Noooo!

That was the Repub plan all along. Start as many wars as possible, steal as much as possible, kill the economy so the government “has” to bail them out, then hand the entire mess to the Dems so they can blame them for the problems created by the Repubs and so the Dems won’t have the funds to do their social programs. It’s amazing how much the Repubs hate anyone that isn’t wealthy!

Just like the cut in Medicare payments they tried to put in. I had a big discussion with a doctor that is a Repub about it. He was all “The Dems are responsible, the government is responsible” and I had to point out that it was passed by the Repub Congress back in the 90’s. It was nice that the Dems stopped it, for sure. He shut up on that issue after that, especially when I just HAD to say “You have the Dems to thank for you getting your payments now, NOT the Repubs.”

As John Edwards pointed out they don’t want to give up all their wealth and power we’re going to have to take it from them.

I am so scared that Congress is gonna cave on this. If the Dems do,the GOP is gonna go apeshit attacking them. And there goes this election,all down the ticket.

Not to mention that the numbers don’t add up,where in the HELL is this money supposed to go to “save” us?

Claw back.

It’s in Dodd’s proposal.

There’s this petition to sign on Senator Sander’s site:

http://sanders.senate.gov/peti…..l_Crisis_1

Financial Crisis

Dear Secretary Paulson:

As a representative of the Bush Administration, you have proposed a financial bailout program of $700 billion – over $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. We are appalled that your proposal puts the cost of this bailout on average Americans; that it contains no provisions reversing failed deregulatory policies; that it allows executives at these failed institutions to continue to make exorbitant salaries and bonuses, and that your proposal contains no help for average Americans who themselves are facing severe economic hardships.

While the Administration has quickly rallied to help Wall Street, it has ignored the needs of the declining middle class. Since President Bush has been in office the wealthiest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top one-tenth of one percent now earn more income than the bottom 50 percent of Americans and the top one percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Incredibly, the richest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion during the Bush presidency.

Having mismanaged the economy for 8 years while continually insisting that, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” the Bush Administration, six weeks before an election, wants the middle class of this country to bail out Wall Street to the tune of one trillion dollars. Meanwhile the wealthiest people, those who have benefited most from Bush’s policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd.

Any plan to clean up the mess on Wall Street must:

1. Ensure that middle income and working families are not the ones who are paying for this bailout by
* Imposing a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue over five years;
* Ensuring that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and
* Requiring that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the taxpayers’ assumption of risk is rewarded when companies’ stock goes up.

Taken together these three provisions will substantially reduce the likelihood that this bailout will end up on the backs of average American taxpayers.

2. Include a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect our must vulnerable families from the very difficult times they are experiencing.

3. Repeal the disastrous de-regulatory legislation that facilitated this crisis.

4. End the danger posed by companies that are “too big too fail,” that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up.
In closing, we believe it is appropriate to act quickly to address any systemic danger to our economy. But that does not mean that we need to give a blank check to the financial sector.

Sincerely,

Senator Bernie Sanders

Citizen Co-Signers

I posted this a couple of threads back.

Jed’s got today’s Obama statement posted about the Wall Street Welfare Initiative and his version to protect taxpayer and homeowners.
reply

Close the Corporate Tax loopholes, considering over half paid no taxes, raise the SSA payroll tax cap to $1 Mil., raise the dividends tax, and, for gawd’s sake, get out of Iraq… Then we can pay for universal healthcare, invest in our infrastructure, et al…!

Absolutely unacceptable. If it is between universal healthcare and renewable energy or poor Wall Street financiers getting to buy yet another mansion then I gotta go with universal healthcare and renewable energy.

F*CK the rich on this. No way, now how, NO BAILOUT.

Oh, and Paulson needs to be shitcanned. Conflict of interest and corrupt, through and through.

Thanks scarecrow!

digg

Oh Barack, don’t be scared to think like a real progresssive:

* Progressive taxation on earned income from minimal to say, 50% on income above $1,000,000.
* Capital gains taxed, but a rate below earned income.
* Incentives for individual savings in insured financial vehicles.
* Immediate reduction of Federal spending on Defense.
* Immediate increase in Federal spending on infrastructure, including social infrastructure (education and health care).
* Development of a regulatory framework for financial institutions to ensure that reasonable and prudent risk is rewarded fairly — but that speculative risk can and should fail

The bottom line is that the Federal Government should not accept the risk inherent in the bad paper that Wall Street flooded the market with. If — and it’s a huge if — there is an immediate move towards a rational and responsible governance of both Federal revenue, expenditures, and the financial markets, we’ll make it through this. But this really is not business as usual.

