home

The Debate: The Economy

While John McCain is erratic, angry and desperate about his own political fortunes as opposed to the country's problems (country first, my ass), the American People are angry and desperate about the economy.

Tonight's debate/town hall is a chance for Barack Obama to explain, argue for and detail how he will help Main Street, homeowners and ordinary Americans in this time of economic distress. Yesterday, John McCain flip flopped - after first saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" he now says "this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" (and he would know). Of course John McCain is more interested in talking about the Weather Underground than the economy. This is not surprising as he admits himself he knows nothing about the economy.

Barack Obama needs to tell the American People what he will do to help us through these tough times, how he will help Main Street. John McCain is a prop tonight. What we need to hear is Obama have a conversation with the American People about what matters. I hope he does it.

by Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: Desperado, Running On Empty | Ohio Breaking To Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yes, that's exactly what he should do. . . (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:05:49 AM EST
    right after he takes a large stick and thumps McCain fifteen or twenty times.

    McCain's a big T.R. ... (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:09:06 AM EST
    fan.  He'd probably appreciate being hit with a big stick.

    Parent
    I wish he would (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:03:46 AM EST
    but my sense of the public is that any moment spent admonishing McCain for his smear tactics is a completely wasted moment.  Not to disagree with the blogosphere, which has decided the entire essence of politics is showing that you're willing to hit back hard, but I disagree with the blogosphere.  At least for purposes of this debate.

    Parent
    I actually meant. . . (none / 0) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:42:30 AM EST
    any moment spent admonishing McCain

    hitting him with a stick.  I originally had "with rusty nails sticking out of it" in my comment but I took that out.

    I'm really cheesed off, as you may be able to tell.  I fully understand I may not get the job I applied for with Obama's debate prep team.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:47:27 AM EST
    He did a good punch back yesterday with Keating.

    Now to pivot to what people care about.

    Parent

    Pinata? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Finis Terrae on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:31:30 AM EST
    How will the questions/questioners (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:32:05 AM EST
    be chosen?  I keep wondering why McCain thinks that format is his best -- he's only in friendly crowds who ask him questions like "Sen. McCain, why are you so heroic?" He's hardly ever exposed to someone who might, you know, ask him a hard question.

    But will the Commission, or Brokaw, be screening questions/questioners? Can Brokaw (who's been making excuses for McCain lately) skew the questions?

    Brokaw (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Lahdee on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:16:54 AM EST
    doesn't have much of a role beyond introducing the candidates and policing the clock. Perhaps he'll serve up a strong rebuke should a candidate wander too far downstage or sit inelegantly.

    Parent
    I just read something on the NYT (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:13:57 AM EST

    The Caucus Blog
    that indicates that questions will come from 80 undecided voters on the stage. It sounds like the Clinton/Bush I/Perot debate. Despite McCain's attempt to switch the focus of the campaign to Obama's "character,"

    ...it seems likely that the voters will pull tonight's conversation back to issues that matter most to them, like the economy, health care and education.

    Questions posted on the Internet for the debate show that voters are intensely interested in what the candidates will do to shore up the tanking financial system.

    I'm assuming that some of the questions will be about healthcare -- it's certain an economic issue.  McCain claims that Obama is lying about his healthcare plan, but another article in the NYT indicates that even businesses are not crazy about it:

    For some workers, depending on their tax bracket and insurance costs, the new tax credits would exceed the value of the tax exclusion, making the swap profitable. But with the average employer-sponsored family policy costing $12,680 this year, other workers would find the exchange a losing proposition. They would either have to spend more, reduce their coverage or persuade employers to make up the difference.

    Officials with eight business trade groups contacted by The New York Times predicted the McCain plan would raise costs and force some employers to stop providing health benefits.

    A recent survey of 187 corporate executives by the American Benefits Council and Miller & Chevalier, a consulting firm, found that three-fourths felt the repeal of the tax exclusion would have a "strong negative impact" on their workers. Only 4 percent said they would provide additional pay to fill any gaps.

    John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, an association of leading chief executive officers, said his group instead supported extending the tax exclusion to those who bought coverage on their own.

    "One of the things we don't want to do," Mr. Castellani said, "is jeopardize 170 million Americans who do get insurance through their employers."

