Bailout Part 2: How About Main Street This Time?

With the global stock markets getting slammed (the Dow is down 660 points as I write), it is clear that the Wall Street Bailout was not enough or really about the real problems we face. We need HOLC and we need a new New Deal.

Tomorrow night there will be a town hall/debate involving the two Presidential candidates. I hope the Democratic candidate for President, Barack Obama, realizes that we will need bold progressive leadership from our next President.

Barack Obama needs to promise the voters and the country that he will provide a new New Deal, a Square Deal for Main Street and for ordinary Americans. He should take the ideological battle on - John McCain represents the failed policies of Conservatism, Republicanism and Bushism. Obama should argue for and represent the proud Democratic progressive tradition of representing Main Street and ordinary Americans for the Common Good. Tomorrow night, Barack Obama can win a mandate - for progressivism and the Common Good. Tomorrow night will not decide the election, but it could establish the mandate of what a Barack Obama Presidency will be about.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain's Health Plan to Cut Medicare, Medicaid | McCain's New Attack Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Uhhh. . . . (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    With the global stock markets getting slammed (the Dow is down 660 points as I write), it is clear that the Wall Street Bailout was not enough or really about the real problems we face. We need HOLC and we need a new New Deal.

    While I doubt anyone expected this kind of sell-off, I don't think the immediate purpose of the "bailout" was to increase the value of the Dow.

    But are you suggesting that either HOLC or a New Deal are going to improve the immediate outlook on Wall Street?  How?

    Interesting (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    What do you think I wrote in my post?

    You clearly did not understand it.

    Try reading it again.


    no (none / 0) (#73)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:35:01 PM EST
    you said:
    Many on the liberal blogs pushed for the bailout and many did not. Those who did not got slammed by those who did.
    Seemed to me like it was the other way around.  Those who favored it (even while holding their nose) were derided as corporate Republicans or sellouts, or as naive.  I have seen virtually no blog posts and very few comments, even, slamming anyone opposed to the bailout.  The venom is coming from those who opposed it, questioning the motives of Barack Obama (even though Hillary voted for it too) and those who reluctantly thought it needed to pass.

    And of course, let's not forget that all the furious phone calls from Corrente readers accomplished was to defeat the first bailout deal and ensure passage of a second, worst version.  Thanks, Obama haters!


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:24:52 PM EST
    Thanks Obama haters? What on earth are you talking about?  Virtually every single blog in the left blogosphere and its readers were vehemently opposed to the bill, and do you have to be reminded that virtually every single blog is also vehemently pro-Obama?

    Shall we start with Daily Kos?

    In no way do you get to blame the opposition to the bail-out on "Obama haters."  That's just ludicrious.


    every single blog (none / 0) (#92)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:17:19 PM EST
    is vehemently Pro-Obama, since when?  Ian Welsh was writing that Obama "betrayed the middle class" by supporting the bailout; lambert at Corrente was encouraging making calls to members of Congress to vote against it, and virtually equating Obama with corporate Republicans for supporting it -- even though Hillary did also.  

    Of course no one liked the bailout; what was there to like about the situation?  But it's no coincidence that the ones most opposed to it are also the ones who see Obama as "inadequate" because they think he compromises too much.

    And the end result of defeating the first bailout compromise was a worse bailout compromise.  My point is that it might have been principled but it led to an even worse result. Kind of like the constant carping at Obama.


    Do you have a clue how many (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:10:51 PM EST
    readers Corrente has compared to Kos? Corrente, The Confluence and No Quarter are the only blogs of even the remotest significance that are dubious about Obama.

    OTOH, lots of Obama devotees are royally POd at him for supporting the bail-out because he sounded initially like he wasn't going to and they all followed obediently along with what they thought the campaign line was going to be.

    I happen to agree with what you say your broader point about the bail-out bills was, although as far as i can see, your only actual point in any of these posts is that Obama is infallible and we will all die horrible deaths if we don't vote for him.

    When you post grotesquely falsely about one of the most basic facts of the left blogosphere, you have no credibility.


    Well, it would be nice (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:09:31 PM EST
    but at this point I'm beginning to question whether Obama "needs" to do much of anything at all. Steve Lombardo, Republican pollster, sez it's over.