It doesn’t have to be the end of the world as we know it. It does mean the party is over, and we need to clean the place up, sober up the lushes, and get on with it.

All this discussion is just another business negotiation between Wall Streeet and their next mark. Paulson is the sales rep. Sign here!

Bullseye.

I especially support what you said about Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are the low hanging fruit wrt saving the taxpayers.

This is basic, kitchen-table economics: You can either afford this or you can afford that; you can have them both. And given that the Paulson proposal was in the works for months, then we know that this is one more “boy who cried wolf” thing from Bush/Cheney. What the country needs and can afford is healthcare and alternative energy. What the country does NOT need and can’t afford is multiple wars and paying off people who have had their heads in the trough(to all of our detriments) for the past ten years. Simple as that. Make the people who have benefitted the most from this horrific situation pay for it. Make them take responsibility and pay. The rest of us can’t afford it. If they want it, let them pay for it. Simple as that.♠

Every proposal for universal health care, transforming our energy system, helping people pay for college, and so on may go down the tubes, compliments of Republican fiscal and financial mismanagement.

this we have to push back on – including telling obama that it is bullshit. heath, a rational energy system and education are not a new ipod. they are the key to our country’s prosperity and must be put first.

obama should be saying that the financial crisis means that his plans to increase “defense” spending may go down the tubes. that obama has not, and has instead put our well being and our future at risk tells me that he is in the grip the dangerous ideology of neoliberalism and what used to be called, when forced on other countries, “shock therapy.” take a look at the recent history of the ’90s – and tell me if this ever worked, or if it instead caused hardship beyond imagination on millions of people.

p.s. re “Republican fiscal and financial mismanagement” – don’t forget the Democrat’s initiatives of deregulation, especially in the ’90s.

I posted this in another thread, then thought it would be more appropriate here:

Funny thing is, the reality is that as far as health care is concerned, it would actually SAVE money to make it universal, so this could really be used as an excuse to put it in. “We can’t afford the private insurance companies running health care any more, with their profit taking. We need to nationalize health insurance so it costs less and people don’t have to go to the ER for basic health care, which costs more. While we are socializing the financial sector, lets do the same to the health insurance sector and take the savings there and apply it to other places.”

Have to disagree to the extent that Capital Gains and unearned income should be taxed at the same or higher rate than Earned income.

Here, here. Unfortunately, I am not surprised that Obama would accept the Republican talking points on this.

Could he be posturing?

Obama will not do much unless there is an organized progressive movement to force him to the left. I’m talking feet in the street. Can’t leave him to his own (and his advisor’s) devices.

That’s why the bailout has to include taking all the equity frmm the banks (they are insolvent), and hence future profits for a later IPO, and a tax surcharge.

I caught snippets of Paulson and Bernanke’s testimony. Paulson was worse, but they were both terrible.

Corker R-TN, was actually quite good. Paulson and Bernanke was 700 billion for an effing “concept.” Paulson and Bernanke want “flexibility,” to “adapt” to changing market conditions.

Horsepuckey.

You want to borrow 700 billion, you nail stuff down m@#$%^&*!@#$.

For every day we stay in Iraq and spend tons of unaccounted for taxpayer money, our infrastructure is further destroyed and decaying, our citizens are untreated if ill or dying, and their education further eroded, we are losing our homes and our jobs…Truly, isn’t that a good argument that staying there is a continuous victory for the “terrorists”….

Turn this ship around. Now.

Why? Why should labor (work) be taxed higher than capital? Please explain you comment.

When Obama was on Bill O’Reilly’s program talking finance, BO said Obama’s tax plan to tax those making 250,000 or more was “class warfare”, the idea being the lower classes use government power to attack the upper class. The truth is it is the rich who wage war on the lower classes. Most middle or lower class people just want to live their lives. They are not looking to beat anyone over the head. The rich, on the other hand, by downsizing, outsourcing, and merging to gain economies of scale to make their second bilion in order to buy a bigger private jet or yacht, managed to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. They are really sick. There isn’t enough money in the world to satisfy them. They should be required to disgourge their ill gotten gains. That may not save the system, but it’s a step in the right direction.