    A number of business officials are worried that Mr. McCain's tax credits would lure young and healthy workers into the individual market to take advantage of cheaper, less-generous policies. That, they say, would leave employers to cover an older and sicker pool of workers, forcing up premiums.

    Workers who found that they had less buying power with the tax credits than with the tax exclusion could be expected to pressure employers to raise salaries or benefit subsidies, the business officials said.

    I'm hoping McBush gets a few questions on exactly what his healthcare plan would do to American workers and their employers, and that Obama has read this article.

    Parent

    People want leadership (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:00:11 AM EST
    The way the market has been going and public sentiment, I don't think either candidate been able to instill any confidence in their ability to handle the economic melt down. Obama has to be specific in the debate. Now isn't the time for generalities.

    I fully expect Obama to win the election, but I would prefer that he became a leader now. If he doesn't, we're going to be in for a miserable 4 years and he'll be another one term Democrat.

    We don't know what the shadow markets (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:25:35 AM EST
    contain thanks to deregulation.  We have more than just a confidence problem.  It is hard for me to project a BS confidence and lead anyone into something I can't even define for myself yet.

    Parent
    I hope it isn't as depressing ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:58:18 AM EST
    as the last P debate.  And Obama actually talks about the economy.

    More likely we'll get vague, centrist, run-out-the-clock, happy talk.

    Hope I'm pleasantly surprised.

    Other than blink a lot, and use the words "straight talk" and "maverick," I don't know what McCain will do.

    Ugh, somehow my television got stuck (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:04:20 AM EST
    on the Obama channel when we were all sleeping, someone laid on the remote.  I dreamt about Obama all early morning.  On the Obama channel he does say a few things about the economy, nothing substantial though.  He needs to.  Will he?  The American people have only begun to be angry about the economy too because it is going to get much worse.  We have only begun to be chapped.

    Why should he say anything substatial? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kenosharick on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:59:46 AM EST
    The strategy of vague platitudes and counting on an economic meltdown seems to be working. If the latest polls are correct he will ride America's miseries right into the WH.

    Parent
    That's quality passive-aggressive response (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:17:43 AM EST
    It almost sounds like you think Obama is cheering on our economic woes.

    Parent
    I think it's called "sarcasm" ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:33:03 AM EST
    which doesn't need to be passive about its aggression.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:06:46 AM EST
    That's quality passive-aggressive response

    Well, that passive aggressive attitude is the Du Jour style of Politics, as Obama is demonstrating these days. He lets other carry most of the water for him and reaps the benefits politically.

    It almost sounds like you think Obama is cheering on our economic woes.

    It's probably guaranteed him the presidency. However, the meltdown probably made certain he'll be a one term wonder because he'll be so strapped for cash. So it's a melt down that is welcomed with certain obvious qualifications. I don't really think he's intellectually prpared for repeating the New Deal so he'll bumble along and take bad fiscal and economic advice from Dodd and Biden and land up in the gutter in 2012.  

    Parent

    Why do you say this? (none / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    However, the meltdown probably made certain he'll be a one term wonder because he'll be so strapped for cash.

    Historically this hasn't shown to be true.  Reagan was reelected convincingly.  FDR destroyed his opponent in 1936 despite being mired in a massive Depression.

    I don't really think he's intellectually prpared for repeating the New Deal so he'll bumble along and take bad fiscal and economic advice from Dodd and Biden and land up in the gutter in 2012.

    Intellectually prepared?  What does that even mean?  You don't think he can understand the situation?  

    Parent

    FDR... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:20:02 AM EST
    ...did something that shattered orthodoxy.

    And no I don't think Obama understands what sort of an opportunity is presenting itself.  He's more or less in the pocket of guys like Dodd (banking) and yeah Biden (credit cards). I've seen nothing from his writing that suggests he's prepared to make the sort of leap that FDR took.

    Parent

    Salo, this is my biggest (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:31:12 AM EST
    fear also... too much Chicago School economic orthodoxy, to be more specific on my part.

    But given how the race is playing out, unless there's a major miscue, should Obama change his strategy now?