    Then I guess we'll find out (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    whether Obama just wants to be elected or whether he wants to do something (besides being the first African American elected to that office) that moves the country forward.

    I'm pretty sure it's the first one. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    he has to get elected first (none / 0) (#74)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:38:17 PM EST
    otherwise moving the country forward is next to impossible.  Is this hard to understand or something?

    Republicans seem to understand this, and that's why even though they hated John McCain and didn't want him to be their nominee, they are voting for him.

    The question in this election is whether we catch on and change our national policies in a more Democratic direction, or drop the ball and let another 2000 happen.


    Obama sure doesn't (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    need our advice, I agree.  But, the best way to make sure BTD's thoughts are mouthed in tomorrow night's debate:  substitute Biden for Obama.  

    Biden? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    You know this myth of Biden as working class hero is ok for Obama but you know no one believes a word of it.

    Hillaery Clinton BECAME a working class hero. Joe Biden never was one and never will be, no matter his "roots."

    Example - FDR was a working class hero. Think about it.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    The depressing thing is that there is no evidence that Obama will/could fill that role, either.

    Obviously, he should...it's the hero's chance of a lifetime.

    If not...mediocrity.

    If we're lucky.


    The problems are so overwhelming that (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by hairspray on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:34:42 PM EST
    no matter what Obama does or doesn't do he will suffer with the consequences of Bushco for a long time.  To make matters worse, I don't think he is the genius so many think and therefore the next 4 years while arguably much better than the last 4 years, will not really be very outstanding.  

    evidence (none / 0) (#75)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    TChris posted this earlier:
    "What I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being -- from being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice," said Mr. Obama, who taught constitutional law for years at the University of Chicago.
    and there's this
    "So today, I'm laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It's an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address - the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear.

    For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.
    There's plenty more.  Just because you don't see it on the TV or read it about it on the blogs you frequent doesn't mean it's not there.  Google and, yes, Obama's website are your friends.

    He talks like one, though. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:20:00 PM EST
    Do you think Obama does?  

    I do not think he connects at all (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    Biden has been a nonentity in this campaign and "god bless him" - that is his job.

    I don't agree (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:40:15 PM EST
    I've talked to any number of people, including my own parents back in the heartland, who take great comfort from the fact that Joe Biden understands the kitchen-table issues that truly concern people on a day-to-day basis.  I firmly believe he is helping to close the deal with at least some voters who would have been Obama skeptics otherwise.

    I think that's probably right (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:41:09 PM EST
    A few people did watch that debate, right? ;-)

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:53:19 PM EST
    I am reliably informed that the audience of 70 million was comprised of 35 million adoring Sarah Palin fans, and 35 million members of Joe Biden's family.

    Biden is the only reason my mother is voting. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    She was for Hillary and was plenty upset at what transpired during the primaries.  But she's in her 70's and living on a fixed income.  She believes Biden will help her and others in her situation.  She doesn't trust Obama but she trusts Biden.  

    Ah the anecdotal evidence (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:00:37 PM EST

    Sorry, I never pay attention to those "personal stories" for empirical purposes.


    Shrug (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:48:26 PM EST
    You could go with your gut instead, but realize that it's the same gut which led you to predict less than 40 million people would watch the VP debate because no one cares about Palin any more!

    To me, he said in the VP debatewhat I wished Obama (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    had sd. in the first Pres. debate, at least as to the economy.  He wasn't as cautious.  

    Biden Serves as the Ground for the Ticket (none / 0) (#41)
    by santarita on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    Obama can be the visionary and use the soaring rhetoric but he needs someone with the experience of Biden to provide the base.  For me Biden cements the ticket and makes it work.  Hillary could have served the same function.  

    (In the interest of full disclosure, I voted for Hillary but would have had a tough decision to make if Biden hadn't dropped out after Iowa.)


    MBNA populism (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Well, I'm in favor of free trade (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    But as for the credit card industry, well: I'm all for more regulation.

    But this idea that business is always bad, well, it's not my thing.


    Blah, blah (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    Got a problem with immigration too?

    hehehehe (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    And you're a racist-nationalist-populist who thinks american is better than every other country and deserves to dominate.