BushCo and McCain = Cronies First

McCain trying to reinvent himself as a regulator. Campaign First.

It shouldn’t be. That was my point. The commenter I was replying to wanted Capital Gains and Unearned income taxed at a lower rate than that for Labor (Earned Income).

We are coming at this from different angles. I see this as a “now, go out and make me (us) do it” moment.

“Incredibly, the richest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion during the Bush presidency.”

I know where we can get $670 Billion of the $700 Billion…..

Yes.

time this tradeoff between not paying for a lousy bailout and having universal health care, etc, became the center of our national discussion.

NO!

it’s time for us to call bullshit on this kind of trade off. this is just what grover norquist types have longed for – fuck up our finances enough that the crisis can be used to justify social programs that keep us from living in a feudal society.

i beg you - do not be fooled because it is a democrat saying it instead of grover norquist.

MORE VERTIBRATE DEMOCRATS!

Ah, then I apologize. We are on the same page…

Do you have a cite/link for that quote. Interesting number.

If I put my old school, 1980’s Izod socialist shirt on (still fits!), it doesn’t take much to link this to a Marxist “crisis of capital” precisely because the plutocrats got the deregulated market they wanted. You simply can’t make money of nothing — which is exactly what the collatoralized debt instruments that packaged bad mortgage risk attempted to do.

Back to basics, people!

Hear, hear!

Oooooh no you don’t, Obama. Health care for everyone before a bailout for the aristocracy. And those wars? Done.

Is this the end for the fantasy of supply side economics?

it’s too important to be used for partisan advantage instead of focusing on the very real dangers this kind of a game of chicken entails.

maybe i’d think differently, if the dems had some history of pulling it off – but they just don’t. they cave. every. single. time.

if you put healthcare, etc on the table, you are giving them what they want – the chance to take it away from us.
don’t. do. it.

please.

Part of the problem is that markets segment. Referring to Wall Street does little to narrow the very divergent cast of characters. Paulson and Bernanke are generalists. Congress needs testimony from bond holders, from traders, from Hedge fund managers and from lots of other people in order to begin to quantify risk. That was Treasury’s job and the FED’s job to gather that kind of information, but they didn’t do it.

OT, since we’re talking about health care, similar strategies apply. We need to talk about “universalizing,” in terms of the specialties that currently exist. Physicians, who are licensed, control the patient’s access to health care, so imho, it makes sense to piggyback off of their specialties. What does “universal” access mean to a surgeon? What does universal access mean to a brain surgeon versus a heart surgeon? Not only do they control the patient’s access, they have a lot to say about what new technologies are adopted.

Psychiatrists, internists, Family practitioners, and all the other specialties, all live in a completely different world wrt regulation and other issues which affect care.

Obama holds a press conference.

McCain holds cue cards.

Who are the reporters and the McCain “press” conference? These questions sound like plants to me.

Whatever the final plan turns out to be, we have to get a promise up front from Bush that there will be no signing statement. We need one of the big name politicians to get out in front on this, fast.

has anyone here read dodd’s proprosal? i read it yesterday, and it sucks big time. i can’t believe this is the best we can do.

any other proposals out there for us to review? we need more options.

Barack Obama made clear today exactly what is at stake if Congress approves the Administration’s proposed bailout of Wall Street without asking that those responsible for the financial mess pay for it: Every proposal for universal health care, transforming our energy system, helping people pay for college, and so on may go down the tubes, compliments of Republican fiscal and financial mismanagement.

no, he is incorrect, those programs need to be funded by industry not by the consumer, these programs need to be part of doing business

I disagree with Obama on this claim

Find where the BILLIONS of dollars went missing in Iraq, collect it (punish those that stole it or tried to make it stay missing), and use that to pay part of the bailout. That, plus killing missile defense, cutting all defense spending, ending Iraq COLD, getting out of Afghanistan ASAP (and with an immediate and absolute moratorium on civilian bombing), closing at least half of the 750+ military bases we are operating worldwide, killing the Department of der Fatherland Security, cutting the budget for the NSA, terminate ALL corporate wellfare, tax ALL corporations, tax punitively those that off-shored to try to avoid taxation, punitively tax corporations that off-shore the workforce, increase the inheritance tax, capital gains tax, tax corporations based on the differential between CEO pay and their average worker pay, 10% surtax on the superrich as per Sanders’, terminate the “war on drugs” and shrink the military/police force behind it, shut down prisons and release ALL nonviolent drug offenders.