    Parent

    Once again (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:44:16 AM EST
    I have pointed this out on several occasions.

    FDR did not present his more radical solutions until AFTER he was elected.  As a matter of fact most of his proposals were ideas that he didn't even support prior to his election.   The leap you refer to occurred during the 100 days.

    FDR was a pragmatist.  He looked for solutions rather than advancing philosophical doctrine.  That's what made him such a great leader.  

    Obama has shown himself to be even keeled and willing to listen to solutions.  Everything he has shown, so far, is that he is willing to solutions from both the left and right.  I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

    I have absolutely no idea why you think he is the pocket of Dodd or Biden.  It is simply a surreal argument to make.  

    Parent

    Well,,, (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    ... we'll likely see, then, won't we?  If Obama is the same sort of pragmatist as FDR?

    Parent
    Doesn't he have a host of (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    non-elected official policy advisors on the economy?  I fear they don't have a solution at present, or, if they do, Obama's political advisors are saying:  stay vague.  

    Parent
    I don't honestly think he's counting on an (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:16:06 AM EST
    economic meltdown to help himself.  I do think it is difficult for him to commit to solutions though as there are at least two ways to do this recovery.  Being specific opens the door for McCain to begin smearing and scaring people about what Obama's recovery methods are and there's lots to be scared about.  Nothing is going to economically improve in the near future.  Things will get worse before they get better no matter what is done at the moment.  There are going to be things that need to be done that we aren't going to be able to get agreement on to do until things get worse and we must all come together to do what we must do.

    Parent
    Removing economic quislings (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    like Dodd from banking would be a good start.  The Democratic hold outs on the bailout look to have their head screwed on right, but they are marginal figures for now.

    As the stock exchange continues to blow up and the economy sinks, I suppose they may defeat the bank friendly Franks and Dodds in the party.

    Parent

    Fundamental difference (none / 0) (#5)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:10:08 AM EST
    BTD I think this is the fundamental differnce between Republicans and Demacrats.  I don't want to look to someone in government to help me or business out.  If the government provides the basics...infrastucture, military and the like...I should be able to make a living based on my willingness to work hard.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by wasabi on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:38:03 AM EST
    That's pretty much what's been happening for the past 8 years.  The govt provided the basics, but alas, no regulation or oversight.  How's that working out for the world lately?

    Parent
    No.... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST
    the last 8 years our government ignored the crumbling infrastructure, instead they built part of a useless fence along the Mexican border to try and keep out migrant workers.

    the last 8 years they decided to play empire and occupy two countries.

    the last 8 years they continued a devastating tyrannical war against their own people.

    That ain't the basics...I wish they just stuck to the basics.  A fair square deal for all, equality under the law, and stop rigging the game for the fat cats.

    Parent

    That could be a manifesto Kdog. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    Me likey what you said.  Don't go into detail an ruin it of course.

    Parent
    Damn details.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    that's where the devil resides:)

    As I've said many times, I'm easy to please, I just wanna be free.  If I die starving in a ditch with no health insurance, that's fine, just wanna live and die free by my own wits.  

    Right now, the freedom is sorely lacking, without a friend to be found both right and left.

    Parent

    I don't believe I said (none / 0) (#18)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:03:31 AM EST
    That there should be no oversight.  There should should certainly be some regulation and oversight over certain businesses.  I'm in an industry that was basically self regulated until Enron and other accounting scandals came to light.  These instances were mainly caused by greed within my industry.  As a result Sarbanes-Oxley was established, which was a knee-jerk reaction to appease the public.  While it has helped to make some transactions of public companies more transparent, the push is being made more and more to apply the regulations to private companies as well.  This is a huge burden on business people who were not part of the problem.  This is an example of the establishment of regulations that had good intentions, but the people (Congress) did not think how the regulations would effect the overall market.  The same can be said for other regulations that are having a significant impact on our economy today, such as the Community Reinvestment Act.  I don't think anyone can argue that everyone should have the opportunity to own a home.  But those people should be capable of affording it as well.  In addition banks should not be forced to make bad business decisions.  Again the act had good intentions, but no one thought about the consequences of what could happen.  I understand that this particular act has only played a small role in the current crisis, but it has contributed to it nonetheless.