    See, fun for the whole family!


    But you can fun hating the furriners! (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    Chill dude (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:53:12 PM EST
    meh (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    The reason you didn't address my question about immigration is that you can't be intellectually consistent.

    As for the rest. pffft.


    I'm pretty sure I saw something in the (none / 0) (#91)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:04:06 PM EST
    rules of engagement on this site that calling other commenters names (particularly racist) is an offensive that earns the person a quick boot (banning).

    Maybe you should apologize. It really was uncalled for.


    unfair attacks on Biden (none / 0) (#76)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:57:10 PM EST
    why do we keep using the fact that Biden's son works for MNBA to smear him?  Show me one shred of evidence that his son's job has influenced his votes in the Senate and I could understand, but I have seen none.  As far as I'm concerned that makes this a cheap shot.


    Mr. Biden's support for the bankruptcy changes, which were signed into law in 2005, puts him at odds with Mr. Obama of Illinois, who opposed the bill and has criticized the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for supporting it.
    If we're going to criticize Obama, let's at least get our facts straight.  He is more populist on this issue than his running mate.  But you wouldn't know it from the comments about the "way he talks."

    Huh? (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    Why would we bother with that? Anway, Biden is with his family.

    You are so literal today. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    Just saying I liked what Biden had to say at the VP debate (of course, not his gaffe about the Constitutional bases/bases for the office of VP).  Obama seemed less resolute to me.

    Oh, fine (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure Obama will (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by votermom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:26:40 PM EST
    not risk doing anything bold at this point. He will coast to victory on the Dem brand.

    The Winning Brand Will Be The One... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by santarita on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    that is the non-Republican brand, as opposed to the Dem brand.

    People are  upset over both parties at this point.  The Dems are benefitting because they are not the party of the President.


    Now, that's not to say that he should shut up (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    There's still an outside chance that he could pull a Dewey, but I think he's smart enough to stay aggressive.

    To lead, Obama needs to do something (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by esmense on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    To win, maybe not. It looks like he can win simply by default, simply by not being a Republican.

    But, given the seriousness of the crisis the nation faces, it would be both morally and pragmatically preferable for him to step up now.

    He is asking the American people to give him great power over their lives and their futures. In such serious and frightening times, he has a moral obligation to tell the people what he wants and intends to do with that power.  

    Also, the sooner he starts getting people onboard with what he wants to do, the better. He has sold himself as someone who can bring the nation together to achieve the things that need to be done. NOW is the time to start doing that.

    Good point re getting public on board (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    as FDR did with his promise of what he would do in his famous "First One Hundred Days."

    And then, FDR did it -- a lot of it, despite resistance in Congress, because FDR had the public support to pressure Congress, too.


    first 100 days (none / 0) (#68)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:17:15 PM EST
    from back in May:
    "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama

    Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch legislation to reform the health care system.

    Those are reactive not proactive goals (none / 0) (#105)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:30:30 AM EST
    And they don't address the global financial crisis we are now facing.

    I would love a new deal (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:46:59 PM EST
    I design infrastructure for a living.

    That, and the fact that I had no money to lose in this mess, and the fact that I don't own a house but would someday like to afford one... mean I am sitting a lot prettier for this "depression" than most.

    do a little reading (none / 0) (#78)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:08:38 PM EST
    Corporate Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by koshembos on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    Obama was the choice of the corporate Democrats. These people, e.g. Reid and Pelosi, are not Democrats of old; they don't care much about the poor and even most of the middle class.

    FDR was not born a working class hero. He became one. The story about Hillary is probably similar. The Kennedys are not poor people heroes genetically, they get there.

    Obama is a corporate person. He supported the bail out without major reservation; Hillary gave a very profound floor speech about the bail out. I don't think New Deal comes from small deal people. FDR was a giant. If Obama will get there, we'll all win. Personally, I don't see it in him.

    Double standards (none / 0) (#69)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:22:14 PM EST
    Hillary "became" a working class hero but Obama is "corporate"...I feel like a lot of people who say these things about Obama haven't been paying attention over the summer.  I find it so humorous that people accepted the transformations of Edwards and Clinton but are convinced that Obama is some corporate shill and that he is destined to govern that way.  