I’m leaving things out but I can’t think what they are right now.

Actually, I will argue that it has to be taxed at a marginally lower rate so investors do continue to put money into a risky market. There are good reasons why regulated capital markets aren’t all bad — and there should be a modest incentive for people to invest in them.

It’s an argument point I’ll concede, but I don’t think creating an environment hostile to capital investment is what we want to do right now.

Well, it was disconcerting to learn that the administration has been preparing for this, per ew.

And even more disconcerting to learn that Goldman Sacks [sic] stands to gain greatly with their quick switch into the regular banking structure.

Paulson Debt Plan May Benefit Mostly Goldman, Morgan (Update2)

I agree about college. Re energy, if excessive speculation were wrung out of the futures markets we could drive crude’s price down near if not to its rational level of $50/bbl. This would give us a couple of years of breathing space because peak oil is already upon us although supply-demand factors should be relatively stable for the next 2 perhaps 3 years. The hundreds of billions saved from this could be used to begin what needs to be done about changing the energy consumption in this country with regard to conservation, alternatives, community planning, and mass transit.

Re healthcare, there is so much waste, overhead, and duplication in the present system (and I use that term advisedly for our unequal, chaotic approach to healthcare in this country) that it could be reformed and universalized by eliminating and/or reducing these.

As for college, you got me. If the economy is doing well, tuition goes up because parents and students can afford it. If the economy is tanking then tuition goes up because colleges are cash strapped. The idea of college covers a bewildering number of choices, everything from community colleges, to small liberal arts schools, to mega-research-versities. It would be good if the stigma were taken off community colleges because they provide a cheaper education and students can often live in their local communities, and then use them as the principal springboard to the last two more specialized years at a major institution. But as I said I just don’t have a good answer for this one.

FWIW, I’ve been trying to email Senators on the banking committee, to encourage them to continue to ask tough questions.

FWIW, Sen. Shelby (R-AL)’s web site is down. He appears to be really leading the charge against this bailout.

Don’t be fooled. We’ve seen signs of vestigial vertebra before only to see them be reabsorbed or to simply remain vestigial.

It’s in Bernie Saunders letter above…@ 6

thanks for that. sanders has some very good points.

Barack Obama made clear today exactly what is at stake if Congress approves the Administration’s proposed bailout of Wall Street without asking that those responsible for the financial mess pay for it: Every proposal for universal health care, transforming our energy system, helping people pay for college, and so on may go down the tubes, compliments of Republican fiscal and financial mismanagement.

that is exactly what the robber barons want, they do not want health care, they do not want an alternative energy program, they do not want education for the masses

We need to grow this government!”

John McCain
Freeland, Michigan stump speech – today

Paulson keeps insisting that the “taxpayers are already on the hook for this”. How so? What happens if we tell them to fuck off?

Then don’t tax it at a higher rate but don’t tax it lower either. Folks will still invest or they’ll let it sit and earn .1% and let the bank earn the return. Saying that the “investor” needs an incentive on taxes to invest is just buying into the gibberish that has lead us to the current crisis. Investment needs no incentive if it is valid.

Among the forgotten items: if we must have insurance in our healthcare system, then require health insurance entities be NON PROFIT. That, or operated along the lines of a credit union with STRICT limits on CEO pay and benefits. The MAIN purpose and goal of such entities should be to maximize healthcare, NOT shareholder value or profits. Get the profit motive out of health insurance.

We need to:

Stop the War on Terror.

Nationalize oil and natural gas.

Clamp down on Wall Street.

Increase taxes on the rich…over $500,000.

Provide free healthcare access to every citizen.

Provide free dentalcare access to every citizen.

Offer free higher education to every citizen.

Have a mandatory term of national service following H.S.

Nationalize insurance companies…real estate and healthcare.

Then, let the rest of the economy build with incentives to keep business in the US.

Subsidize clean alternative energy companies.

Heavily tax US companies that outsource.

Outlaw taxhavens like the Cayman Islands.