    Parent
    Just so you know (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:05:09 AM EST
    the vast majority of banks reported that CRA lending was profitable and good for their business.

    Parent
    Of course it was profitable (none / 0) (#32)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:32:48 AM EST
    because the banks not longer had to keep the loans on their books.  Hence the creation of mortgage back securities.

    Parent
    Reform of the financial system (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    will not  occur without new regulations and effective oversight.  Derivatives, including credit default swaps, are among culprits that need to be a top priority for such regulation.  Correction and prevention of the mess we are in is the result of too little, not too much federal government.  Sorry, but that ideology was, unfortunately, given its unfettered chance over the past seven years and we are now in the position of trying to cope with it all.   I do not know how many Americans put their money in a bank because they so implicitly trust those nice bankers, but I do so because of the federal guarantee of my deposit. In my view, the bailout/rescue will go a long way toward getting the country back on track, although I do hope not much money is allocated until the Bush administration is out of office--we know how they misuse it, or may be hiring using criteria such as being pro-life or anti-stem cell research rather than on the basis of financial/economic expertise.

    Parent
    You said (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    that banks should not be forced to make bad business decisions.

    I responded by pointing out that banks were not, in fact, forced to make bad business decisions.

    If you want to talk about the causes of the economic crisis we can talk about it.  But blaming it on the CRA is nothing but a mind-numbing recitation of GOP talking points.

    Parent

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:13:27 AM EST
    When the government is buying your sh*tpile, now Bernanke wants to buy commercial paper, then you have to decide - you want the government to help or not?

    Let's put it this way - you must be opposed to the bailout. Hell, you must be opposed to the Fed period.

    Parent

    I am opposed to the bailout (none / 0) (#34)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:37:26 AM EST
    as it is structured now.  I am certainly opposed to the additional items they added to make it pass.  And no I'm not opposed to the Fed.  Government in general has its place, it is not suppose to be as far reaching as some would like.

    Parent
    So you'll be voting for Bob Barr (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:51:07 AM EST
    I take it.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#39)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:16:50 AM EST
    I think you know who I'll be voting for.  I believe he is better know on this site as "McSame"...don't wish to use some of the other terms.  And no I don't agree with everything that he stands for, but that is nothing new.  I think Sen. Obama will likely win this election.  Needless to say he is a great politician, but I don't see how he can accomplish much of his agenda given the economic enviroment that we are in.  

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:46:31 AM EST
    You vote for McCain seems indefensible to me if you believe what you are writing in these comments.

    Parent
    Why is that? (none / 0) (#67)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:39:20 AM EST
    I'm a fiscal conservative.  I believe McCain comes as close as either candidate to what I believe.  I could be proved wrong.  I certainly was with Bush.  As I said I don't agree with everything that McCain believes.  For that matter, I don't believe everything that is on the Republican platform.  Do you believe in everything on the Obama platform?  If so, then the choice is clearer for you that it is for me.  But if you are so entrenched in that belief and others in the Democratic party feel the same, then how is Washington going to change.  It will continue to move from one extreme to the other and nothing will be accomplished.

    Parent
    So do you support (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    Paygo?  Or are you like most fiscal conservatives and oppose it because it could lead to higher taxes and prefer that we simply borrow the money instead?

    Parent
    I support pay/go (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM EST
    simply because that is how I live my own life.  I have credit cards, but don't maintain balances on them.  I have a mortgage, but its a payment that I can maintain (barely) while still supporting my family with the basics.  There is no reason why our government should not be run the same way.  I don't mind paying higher taxes if its for programs that are necessary.  I also believe that everyone should pay their fair share.  I simply believe our government is inefficient and they continue to make promises that they can not keep.

    Parent
    Hopefully (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:39:04 AM EST
    McCain says that tonight.

    Parent
    Last night (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:01:16 AM EST
    Jon Stewart had some video clips from the VP debate:

    PALIN: Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem...

    PALIN: Just everyday working class Americans saying, you know, government, just get out of my way.

    PALIN: Our economy is hurting and the federal government has not provided the sound oversight that we need and that we deserve...

    PALIN: We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight...

    This is not just a Sarah Palin issue.  This is what has actually become of the Republican message these days.