    The truth is that Obama has been moving to the center in order to win, and guess what?  It's working.

    Then we can get down to the business of governing.  Obama's health care plan may not be progressive enough for some, but if we can get HR 676 out of Congress he would sign it.


    Obama has already lead (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    He lead the Congress right into the bailout by working the phones, right?

    Come on, people. Let's be reasonable, here.

    That would be "led" (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    Not as in the Zeppelin. Or the balloon.

    well... (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    ...maybe the balloon...

    Are you serious? What was it about the (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by hairspray on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:43:21 PM EST
    bailout that caused him to expend so much energy? The bailout was crap; it was lemonade out of lemons for WALL STREET.  Mainstreet got nada and Obama said Zilch about what the most pressing need of the bailout should have been.

    The eternal optimist (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by echinopsia on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    I hope the Democratic candidate for President, Barack Obama, realizes that we will need bold progressive leadership from our next President.

    I gave up on this hope a loooong time ago.

    He may very well win. He never has been and never will be a progressive, IMO.

    It will be interesting to see (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    if Obama pushes HOLC.  If he comes out of the gate even slightly better than he did in the first debate, McCain's goose is cooked.  

    We don't need a New (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by mg7505 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    Deal. We need a Real Deal. Not a "bailout," which is code word for "hugely risky taxpayer funded corporate handout."

    For what it's worth, I don't see Obama providing any more leadership on this as a President than he has as a candidate. It's likely that someone in Congress (Hillary?) steps up and forces through some meaningful legislation, but Obama is going to have little part in that except for signing it. I don't expect him to be a force in negotiations and the floor fight for any legislation, simply because he doesn't have bargaining chips with most legislators who need convincing.

    And yet, even if what you say is true (none / 0) (#79)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:10:19 PM EST
    and I dispute that it is, he would still sign it.  McCain would veto it as "big government spending" and "pork."  That's all you need to know about the choice in this election.

    "The Real Deal" (none / 0) (#84)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    That was Kerry, if you recall....only it wasn't of course...

    It is ironic (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:15:58 PM EST
    that you started by telling everyone to calm down and ended by getting all wound up yourself.

    Saturday's This American Life (none / 0) (#17)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    episode #365 helped me understand what's going on -- and if you listen to the very end of the show, they say that somebody slipped a provision into the bailout bill last Friday.

    The effect of this provision is that under our shiny new law, the Secretary of the Treasury has the option of side-stepping the purchase of "assets" nobody knows how to set value on and instead give taxpayers a share of direct ownership in the banks we're supplying with money.

    It's like, the banks are homeowners with some toxic stuff down in their basements; they need us to buy that stuff from them so they can keep functioning.  But --thanks to whoever slipped this provision into the bill-- we don't have to just hand over the dough for whatever crap is in their basement; instead we become part owners in their houses . . .on the show they said that this idea is the favorite among economists, but that naturally it got shot down as "socialism."

    I think that Obama could explain it in just those terms in that town hall meeting, with the whole nation listening, and give us a prayer of seeing the economic crisis come out right.

    "Slipped a provision"? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    Are you kidding me??

    "Slipped a provision"!!??

    The entire liberal blogosphere and commentariat, including the sainted Paul Krugman, and half the Dem. politicians on the Hill were insisting on this provision!  They wanted it to be the only option.  The cry of "Equity! Equity! Equity!" was practically the only thing we heard for two weeks.

    Paulson thought it wasn't a good idea and resisted it mightily, agreeing in the end to having it in the bill as an option he could use in cases where it seemed appropriate, if there are any.

    In no way, shape or form was this "slipped into" the bill.


    FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton (none / 0) (#28)
    by WS on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:48:21 PM EST
    FDR had a "New Deal," Truman a "Square Deal," Kennedy a "New Frontier," Johnson a "Great Society," and Clinton had "It's the economy, stupid." What will Obama's economic populism line be like?  I hope his team is thinking up of one because it'll be part of Obama's legacy should he be elected.  

    Actually (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    Clinton had a "New Covenant" although it never really caught on.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#36)
    by WS on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    I think the "it's the economy" line is what people remember more so than "New Covenant."

