home

Obama Press Conference

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:06:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's going on now. Talk about it here.

Update (TL): News recap here. The transcript is here.

< Rooting For The Home Team | States Figure It Out: Save Money by Closing Prisons >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Press Conference | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Chuck Todd asks about the public sacrificing (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    are u effin kidding me?  I sacrifice every two weeks when the gov't comes along and takes a big bite out of my a$$.

    That was an insulting question, but (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:14:14 PM EST
    consider the source.

    Parent
    Either that or MSNBC is trying to keep it's (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:19:25 PM EST
    BFF status w/the softball questions.

    Parent
    More like a set-up prompt (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by vigkat on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:10:50 PM EST
    than a softball question.  Pandering is the word that came to mind.

    Parent
    Obama is giving a good answer (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    by going first to specific examples -- no names, but noting that parents are giving up everything else to keep kids in college, workers are taking furloughs to keep coworkers on payrolls.  Those examples speak straight to the middle class, whom he needs to keep with him.  

    Then he goes back to D.C., trying to separate himself from it (that may work for a little while more) and discussion of economic models.  That's good for the wonks, and he keeps it short.  He's doing better at short answers this time -- so far.

    Parent

    Yes, the answer was good at least. (none / 0) (#4)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:18:33 PM EST


    Parent
    It's what a televised presser is for (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:27:55 PM EST
    -- giving good answers to quell critics saying that he's not on top of it all.  He's looking on top of it.  And he's looking serious, after the silly weeks of ESPN, Leno, etc.  That's what this is for.  No one thought this would be the venue for a major announcement or new direction, I would hope.

    Parent
    He's continued to give good answers imo n/t. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sallywally on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:26:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Until . . . (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:28:21 PM EST
    the use of "entitlements" again.  Grrrrrr.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by vigkat on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:18:38 PM EST
    They apparently are part of the "structural" aspects of the deficit, i.e., by "reforming" them, he may be able to reach his goal of cutting the deficit in half in a year or two.

    Parent
    The MCMers* are so concerned about deficits--WHEN (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:26:28 PM EST
    Dems are in the presidency!

    It's so predictable. Sheesh.

    And this financial mess/crisis is going to cost about as much as BushBoy's War of Choice in Iraq (illegal, preventive, unnecessary).

    Ooooh, the concern! It burns!

    *MCMer--Member of the Mainstream Corporate Media

    Think of the children! (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:36:18 PM EST
    Gah.

    They could care less about those "children" when they shipped them off to war and bankrupted them in the process.

    Funny how it's only bad for "the future" when it involves a green energy policy, education, and health care.  Things that could, ya know, pay off in the future.

    Parent

    SOCIALIST :) (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:30:26 PM EST


    Parent
    But to be fair... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 08:59:58 AM EST
    we left-leaners shouldn't only b*tch about deficits caused by spending favored by the right.

    Deficits should be avoided period...it's common sense.

    Parent

    There's deficits and then (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    there's deficits.

    I think it makes a big difference what the money is being spent on.  If you spend it on something that could make the country money in the future, like education, it's not the same as spending money to blow stuff up.

    But yea, that's why I think income taxes need to go up.

    Also, I don't remember too many left-leaners b*tching about the deficit either.  Only b*tching about war spending - which caused the deficit, but isn't the same thing as complaining about general deficits.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:39:04 AM EST
    you can go in debt building things or blowing things up, obviously building things is better, unless you're into war-pron.

    But go into debt too deep, for any reason, the show is over.

    Parent

    ya (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:48:36 PM EST
    It's amazing how suddenly its an issue.  The debt was THE issue during the Clinton years and the minute Bush was in they dropped it like a stone.  He doubled the debt and they just nodded about it.

    It could just be laziness.  They do something similar to the republicans on the issue of the homeless.  These are easy story lines to pull out of mothballs.

    Parent

    It's the Village Media (none / 0) (#87)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 11:46:23 PM EST
    Establishment position.  Browbeat Democrats with alarm about deficits but pay little or no attention when a Republican is in the White House blowing many billions on pointless weapons systems, foreign adventures and tax cuts for the have most.  

