.

user-pic

What a great lecture. Thank you, sir.

Eexcellent post ChrisO. I concur. However the more swooning the better right now. McCain-Palin is more than a little disturbing.

oh yeah...TROLL!

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address