    How about Fair Deal?  A Fair Deal for the American People?  I think Obama should go with something FDR-ish.    


    Fair Deal was Truman's... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by desertswine on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    Square Deal was T. Roosevelt's.

    Maybe Obama should go with "Deal or No Deal."
    Or "Big Deal."
    Or "Some Deal."
    Or "Dealorama."


    I didn't know that (none / 0) (#45)
    by WS on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    You're right Square Deal was Teddy's and Fair Deal was Truman's.  Hmmmm, Obama should get his speechwriters to think up of one.  Ted Sorenson is on his team, right?  He should think up of one.  

    How about.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    "shady deal"?

    Nah...too honest.


    Or "Have I Got a Deal For You!" (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by desertswine on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:08:46 PM EST
    What part of (none / 0) (#64)
    by WS on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:19:52 PM EST
    Obama's agenda is shady to you?  

    Big increases in spending.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    and only vague explanations as to how to pay for it all.  

    Yeah...I'm not buying that "going over the federal budget line by line" bit...heard it all before, and it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

    Now if he was proposing massive decreases in defense, drug war, and federal prison spending to pay for his programs, then I might think his deal is on the up and up.

    With the bailout and more bailouts coming...I worry about the national debt more than ever.


    Spending? (none / 0) (#106)
    by WS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    Obama will roll back the Bush tax cuts for the top 5% and on the estate and capital gains taxes.  Also, he's going to try to close tax loopholes that businesses use to game the system all the while offering tax credits for businesses who keep their jobs here.  

    Spending priorities will have to be made but there's a commitment there for health care, energy, and infrastructure investment at the very least.

    If you're worried about the budget, I trust Obama on the budget moreso than John "make the bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent and stay in Iraq War forever" McCain.


    Absolutely.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    Obama is preferable to McCain, but I'd still file both under shady.  I need look no further than the letters they choose to put after their names.

    Yeah, and then his personal seal... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by sj on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    ...can be part of the logo.

    Sorry, but just coming up with a catch phrase isn't going to cut it.  Above you ask:

    What will Obama's economic populism line be like?

    If his team thought up a line, that's all it would be is a line.  He isn't an economic populist.  Then again, the moment hasn't passed and I would love to see some "there" there.

    In vain, I'm afraid, but who knows...


    Obama has been talking in populist terms (none / 0) (#71)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    throughout the general election.  Have you just not been listening because you've been reading the Confluence or No Quarter?

    Are you on the payroll? (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    Serious question.

    Serious answer (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:39:32 PM EST
    No, I'm not.  Go back and check my comments from several months ago; I was a Hillary Clinton supporter during the primaries.  Now Barack Obama is my candidate, and a big part of that has to do with the fact that Hillary and Bill asked all of us to support him, because he's on our team and seeks essentially the same goals as we do.  I really listened to their speeches at the convention, where Bill so brilliantly pointed out that many of the failings we had faulted Obama for could also be strengths.  I realized that Hillary was not going to be President this year, and really let it go in my heart.  Once I let go of the anger and resentment, I realized that I'd gone a little too far in my opposition to Obama.  I was holding him to an impossible standard, one I was not holding Hillary to.  I realized that in the same way Hillary was telling us exactly what she "wants," so was Obama, and his goals are goals that I share.  I realized that I was being slightly unfair in attacking the zealousness of Obama's supporters (calling them Obamabots but taking offense when similarly insulting terms were leveled at me).  They had good reason to be enthusiastic, and probably couldn't understand why I was so opposed to this good man, and why I was accusing someone who loves his wife and children (and espouses pro-women policies) of trying to hurt women.

    I could go on and on, but I think it really came down to letting go of Hillary's candidacy.  Once I let go of it in my heart, and accepted that it was over, I looked at the choice in this election, and realized it wasn't even close.  We've got a Democrat -- and one who wants to make some big changes that I agree with -- versus a conservative Republican.  For me, after that, there was no choice.

    Then, having been through this journey, I saw many fellow Hillary supporters descend into blind rage and even tacit support for McCain, then Palin.  And it's been like watching a horror movie ever since.