    Parent

    Sarah (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:14:34 AM EST
    IU'd have preferd it if the government had done an eminent domain on the health insurance industry instead of the banking industry.  but what the hell, let's see what happens.

    This is funny also because we had a primary where a lot of chicken littles were saying that UHC was a way to throw money atthe health insurance industry.  hey kids lets throw the money at bankers instead! woo hoo.

    Parent

    Confusing (none / 0) (#26)
    by wasabi on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:16:19 AM EST
    Usually it's been the disconnect between the Palin camp and the McCain camp which has garnered attention.  (WHAT?  We're pulling out of Michigan???  Say it ain't so, John.  Me and Todd want to go do some campaingin' up that a way.)

    Now it's bipolar with her.  We need regulation or else the people will suffer (but I gotta give a shout out to Reagan who thought government regulations were positively evil).

    Wierd.

    Parent

    It's because they have no messsage (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:19:46 AM EST
    The message they have been winning on for the last 30 years(Liberals bad, Government bad, free market perfect) simply doesn't work right now.  

    Parent
    I'd hope it's more than the message (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST
    The content doesn't work, and never really did.

    It would still be interesting to see if Obama will shift from free market orthodoxy in any public statements though.

    Parent

    Well you know (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:16:17 AM EST
    Democrats love government hand-outs.  That's what we are trying to build, right?

    You want to know the fundamental difference Republicans and Democrats. Democrats believe that being rich does not make you special and being poor isn't necessarily a sign of laziness.  Republicans believe that if you are rich you deserve to be and if you are poor you deserve to be.

    No one WANTS to look to the government for help.  They look to the government when they don't see any other options.  This is true whether we are talking about a welfare mom trying to feed her kids or a soccer mom who took a bad loan and is facing a mortgage payment increase of 2000 dollars a month with no means to pay for it.  

    A Republican is a Democrat who has never had bad fortune hit them.  

    The government is not some inherently oppressive or anti-free market entity.  It is a communal organization in which the will of the many counteracts the will of the few, usually the rich and powerful few.  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:59:29 AM EST
    that no one wants to look to the government for help.  But by the same measure at some point the government will have to say no.  Do you not agree that there has to be limits?

    Parent
    No to what? (none / 0) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:24:38 AM EST
    What should the government say no to?  Housing subsidies? No more Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac?  No more tax breaks for mortgages?  

    Or are those good handouts?

    Parent

    That is the issue (none / 0) (#44)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    Both parties have different ideas on what programs are and are not necessary or can be reduced or expanded.  There needs to be compromise on both sides.  But in the end some spending must be cut.

    Parent
    Talk about avoiding the question (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:45:53 AM EST
    Or corporate tax loopholes closed (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sj on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:46:49 AM EST
    As for spending cuts?  From where I sit, the biggest savings are in the military industrial complex.

    Basic human services cuts would enrage me to no end.

    So, yeah.  I'd say we have different ideas about what programs are necessary.

    Parent

    I don't have any problems (none / 0) (#54)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:02:26 AM EST
    with cutting military spending....did I say I did?  Yes corporate loopholes should be cut as well.  But with the cut in the loopholes, do you think we should still increase their tax?  By the way, increasing taxes on businesses does not help you, me or the poor because businesses simply pass on the cost.  We, the consumer, pay the tax indirectly.

    Parent
    The short answer (none / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    Yes.  We should increase their taxes.

    We should also remove corporate personhood.

    Parent

    That wasn't (none / 0) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    what you said upthread.  

    You were saying that Democrats want handouts and Republicans didn't.

    You were implying that Federal housing aid was a bad thing.  

    Now you are saying that the problem is finding a compromise.  

    Housing aid is not the problem.  It's been around for decades with no problem.

    Parent

    The act in its original form was (none / 0) (#71)
    by coast on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM EST
    sound and served a good purpose.  However revisions to the the act under Bush I and Clinton allowed Freddie and Fannie to expand the program and reduce paperwork associated with the loans.  These revisions while well meaning can now be seen as part of the problem.  And if you don't think finding compromise in Washington is a problem, then why has nothing substantial passed through this current Congress?