    I believe it's, in part, that old saw that Democrats are big spenders and that's an automatic storyline when Democrats are in the White House.

    Must keep that storyline come hell nor high water. Al Gore is pedantic and dull; must keep that storyline.  Clinton is a philanderer and Hillary reveals character flaws for staying with him and they must be shady and they really don't belong; must keep that storyline.

    Entitlement claims will increase as the population ages and that will cost money we haven't got; must keep that storyline.

    Taxes are evil; must keep that storyline.

    All of it's crap but a storyline is a storyline.

    Life is so much simpler with a storyline.

    Parent

    military spending (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:32:07 PM EST
    cost overruns.  How much are the ceo's of defense companies earning?

    We as a people pay a 30% overrun, and the ceo makes multi million each year.  How can you have an overrun and the ceo is still reaping multi-million on our backs?

    Ooh, nice little slam to (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:37:46 PM EST
    the guy from CNN. "I like to know what I'm talking about before I respond."  

    1 in 50 children in America (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:46:07 PM EST
    is now homeless? My god. What kind of country are we that we allow this tragedy to exist?

    Maybe the government should (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    require firms that take government money and pay bonuses to their employees to pay one-half of the bonus to the employee and one-half to fund programs that provide food, shelter and care to those most affected by this economic downturn - without allowing either the company or the employee to deduct it as a charitable contribution.

    Parent
    In order to pay those big bonuses, those companies (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:23:36 PM EST
    give the rest of their employees 1% raises and reduce or eliminate the company's contribution to health insurance.

    Parent
    Hey, I like that! (none / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:08:34 PM EST


    Parent
    It is sad that this is one of the first (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:31:50 PM EST
    Questions about the poor that I have heard come out of a reporters mouth in a VERY long time.

    Parent
    Whoa! Even the report allows that (none / 0) (#45)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:18:13 PM EST
    natural disasters cause a child to be included in the data of "experiences homelessness"

    Reflecting the disarray caused by Hurricane Katrina, the report said Louisiana had the most homeless children per capita in 2006, followed by Texas and California
    .

    Floods, hurricanes, fires, tornados earthquakes cause homelessness not society's indifference.

    Parent

    How does that account for NY homeless rate (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:27:43 PM EST
    of 1 in 47 children?

    Floods, hurricanes, fires, tornados, earthquakes? Really?

    Parent

    Here's the data (none / 0) (#61)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:00:16 PM EST
     for New York State (pdf link)

    the report is grading how adequate the states are prepared for homelessness (whether natural disasters of domestic violence or whatever the cause) not how bad society is for "allowing" a child to  "experience a state of homelessness"

    Parent

    And the expression (none / 0) (#89)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 11:59:53 PM EST
    of societal concern is through government.


    Parent
    Or through charity... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:10:01 AM EST
    if we only expressed societal concern about how our government operates then we'd be getting somewhere.

    We pay our vig and think we did our part...that's bullsh*t.  In fact, I say paying the vig does more harm than good...it's akin to outsourcing our responsibilites to a corporation running sweatshops and torture chambers.

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#116)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    your bit about charity is reminiscent of Herbert  Hoover.

    Relying on charity is a major cop out. It's one of the the biggest loads of bullsh!t that comes out of the libertarian right.  It allows the very wealthy to side step their responsibilities to society.

    Mandatory taxation as set by statute insures that we all 'donate.'

    Parent

    True. But I was thinking more (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    of Bush the First -- and of kdog as one of his li'l "1000 points of light" . . . as that Bush said we would not have to raise taxes if we all just went back to the halycon, pre-New Deal days of private charities.  Yeh, poorhouses worked so well -- just not for the poor.

    Parent
    As far as I can tell... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    the poor houses got replaced by public prisons built and filled by your beloved benevolent big brother state, which in turn are being replaced by private prisons with big brother getting kickbacks.

    Obviously the poor always get f*cked, seems like your big government "improvement" adds the working class, the middle class, sh*t even the upper middle class to the f*cked pile.  Wonderful.

    Parent

    The fact that (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 11:57:13 PM EST
    federal response in the last 8 years to those disasters has been woefully inadeqate is a significant factor in those numbers.