Hold all those involved in destroying the country so far accountable.
and…war crimes for some.

We’re still talking past each other. Obama did not put put massive new $$ for health care on the table. That issue is already there. Affordability was already there; the need for new reveneues was already there, and if you can’t get that, you can’t easily do the other stuff. All he’s done here is telling people these are the tradeoffs.

And in a post in which I’m calling for increased taxes on the wealthy — and arguing it would help minimize an unjustified bailout of the rich, it doesn’t make sense to accuse me of doing Grover’s work.

I got through to him yesterday with email and got an auto response back today.

exactly right.

Capital gains taxed, but a rate below earned income

Why? Taxing capital gains at lower rates privileges investors over wage earners (workers). The inequalities in our income distribution structure really took off after this prioritizing of investment. As I say until I am blue in the face, tax policy is much less about economic policy and much more about social engineering. The question is what kind of society do you want and how can you use the tax code to produce it.

Pay/Go

It’s that simple.

Make Bush a traitor to his class: he must create a revenue stream to bail out his Wall Street fatcat cronies.

you are right. and obama is wrong. dead wrong.

I heard that in the hearing today, Chuck Schumer suggested $50 Billion up front, not $700 Billion. Paulson didn’t like that.

In a sense imho, Congress is taking over the day-to-day operations of the Treasury and FED. Bush

“We need to grow this government!”

John McFreud

capitol gains taxes need to be taxed more then income derived from actual work however not until those profits are realized and only if they are not re-invested

I would also exempt most of it for those not working as their retirement

this is my position

exactly. that is the kind of thing obama should have said. he should never, never suggest that this crisis puts at risk some of our most important priorities.

If Barack does indeed revoke every over the air television license, an act which is well overdue, the government can raise well over one trillion dollars on re-issuance of the licenses. BO will not mention this now but Fox, CBS and the exisiting pliant media will be goners with new ownership and more public stations and more revenue generated from the licenses.

Have you guys seen this…any thoughts…is the Fed Broke? Is that what this is about?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..887/607281

Seems plausible to me.

anyway.

You think the coal industry (and their share holders) will fund wind, geothermal and solar projects?

What industry will pay for the entire nation’s brand new backbone of HVDC (high voltage DC)transmission lines at a million dollars a mile? We need that back bone to dramatically increase the number and kind of generators. Also it provides redundancy throughout the system.

He was asked one question that I found interesting.
McCain was asked about golden parachutes and fannie/freddie and Carly Fiorina since both were paid by stock holders. He said that fannie/freddie is perceived by the public as being government owned and Carly is a role model for females. Sometimes McCain confuses me. Is it five yet?

Thanks for this post, Scarecrow!

I don’t think this was entirely accidental. The Bush-Cheney regime has been actively planning to rig the next president’s options so that he spends the next 4 years just doing triage.

I fear that its not a bug, but a design feature.

Bob in HI

i’d have to ask prof foland about this – but i remember him describing harvard as an investment institution (the endowment) and that the educational aspects were secondary at best. a cost of branding / marketing.

given what community colleges are able to do, i have a hard time understanding the where the costs are for private colleges (excluding expensive research facilities, which are another matter altogether and not, i think, primarily educational).

This is the time to institute a transaction tax

This is an interesting take on what’s going on:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..556/607628

Royal Oak gave me this link on what it cost for the Bush tax cuts.
and the Senate was jabbering about the extension of the Bush tax cuts TODAY!

All he’s done here is telling people these are the tradeoffs.

i’m claiming that they are not the trade offs. that he is talking nonsense. we could have a single payer health care system for less than what we pay now. it’s not a financial cost – it’s a political cost.

and i’m not accusing you of doing grover’s work, i’m suggesting that we are falling for his tricks (and his ally’s).

Barack talked about a surtax but he also indicated that he might look into another tax. I can not find the transcript of the questions and answers and I was painting a room at the same time. Did you listed to his press conference?

How else does he mobilize people to vote for him?

If he doesn’t make clear that our priorities are at risk, he looks like he wants to fund everything.

Part of the reason that the Dems are so Vichy, is because the voters are so uninformed. As voters become better informed, they make better decisions.