    My advice to people who are still wound up in anti-Obama mode, and are letting that anger and (yes) bitterness wrap up tighter and tighter, is to let it go.  Cry if you need to (not being condescending, because I did).  And think of others, not just your wants and needs.  Try to look into the unknowable future and consider, based on what we know of the Republican party, what direction this country could take under a McCain-Palin administration.  Think of the people who could be sent to war, or who don't have the means to "ride out" four more years of GOP economic policies.  And remember that if you think you're supporting Hillary and what she stood for by not voting, or voting for McCain, you're dead wrong.  That would be a big fat middle finger to Hillary Clinton.


    Oh, please (3.50 / 2) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:14:12 PM EST
    Your proselytizing is just embarrassing.

    Gah. Keep your unwanted advice, please. (none / 0) (#99)
    by echinopsia on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:20:07 AM EST
    fine, sorry to bother, (none / 0) (#107)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:44:37 PM EST
    I just felt strongly about it, and the question was asked.  

    the question that was asked was (none / 0) (#109)
    by echinopsia on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    "Are you on the payroll?" not "Please tell me what I should do."

    That question should make you wonder whether you're accomplishing anything with your knee-jerk Obama adoration.

    Quite honestly I wonder about the reasoning skills of someone who can so easily transfer blind loyalty for one candidate to blind loyalty for another. It's certainly not a winning way to convince people to support your candidate. Nor is castigating people who point out that Obama is a seriously flawed candidate. He's hardly the best we could do. If he wins it will only be because McCain is slightly less acceptable.

    He may occasionally give lip service to policies that bear a distant resemblance to Democratic ideals. But just as often, if not more often, he sounds like a Republican, or you can't tell WTF he stands-putting.

    I repeat - Obama is no Al Gore. Al Gore actually has a record of a lifetime of accomplishments and standing for Democratic values to point to.


    Silver lining for Main Street (none / 0) (#35)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:57:30 PM EST
    in our state (WA)... not only are Cong. Dicks' and Senator Murray's earmarks great for job creation (almost all re military contracts) locally but there are two sections of major importance to all residents and especially to rural county budgets...Sec. 601 and Sec. 201:

    Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
    Secure Rural Schools lead sponsors Reps. DeFazio (D-OR), Bill Sali (R-ID); Sens. Wyden (D-OR), Larry Craig (R-ID), are major boosters of this program that expired in 2006. In 1908 the federal government agreed to share logging revenue from Forest Service land with neighboring communities that could not tax the land because it was federal. As logging declined in the 1990s, the "county payments" program was initiated in 2000 to directly provide federal funding, more than half going to Oregon, to deal with the loss of revenue. The original version of this provision was introduced as a bill in early 2007 and was estimated to cost $2.2 billion when the OR and ID delegations came to agreement. To give the package more heft, Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) was added to the package, bringing the total cost to $3.3 billion. PILT provides more general funding to counties for federal lands located within their borders. Sen. Reid (D-NV) talked about the PILT program being one of the important elements of the package when the Senate passed the bailout bill.

    Sec. 201. Deduction for state and local sales taxes

    Allows residents of states that don't pay income tax to deduct, from their federal taxes, sales tax paid over the course of the year. States that benefit include Texas, Nevada, Florida, Washington and Wyoming. The bailout bill extends this provision for 2 years at a cost of $3.3 billion.

    That sales tax deduction (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:03:22 PM EST
    pisses me off.  What about those of us who pay state income taxes and sales taxes?

    I'm in the same boat. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Elporton on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    I think we'd be termed SOL.

    You can already deduct (none / 0) (#83)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    your state income taxes.  We have no state income tax, so our sales tax is really high to make up for it...but we can't deduct it...the state runs on sales and property taxes, in the main.

    Deducting part of our sales tax as you do your state income tax is an equity issue for us.

    Not sure how it works now if your state has both sales and income tax.


    California sales tax: 7.25% (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:58:13 PM EST
    Yes. That is the basic rate... (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:33:47 AM EST
    there are also local options which can go as high as 9.3% currently with more proposals to come.  Here's some more info on my state's sales tax:

    Retailers collect the combined state and local retail sales tax from their customers. The state retail sales tax rate is 6.5%. Local retail sales tax rates range from 0.5 to 2.4%.