    It's been over three years and New Orleans is still not whole.  The consequences of other hurricanes since Katrina are still problematical.

    A government that had no interest in governing, as we had for 8 long years, is responsible for these shameful statistics.

    Parent

    Did I miss the link for that quote? Where is it? (none / 0) (#49)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:25:22 PM EST
    Thnx.

    Parent
    here's the link (none / 0) (#57)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:33:33 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Is there an actual source that supports this (none / 0) (#66)
    by coast on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:14:21 PM EST
    number.  Seems rather high to say the least.

    Parent
    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#72)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:29:10 PM EST
    Are all those children living on the streets?  Or are they in foster homes because their parents can't take care of them because of no jobs, or drug addiction, or they are in jail?  

    I'd really like to know where all those homeless children are living.  Sorry, but I don't believe we have 20 million children living on the streets.

    Parent

    Homeless kids (none / 0) (#81)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    I read somewhere (and no, I don't have a weblink) that this number includes kids living with aunts, uncles and other relatives who aren't parents.

    Parent
    many are living in shelters with their families (none / 0) (#98)
    by DFLer on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 08:11:17 AM EST
    if they can find room. That's still being homeless.

    Parent
    There are foreclosed and abandoned... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:14:31 AM EST
    dwellings in every state in the union...what are the homeless waiting for?  Help yourself.

    Parent
    wrestling with embryonic research (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:49:39 PM EST
    as if 1 in 50 children homeless is more palatable or less offensive?  Horrific.

    he is good at this (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    I can't imagine that a lot of people aren't bored with this. We are so used to watching news/pundits hyperventilating that actually just watching steady answers could put one to sleep, but you do get the sense that he knows what he is talking about. Gives off a sense of being in charge.

    how nice is it to have a press conference (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    wihtout 50 references to axis of evil and terrorists and dirty bombs and nucular suitcases?

    I am going to Lowes to return the duct tape I bought 8 years ago.

    And follow-up questions allowed! Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:25:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Not sending troops to Mexican border... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:05:57 PM EST
    yet.

    My spouse agrees with you on the yet (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:05:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Secrets of the Federal Reserve (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by joze46 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:14:54 PM EST
    Secrets of the Federal Reserve

    This is good; another explanation made by some one new to me,

    James Quinn Cutting Edge Economic Crisis Analyst
    Describes a very grim reality. It supports what I have been afraid of. 76 million baby boomers are starting to retire and liquidate their portfolio, if it really exists. Mine is zero, I have to work till I drop I am sixty one right now.  It beginning to look like a lot of money manager pirated a whole lot of money. Including my pension.  

    One section that jumps out at me Quinn writes,

    "They have loaned billions to the bankrupt banks that inhabit our financial system while accepting worthless pieces of paper as collateral. They will not reveal to the public the banks they have loaned money to or the collateral that backs up those loans. The arrogance of Ben Bernanke proves that the Federal Reserve answers to bankers, and not to the American public. The books and records of the Federal Reserve are not open to scrutiny by the General Accounting Office. Ron Paul has introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act which would open their books to the public. No organization with as much power as the Federal Reserve should be permitted to operate in the shadows."

    Its not just Bernanke it's a long old timer like Greenspan, the full story: For me most of the network and Journalist are dancing around this issue very skillfully.

    http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11194&pageid=37&pagename=Page+One

    My point is this is the big Kuhuna and I hope Obama has the audacity to address and solve this.

    Over all, another boring press conference (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:47:21 PM EST
    Maybe that's just my now cynical self, but Obama did nothing to reassure me.  

    I watched, it was disappointing (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    After the hearing yesterday though I'm in a mood, not a good one. I need some adequate solutions here!  I just need to eat some cake, then I'd feel better I'm sure.

    bemused, please pay attention to the rules here (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by DFLer on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    The "1" rating is reserved for violation of site rules, for example, personal attacks, racist remarks, profanity, name-calling, use of post to advertise one's commercial site, etc.

    If you merely disagree with a poster, or don't like what they said, and want to post a bad rating, you start with "2".

    thanks

    Where is this rule? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:33:45 AM EST
      I have not seen it. If 1s are to be limited to violations of site rules, i will reconsider.