In a sense imho, Congress is taking over the day-to-day operations of the Treasury and FED.

paying for it maybe, but where’s the accountability?

that’s one of the things i really hate about dodd’s proposal… it’s all about bogus “oversight” and no accountability.

the industry funds progress, and the very programs fund themselves, we create new industry and therefore new jobs, we start producing an actual product again instead of funding our economy through investment

alternative energy is an employment program that funds itself

That link fails to mention how beneficial the tax cuts have been to Bush, his family, his friends, and his cronies. That was always the intended effect.

Have you guys seen this…any thoughts…is the Fed Broke? Is that what this is about?

The Fed can always print more money and the Congress can raise the debt ceiling. The effects of this are likely to be high inflation.

My theory involves Northcom and the troops just assigned there. I know you remember this: U.S. Marines conduct martial law training exercise ignoring Posse Comitatus Act.

Well, it’s a relief to know I’m only a useful idiot and not a fellow traveler.

I don’t disagree about the merits of single payer vs the phased approach (being chartible) Obama proposed during the primaries. But I don’t accept the notion that political realities are not “realities.” They are, and the reality,IMO, is that the health care debate was going to start from where we are and more in a direction because there was no political will/mandate to do otherwise, not leap to where you/I would like to be. I agree that the preferred end point probably costs less, but I don’t assume that the transition to get there doesn’t cost more. I fear it does.

Fear not. Bush understands. He has an MBA.
It wasn’t honorary, was it?

This is my entry on tax cuts from my scandals list:

22. Tax cuts for the wealthiest, corporations and on capital gains; retention of the AMT.

HR 1836 the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act was signed into law June 7, 2001. It was projected to reduce total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period. Its principal feature was a reduction spaced over the 2001 to 2006 period in the 4 highest tax brackets.

HR 2 the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act was signed into law May 28, 2003. It increased the exemption amount for the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT), decreased the tax rates for income from dividends and capital gains, modified tax law relating to bonus depreciation and expensing, and allowed certain 2003 corporate estimated tax payments to be shifted into 2004. Its principal effects would occur in its first 5 years from 2003-2008 and would cost $342.9 billion in this period.

HR 1308 the curiously named Working Families Tax Relief Act was signed into law October 4, 2004. Its main feature involved extensions and changes in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Its principal costs occurred over the 2005-2009 period and were estimated to be $122 billion.

In 2005, there was an attempt at another tax cut bill which failed. In 2006, the Republicans broke their tax cuts up into a couple of bills .

HR 4297 was signed into law May 17, 2006. It was to cost about $70 billion, split roughly between cuts on dividends and capital gains on the one hand and cuts in the Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) on the other.

HR 6111 was signed into law December 20, 2006. It was a minor catchall bill extending and modifying some expiring tax provisions and was projected to cost $40 billion over the period from 2007 to 2016.

Looking over the various bills, it is likely they became increasing hard to sell over time. They certainly became smaller. Still a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. It’s just that after Bush got a trillion dollars for the rich in his first bill, everything else seemed small by comparison.

If he doesn’t make clear that our priorities are at risk, he looks like he wants to fund everything.

how about the “defense” buget that he proposes increasing? why isn’t that on his list? why only the things that progressives care about?

yes, there are very big risks. but they shouldn’t be to the things that obama is talking about.

I did but didn’t hear anything about any transaction taxes.

Well, it’s a relief to know I’m only a useful idiot and not a fellow traveler.

those are your words. not mine. and i disassociate myself from them entirely.

Because he’s trying to win the election for POTUS.

None of the Democrat Senators, many of whom are NOT up for re-election are talking about withdrawing from Iraq/Afghanistan and cutting Defense. If they’re NOT talking about it, why should the Democrat running for POTUS take on that political risk?

For those who might not have read my comment this morning…FEC gave the McCain-Palin 2008 Inc $84.1 million dollars on Sept.8th. He is now getting public financing. I guess that is why Palin cancelled all of her fund raisers?

http://www.fec.gov/press/press…..cert.shtml

i’d have to ask prof foland about this – but i remember him describing harvard as an investment institution (the endowment) and that the educational aspects were secondary at best. a cost of branding / marketing.

Yes, for some schools the endowment is more an excuse for the school than the other way around. I read too that the University of Illinois just refurbished its football stadium at at cost of $300 million. At most big schools the football and basketball coaches are at the top of the university salary ladder. I like both sports but this is an insane waste of resources. I think we really should ask ourselves what we want our colleges to be: education institutions, research centers, undergraduate oriented, graduate focused, public, private, farm teams for pro-sports, or as you pointed out investment funds. Right now it is a hopeless mishmash.