    Other taxes that can add to the sales tax are the REgional Transit Authority (RTA) tax of 0.4% collected on sales in parts of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.


    the difference is (none / 0) (#49)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    Example - FDR was a working class hero. Think about it.

    that FDR, while a child of great wealth, was raised in a family that took its civic responsibility seriously, as part of the price of that wealth. FDR displayed far more empathy with the struggles of "joe sixpack", than any republican, then or since.

    as well, eleanor roosevelt was the "princess diana" of her day, beloved by the people, because of the true concern she had for them. actually, i should say, princess diana was the eleanor roosevelt of her day, mrs. roosevelt was her role model.

    all that said, it wasn't FDR's policies that lifted the country out of the "great depression", it was the advent of america's entry into wwII, and the huge (deficit) gov't spending that it required.

    i'm not sure this is the correct model to follow for the current crises. the banks, with the acquiescence of the regulatory agencies, and the active, willing participation of the consumers, brought on this fiscal disaster. they should, for equity's sake, be the ones who bear the brunt of it.

    any gov't relief should be spare and targeted. aside from that, let the chips fall where they may.

    Gotta Love FDR's Limited (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by gtesta on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    government relief.  Those policies that didn't work included:  social security, FDIC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, CCC, TVA, ...

    Not to mention the WPA (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:35:07 PM EST
    WWII saved the economy's bacon, but it's ridiculous to say FDR's programs had no effect.

    and again, for those of you (none / 0) (#70)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    either on drugs, or just ignorant of US history (i'll give gtesta the benefit of the doubt, and assume he is the latter), none of those policies had any DIRECT affect on pulling the country out of the depression.

    that isn't to suggest they weren't good policies: some had obvious long-term benefits, others had short-term, morale building affects.

    however, the facts belie the myth: it was the massive spending, and huge war materials & supplies manufacturing, that finally lifted the country out of its fiscal crisis.

    please, before you make more of an ass out of yourself, go actually read that history textbook you never bothered to crack open in school.


    Yah, you're so wrong (none / 0) (#101)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:54:02 AM EST
    History?  Apparently, you only read that fluffy part which covered the economy as a whole and totally ignored the day to day realities of individuals.  WW2 saved our economy?  Maybe on paper - it made the bankers' fortunes and helped Wall St. - if that's the 'economy' you're reading about in your history.  Once again, only the rich people's version of reality means anything to your historians?  FDR's programs prevent people from starving to death.  Bit of a difference there, eh?  You might call that a DIRECT affect, sure to boost people's morale.

    Crack a textbook?  How about some direct research among people who lived through that period?  Book larnin' only gits ya so far...


    I'll let the man's words speak for me... (none / 0) (#104)
    by gtesta on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:05:09 AM EST
    ..."For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor--other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

    Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended."...

    "There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."

    FDR Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.
    June 27, 1936

    p.s.  I like that.  Hope, Change and a rendezvous with destiny.  Let's go with that.


    Obama or McCain will do what they see (none / 0) (#72)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:24:00 PM EST
    is best for Wall Street.  They always have.

    This was primarily a democratic problem put on steroids by the republicans in order to make it look like there was more affluence than there really is to boost middle class and lower class consumerism while very wealthy people skimmed, skimmed, and skimmed some more.  Those would be the primary supporters of the two major parties.  You don't bite the hand that feeds you.  Don't expect congress nor the executive branch to change the direction of this train.  There is a reason no oversight was placed into the bailout bill. Heck, Biden helped make it nearly impossible for the average person to weather this storm by being unable to declare bankruptcy nor seek further assistance.  He's credit card company all the way.

    You are trying to make your candidates into something they aren't - populus politicians concerned with the little guy.  They simply are not this and will not become this.

    You are choosing to be ruled by the elite because you continue to repeatedly support for and vote for the elite.  And, because of our collusion we now have a market owned by media who selects and reports on the issues that the politicians address after they have been paid by the markets and special interest to give their money to the media to broadcast their stances on the issues selected by the media.

    This is quite simply a recipe for disaster and it has been painful to watch so much energy, money and time from everyone here and everywhere else go into supporting a system that betrays us and fleeces us again and again.