      I will though ask why if that is so, I have not only had comments given a 1 that don't include any of those transgressions but have actually had them deleted.

    Parent

    My blood runs cold when Obama (4.66 / 9) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:26:06 PM EST
    starts talking about bipartisan efforts to deal with entitlements; I just do not trust him to make the kinds of changes that will actually help.

    Yep, the "entitlements" stuff (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:29:56 PM EST
    is what makes me queasy.  That is where he could lose the voters.

    Parent
    I can't believe he hasn't been told this-something (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:36:40 PM EST
    tells me he is into the St. Ronnie "Cut the Entitlements" thing big time. Alas.

    It's going to take a lot of pressure.

    Oh, now he's going to say how to cut healthcare costs--
    Preventive
    Technology
    Mechanisms as to who does better job while containing costs
    Whole host of things....

    Hey! I've got an idea! Single payer is said to save about $350B a year. Over ten years that would more than pay for even Obama's not-quite-universal plan! Single payer, dooood!

    Drat, he just did one of the false dichotomies things Bush did. Drat.

    Parent

    What do you think the over/under is on (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:07 PM EST
    whether the phrase "single-payer" EVER comes rolling out of Obama's mouth, and if it does, is uttered in a way that does not make it the equivalent of an expletive?


    Parent
    Everything (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:46:09 PM EST
    I've read about those suggestions to "cut costs" really does nothing. The little bit of savings those do make won't even be enough to show up in your average insurance premium.

    Parent
    It's one of the things that (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:12:47 AM EST
    bothered me during the primaries.  His Milton Friedman Memorial Economics team had at least one privatizer on board.

    I have this cold feeling that the Village has decided that entitlement pledges won't be honored and like 'only Nixon can go to China ..' only a Democrat can ...

    This is so frightening that I'm afraid to say it or write it.

    Parent

    Or, (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:55:19 AM EST
      one can stay, express his discontent at what appears to be very biased and unbalanced application of both written rules that are so flexible as to allow for completely arbitrary action and "unwritten rules" one is told he is violating,  in the hope people might recognize that a site which claims a progressive world view should perhaps reconsider censorship for mere disagreement.

      Is that really so unreasonable?

    And, then there's blogclogging (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:23:40 AM EST
    and hijacking of threads by carrying on endlessly with an off-topic line of comments.

    Just observe the commenters before you start deciding to come in and behave differently and claim it's your civil right to change the rules to your personal liking.


    Parent

    show me a SINGLE (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:34:48 AM EST
     example of me hijacking threads with off-topic debates.

      Show me a single comment of mine addressed even in part to an individual rather than to an expressed idea except in direct response to personal comments directed to me.

     

    Parent

    THIS THREAD is Obama's Press Conference (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    Not rules of engagement and rating at TL.

    You are arguing with people who are trying to help you engage in the conversations. I'm moving to a different table, please don't follow me.


    Parent

    but, (none / 0) (#127)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:53:26 PM EST
     who initiated  "misdirection" of the thread from my comment concerning the many people who will receive no help for a plan they are required to subsidize to a discussion of the "rules of engagement?"

      Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. Again, if anyone wants to dispute that, have at it.

    Parent

    Bemused, last warning (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    Please stop turning threads here into discussions about your commenting. Follow the rules:

    No chattering
    No personal attacks or insults
    Stay on topic
    No rating comments a "1" because you disagree with the point of view. A "1" is for trolls.

    And BTD has banned you from this threads.

    I'm tired of seeing threads devolve into debates about your commenting. This is not your blog, you are a guest here. Please follow the rules or go elsewhere.

    Parent

    Read the thread. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:11:21 PM EST
     i am most certainly not the one who turned the discussion into one about my commenting. As you can see a handful of people ganged up to confront me and I merely responded.

      I simply posted a couple of comments which did nothing beyond offer the facts that many people are not facing financing problems with their home loans, will receive no benefit from any of the pland being discussed and will be asked to subsidize them. i then merely opined that this might be considered unfair and result in a backlash. then the others chose to divert rather than address that.