With the caveat that I absolutely do not understand this whole financial mess, here’s a link to an article on counterparty risk appearing in Toronto Globe and Mail.

Some days you wonder if the rest of the world care more about…and makes more effort to inform people about…what’s going on here in the US. For us, smoke and mirrors and hurry, hurry, hurry.

Because he’s trying to win the election for POTUS.

And as we all know the best way to win is to lie, but then why are we surprised that all our Presidents turn out to be liars?

See the link at #67. Says the Feds already broke.

I don’t have a link but tht money was pretty much always going to get to McCain at some point. But I also understand that the fundraisers were just postponed, not cancelled completely.

She can still raise money for the various Republican Party entities such as the RNC, Senate campaigns and House campaign funds.

I guess that is why Palin cancelled all of her fund raisers?

The campaign finance system is as corrupt as ever. McCain and Palin can’t raise money for their own campaign now but they can raise it for the Republican party. The RNC can run an ad attacking Obama as long as they do not make it about him alone. So if they say Obama and Harry Reid want to do whatever, they can do it and pay for it.

Can you point to an example?

That’s an unfair rendering and you know it.

Three Iraqi men testified to the Democratic Policy Committee hearing on waste and fraud in Irag (yesterday)..$13 Billion dollars worth…

http://www.washington.com/wp-d…..id=topnews

Because he’s trying to win the election for POTUS.

i don’t think that justifies helping the republicans put our health, energy policy and education at risk. those things should not be used as expendable pawns in a campaign. even for POTUS, and even when running against a ticket as scary bad as mccain/palin.

jmo.

I’m going to support Obama on this. He facing stark political realities and he’s being upfront about it, and that’s what I expect from a leader.

I like what I read in his statement about the mess today also.

With the knowledge that the Democrats demanded that Banks give folks mortgages that they could never hope to pay for, let’s put the blame where it belongs.

I like this proposal. Too socialist for the DC crowd. After all it serves the PEOPLE.

Up front is best in the long run. Stressed people don’t need surprises – especially right now. I think Obama did exactly the right thing.

Explain please. I assume you are talking about the Community Re-investment Act (which was passed in the ’70s).

So this act which worked fine up until the Bush admin is responsible for the banks and mortgage brokers all losing their heads simultaneously after operating fine for 20 plus years?

And since the Rs controlled the Congress for most of the period from ‘94 until ‘06, I htink the term I look for is Bullsh*t.

ok. we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. that’s cool.

but fair warning, i’m going to keep arguing the point. *g*

like with this:

The Illinois senator added that his proposed middle-class tax cuts remain “absolutely necessary” despite the economic turbulence. He said they would put money in the pockets of working families at a time when the economy might be worsening.

obama knows how to say something is “absolutely necessary” even when faced with this crisis. i just wish he’d spoken of different priorities.

Any candidate for POTUS has to run to the middle. IMHO, the Democrats who are not running for POTUS are much more deserving of the criticism you are leveling at Obama.

Either McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden will be the next President. This is just a horse race. Somebody wins somebody loses. Margin matters a great deal, because we can’t afford to let it go to the courts. As I suspect you know, the neocon state Attorney General in WI filed a suit which iirc, could disqualify almost million new voters in WI. I suspect the overwhelming majority of those will vote for Obama and down ticket Dems. The Democratic Presidential ticket is very significantly less weak than the GOP ticket.

Link?

Just spent 5 hours listening to the Senate Banking Committee hearing . . . followed by a few minutes of progressive talk radio. A problem facing Barack (if I can correctly summarize) is this: McCain evidently is going to jump on the bandwagon castigating all those nasty, greedy Wall Streeters who got us into this financial mess (with the aid of the de-regulating Congress Critters who kowtowed to Bush). Main-Street-America shouldn’t have to tote the baggage for these criminals. (This is sure to make big-time points with 75% of the electorate.) What can Obama do? He can support the bail-out (from everything I’ve read it SEEMS imperative to prevent a depression). He then becomes the anti-christ in the eyes of the electorate–what an elitist! If, however, he OPPOSES it (like McCain does) . . . there is time enough for the bottom to completely drop out of the market . . . and who do you think will get blamed? Not senile old white man . . . Obama needs to tread carefully to avoid this nasty (Republican orchestrated?) Catch-22.