    Parent
    I agree, BUT (none / 0) (#6)
    by stevea66 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:20:56 AM EST
    I think it would be good for Barack to throw in a few zingers as well - in a diplomatic way.  He can quickly put McCain on his heals with the TRUTH.  See, the good thing is that he doesn't even have to make anything up.  Just hold the mirror up to John and he'll be blinking more than ever before.  McCain has been winking a bit lately, too.  Maybe next they'll give him some mascara.

    He also needs to set the record straight (none / 0) (#7)
    by stevea66 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:23:44 AM EST
    Point by point, if he can, he needs to address some of the slime that's out there, given that there may be some voters who are just now tuning in.

    I think McCain will probably (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:45:50 AM EST
    be switching between his passive-aggressive and aggressive modes throughout the night, trying to distract Obama.  The best result for McCain will probably be that everyone is entirely put off by both Obama and McCain for seeming trivial.  I can't really imagine the McCain camp having some smear bombshell we don't know about, and Ayers is old news.  So Obama needs to stay out of the petty crap and provide detailed answers.

    Has their ever been a debate in the last (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:50:49 AM EST
    50 years where detailed answers were given? I wouldn't expect either of them to go much beyond "my economic plan will make more jobs" and "I hate pork barrel spending".

    Parent
    It's not that bad. (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:11:05 AM EST
    For instance, Obama could explain the way he plans on making college more affordable through adjustments to student loans, service programs, etc.  

    Parent
    That is an excellent place to put some (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:22:55 AM EST
    words in!  It's pretty hard to dog that too at this time.

    Parent
    basically (none / 0) (#17)
    by mpBBagain on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:03:04 AM EST
    basically this is like game 4 of the NBA FINALS

    Team McCain is down  3 games to none to Team Obama.

    Its half time of Game 4  and Team Obama is up by 25pts

    The Coach for Team McCain in a half time interview says that 10 years ago  one of the TEAM OBAMA's cheerleaders did a porno.

    that the scheme for McCain from here on out.


    Details (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mikeb302000 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:10:43 AM EST
    If I've heard it once I've heard it 20 times that Obama is vague.  I don't believe it, in fact I think this is another example of how the Republicans take a lie and repeat it so often that even people who should know better don't.  Nevertheless, tonight is the time for Barack to do just what you said:

    Tonight's debate/town hall is a chance for Barack Obama to explain, argue for and detail how he will help Main Street

    Here's Obama on HOLC (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM EST
    Here:

    We should encourage Treasury to study the option of buying individual mortgages like we did successfully in the 1930's
    .

    I don't know if that's vague... Since after you parse it carefully, it becomes perfectly clear. But you see what I mean.

    Parent

    sounds straightforward to me (none / 0) (#43)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:32:17 AM EST
    After all, as a candidate, Onama doesn't hold power over Treasury. As president, he will.

    As president, 'encouraging a study' has strong implications, IMO.

    Parent

    No, if you continue parsing carefully (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:40:23 AM EST
    It's still vague.

    First reaction:  almost none really

    Second reaction: after reading your comment, a nod of "okay, good.  He's coming around."

    Third reaction:  Oh.  He's only advocating a study.  And he's only encouraging Treasury.  What about his staff?  Is he studying it also?  Surely there are existing studies that are related.  Has he read them?  Does he have any opinion on it at all?    

    It's back to watered down.

    Parent

    That's lamberts point. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:15:57 AM EST
    it's an empty sentence.

    Parent
    Starting with "we should encourage" (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:00:05 PM EST
    It's a start (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    Except when you notice... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    ... that Obama, when working the phones for the bailout, advocated letting bankruptcy judges do the cram down, not HOLC.

    So, it may be a start, but in what direction is, to be generous, not clear. (Unless and until HOLC directly benefits Obama's base, I don't think he'll go for it. So things have to get a lot worse.)

    Parent

    Well, that's true enough (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    I hope one citizen asks both these (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    guys how, after 8 years of watching GWB in action, they managed to get conned once more.

    h/t Lambert at Corrente for the link to Froomkin.

    conned? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:21:30 AM EST
    Who's being conned and who's doing the confidence trick?

    Parent