    Parent

    40% (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:18:39 PM EST
    qualify?  What about the 60% who put 10% down on their home yet lost 20% in value in this crisis?  Is it their fault they bought high and are not in default?  You cannot refinance if your appraisal is less than what you paid in 2006.  

    example:  Home purchase price 500k, you put down 50k, amount owed 450k.  Now home is worth 400k so unless you have another 50k to put down, you cannot get a rate reduction from 6.5 to 5.0.

    This only helps home owners who put more than 20% down or have owned a long time.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:22:57 PM EST
    it punishes the people who have tried to be responsible.

    Parent
    If homeowners bought high (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    sadly, they were taking the gamble that the market would go higher -- despite warnings for years now that the boom had to bust.  We've lost value in our home, too, but we knew that could happen.  Been there before.  We buy for the long term.

    The government ought to step in in cases of homebuyers being lied to, being swindled, not getting the protection of the laws in place that mean we have to wade through pages and pages of paperwork -- which is there for our protection.   Homeowners being gamblers -- with so many now in foreclosure who didn't even make first payments -- is a different matter.

    Parent

    long term (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:17 PM EST
    sure, but there are hundreds of thousands who bought high, put 10% down and then lost their job.  It is frankly disgusting to blame them for not foreseeing that their homes were going to drop 20% in a year and that the banks with a 56 trillion dollar cds market, would cost them their jobs/

    Parent
    Again, that their homes lost value (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:18:19 PM EST
    is a different thing, the gamble that renters don't take.  

    But the job situation is a different matter, and I agree that workers weren't gambling that the Masters of the Universe would so muck it all up.  So the programs to help them -- people like my future son-in-law, a single dad who worked long and hard for his worker home, one story with two bedrooms and one bath, and who kept up mortgage payments for years, even through medical crises and more -- those are good programs.  We are grateful for the extension of unemployment comp, and very grateful for the COBRA extension and deduction (COBRA sucks, but it is needed), and will hope for the homeowner help.

    And the worker retraining programs for better fields also are good, and we are awaiting word of how it will work in our state.  With a year of college years ago, he is more than ready to get out of a factory job and go to voc school for a more secure future than found in manufacturing now.

    Parent

    I would love to see us (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    get back to 19-24% mfg and move away from service and retail.  

    Parent
    It has been lifetimes (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 10:13:16 PM EST
    since those days.  There are good and challenging and fulfilling jobs in manufacturing -- but many are not.  At least those jobs had security in halcyon days of unions, but that also was lifetimes ago.

    I live in the region called the Rustbelt in the '80s -- but the seeds of rust were there since the peak period of the '50s.  And rust spreads to anything it touches.  That life deluded too many people I know into telling their kids not to go to college, into not helping them go to college, when a smart kid with an h.s. degree could get a job paying more by the time they were 30 than if they had gone to college . . . and they could make more by the time they were 50, if they ended up floor foremen and such middle management, than college presidents were paid.  But the college president still liked his job.

    The widespread impact in schools and society of that sort of over-reliance on manufacturing, of ignoring its historic imbalances except for the postwar period, can be seen now.  And it could be seen all along in people who bought into a dream that turned out to be mind-numbing work on the line, physical injuries and stresses, etc., and especially psychological stress of frustration from not following their dreams to do and be more.  Those were many of my high school classmates, and I've seen the toll it took.

    I've also seen entire school districts have to send admins and teachers back to school, in a way, to rethink how they were tracking entire classes of students away from college -- people with college degrees telling kids not to get college degrees.  As factories turned into condos and strip malls, entire towns had to retool, and the transition was tough.  But they have done so now, and many families now are sending a generation to college, to voc school, etc., for the first time.  I think it's for the good.

     

    Parent

    I'm big on (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 11:45:34 PM EST
    vocational schools.  There are and always will be fabulous, interesting, satisfying and well-paying jobs in skilled trades, far moreso than in the lower ranks of middle management white-collar fields.

    You're right about the mind-numbing drudgery of many line manufacturing jobs, but the same is true for vast numbers of white-collar jobs.  Honestly, if I had it to do over again, I think I'd have enjoyed earning my living as a plumber or carpenter far more.  I know I'd have made more money!