Agree.

It was the hedge funds who hunger for more profits, that drove completely illegal marketing of mortgages to unqualified borrowers at higher interest rates.

That in itself, however, is not what caused this crisis. It was the combination of among other things, too low for too long interest rates with the hedge’s buying securitized mortgages on margin.

Yeah, a lot of the GOP, led by AL Senator Shelby have not yet been “whipped” by the WH.

I agree somekind of bailout has to happen, but we need much greater identification of the problem than Bernanke and Paulson provided today.

I just caught snippets of the testimony, but Paulson struck me as a joke, completely unable to talk in specifics about anything. Bernanke wasn’t much better.

there is a new thread upstairs

What you see is what you get

Thanks to dakine and Hugh for the information. I did not know that the FEC had got 4 members finally so that they could make a decision on this.

So..I think that you are saying that every candidate is entitled to the 84.1B and then they still raise money? I think that some campaign financing laws could use a re-do!

McCain gets the $84.1M as he opted IN to the Campaign Finance system. But he can still raise money for the Republican party entities as I mentioned. But he can only spend the $84.1M directly on advertising. There is a loophole that allows McCain to share ad costs with the RNC by mentioning down ticket races but I’m not totally sure how it works.

Obama opted OUT of the campaign finance system so he can raise and spend as much as he wants/can for the general election plus raise funds for the Democratic party entities. If Obama had opted IN as McCain did, he would have been limited to the 84.1M

Stirling Newberry a couple of flights upstairs

But then would this not be closer to the heart of why Bush WH and the Wall Streeters are all so suddenly intent on fast tracking a $700 billion to $1 trillion tax payer provided dollar grab? Not for Americans. For the Wall Streeters. Odd there is “no money” for Univeral SinglePayer HealthCare but there is money for reckless,greedy Wall Streeters.

We know the American Neo-cons,war hawks and MIC-Pentagon will not give up any warmaking money,”national security” money or “defense” money.

And the top 10% income earning Americans will not endorse deeper taxes without lots of resistance and pushback.

So Universal Healthcare/Medical Coverage for Americans is “not doable” because Americans can not afford it. Yet there is always money for funding MCI/Pentagon and now this Wall Street public funding transfusion/infusion?

Americans should have put into place Single Payer HealthCare back in late 1940’s. That would have been the right thing to do.

Americans understand the concept. All Americans share for police,fire and schools funding and budgets. We do it with the judicial system,corrections system and surely the Pentagon runs on all Americans paying in for what the Pentagon does in America here in early 21st century.

HealthCare for all Americans? Surely the facts and needs of bottom two thirds of American income earners are in full support of SinglePayer HealthCare for these Americans in particular. The wealthy can go out and buy whatever they want. Most Americans do not have that luxurious position.

This $700 billion to one trillion Wall Street grab has the signature of some really devious “shock and awe” activity on the part of those who want to suffocate Universal/SinglePayer HealthCare for Americans.For all time.

Someone out there also floated a “transfer tax” on the sale of stock, etc. You could make it a fraction of a cent per share, thus not increasing the cost of the transaction by much, but with the millions of shares traded, the revenues would mount up.

Another way to get at the folks who dug this hole.

You simply can’t make money of nothing — which is exactly what the collatoralized debt instruments that packaged bad mortgage risk attempted to do.

Banks who now refuse to loan to those who try to use mortgages as collateral say they can’t value the collateral. But, it might be more accurate to say they think the value is far too little — maybe the vultures who want to buy them for cents on the dollar are more right than wrong.

How would you evaluate an ARM that’s been around a few years? It’s important to fix them, so people can afford their homes and so banks can evaluate them to make business loans and keep the economy going.

No universal healthcare.
No progressive energy policy.
No college unless you are rich.

It almost seems like this was half the plan to begin with. And who says Bushco has been incompetent.

Smells like “Mission Accomplished” to me.

yes I can;

the entire new deal, rebuilding our infrastructure was the industry funding it’s own recovery, creating the very jobs through the programs, creating the middle class assets known as our infrastructure and creating the middle class economic system that we knew until reagan