    There is no longer a distinction between media, politican, corporation, and trained consumer.  If you stay within the pre-selected choices, next time make sure the candidate with the best track record of actually challenging the system while thriving in the system gets elected.  Don't lay down because your DNC leadership tells you what's best for you and accept their choice by breaking nearly every DNC rule available to do it while Dem's stand by like deer in the headlights.

    You want to stay in the system or let the system rule you, next time insist that the one you cast your general election vote for is better at colluding and getting you all a better piece of the pie.  Obama and Biden have yet to show evidence of ever having done this.

    Thank you Biden for Clarence Thomas?  Thank you Biden for preventing middle class bankruptcy access?  Thank you Biden for taking away money from women's projects then re-wrapping some it back into a monstrously difficult package to use to increase congressional control over it and managing to be hailed as a champion of women rather than just one more person in the way? Thank you Biden for Iraq?

    Thank you Obama for voting to give big oil more tax breaks so that the other legislation increasing their fees is offset by Cheney's bill?  Thanks for caving into nuclear energy?  Thanks for voting for offshore natural gas drilling?  Thanks for leaving all those people in your district in Rezko's tenements without heat in the winter?  You're real swell.  Real competent. Thanks for FISA enlarge?  For wanting to restrict a woman's right to choose?  For trying to bait queers like me into believing you give a rat's a--.  For funding the war?  Again and again and again?

    Is there a difference between republicans and democrats.  Yes.  Not much.  But enough to make an election look square.  But from where I'm sitting, this nation is being played by both these parties as they wrestle back and forth for power.  Power and money.  That is the underlying goal.  A drive for money and power.

    The bailout was the last straw for me.  While there are the few who still try to lead, the majority of both parties, including their presidential candidates, just argue over how the glutted monster should be properly fed.

    where are you sitting? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:06:22 PM EST
    Is there a difference between republicans and democrats.  Yes.  Not much.  But enough to make an election look square.  But from where I'm sitting, this nation is being played by both these parties
    From where I'm sitting, those small differences are major. Consider: if only 200 people had voted for Gore instead of Nader in Miami-Dade in 2000, we would have never invaded Iraq and blown a trillion dollars, we would have saved the Social Security surplus instead of seeing Bush try to privatize it, we would have invested in infrastructure/energy/jobs, we would be addressing climate change now, we could even have had a national health care plan.  Small differences if you are way more liberal or conservative than most Democratic elected officials, but to most of the country those differences are huge.

    Obama is no Al Gore. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by echinopsia on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:36:29 PM EST
    Al Gore was criticized in many of the same (none / 0) (#81)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:45:25 PM EST
    ways that Obama has been, based on the campaign he ran.  On any of the issues I mentioned, Obama is in sync with Gore.  And Al Gore strongly supports Obama as the next president.  They're both Democrats -- you're splitting hairs.

    What's so different about Obama? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:04:21 PM EST
    Other than the fact that he's not a white Southerner?  I'm sorry but the irrational hatred of this man while we lionize Al Gore and Hillary is just completely out of touch with reality.  The criticisms leveled at him from folks like yourself would apply to virtually all Democrats!

    The simple fact is, in January either Barack Obama or John McCain will be the next President.  Until we change our election laws (and perhaps even the apportionment provisions in the constitution) we will have a 2 party system.

    Two words: Grow up.


    Two words: shape up. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:33:28 PM EST
    C'mon, Iris...get a clue.

    There is no irrational hatred of Obama on this site...rational criticism, yes...hatred, no.  And no one is lionizing Gore or Hillary to demonize Obama.

    Understood...you're a cheerleader.  This is the wrong site for that.  This is a discussion site and most of the folks here have a long and sensible history in discussing both candidates and issues.


    fair enough (none / 0) (#94)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:51:04 PM EST
    I wasn't trying to impugn TalkLeft at all, just some of the spurious arguments made against Obama.  Let's bring on that sensible discussion.

    I've got two words for you too, Iris. (none / 0) (#98)
    by echinopsia on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:12:06 AM EST
    Bite me.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#102)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:06:09 AM EST
    "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama

    Like FISA?