    Parent

    I used to say I would prefer to paint fences (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 04:25:50 AM EST
    than doing some of the jobs I was doing at the time. At least at the end of the day I would have a sense of accomplishment and could see a job well done!

    On some of the other forums I post on, there are folks who did work line jobs or, one in particular that comes to mind, make good ol' American clothing. Nothing about mind-numbing drudgery, but the pride is STILL there. Especially when they see the problems with some of this cheap imported crap we have.

    We may see a return to a demand for more USA goods. I notice it when I shop. I'm seeing more items clearly marked as made here. That tells me folks care and are asking. I just decided to get a wok. Saw one I like and lo n' behold, it's made here! And if my lil' mom n' pop retailer doesn't carry it, she'll try and order it for me. I KNOW I'm not the only one thinking this way. Remember, toxic product predates toxic economy, lol!~ I think it was last summer that I read the demand for USA made products was up in the EU, so ya never know . . .

    Parent

    Talk to plumbers and carpenters (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:40:20 AM EST
    these days.  When they're on furlough from their firms.  That's what's happening here -- that's what a housing slowdown means. . . .

    But yes, in good times, the guys I know in those fields have deserved pride in their work, and they know it is important work.  Not at all like line jobs.

    Parent

    Well I live (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:07:25 AM EST
    in Michigan and my experience was quite different.

    Education was encouraged in blue collar as well as white colar neighborhoods.  Countless kids from blue collar backgrounds attended college.

    The high school I attended was primarily blue collar and yet the school produced many, many lawyers, doctors, engineers, professors in a wide array of disciplines, teachers, writers, research scientists in many fields.

    Manufacturing is NOT a detriment to attaining education and is in fact a significant motivator, it's the force that makes premier higher education possible.  Without manufacturing this nation will be no more than a weak, hollow, brittle shell.


    Parent

    Cal, how old are you (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:38:28 AM EST
    and what does the 1942 mean in your sig?

    We may be talking about different times. . . .

    Parent

    That's why (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:54:31 AM EST
    it's imperative to back the auto industry to the hilt.

    The nation simply cannot afford to give up on manufacturing. We would become history's biggest joke.

    We can't survive as a finance/retail nation.  That's a prescription for disaster.

    Parent

    How long did they live in the house? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:37:24 PM EST
    If they put 10% down, say $20,000, and lived there for a year or two, that's pretty cheap rent for a house.  

    Our house has lost value, a huge amount in the last few years, but we never believed that house values would ALWAYS go up.  We gotta live somewhere and this is the house we chose.  Yes, we would lose lots of money if we sold, and yes, our income has been cut, my husband can't retire as he had hoped, and yes, our sons can't get jobs, but no one promised us a rose garden, nor did they say life was always fair to everyone.  Our family will make it, one way or the other.  At least dh still has a job and has his health to continue working up into his 70's.  

    Parent

    The housing bubble (none / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:26:12 AM EST
    was little different than any past bubble.  The unencumbered exhuberance was unstoppable.  That's all most people heard. It would always go up.  'Why in a couple of years your house will be worth x'

    The Florida land bust in the 20s come to mind or the incredible exhuberance of the late 20s stock market bubble.  People had the attitude that the market would always go up, that it would never go down.

    The employees, including the owner's son, of a locally owned bank in Flint embezzled money to invest in the stock market.  They thought they would be able to put the money back because the market would always go up.  Then along came Oct. 24, 1929.

    I've been around people with that attitude. If you express anything contrary they look at you like your growing an extra head out of your neck.

    Parent

    And it's (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    the reason a lot of people are just walking away from their houses. They can't sell it without having to take money they don't have to closing.

    Parent
    so it helps those who don't need the help (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:33:17 PM EST
    I can refi and save 400/month on my note, of course I am doing it.  My mom has no such option.

    Parent
    Pretty (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:42:53 PM EST
    much from what I've read. It only helps a very limited few not the vast majority of homeowners.

    Parent
    Wow, you must have had (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:25:25 PM EST
    a high interest rate to cut monthly payments that much.

    We refi'd a few years ago to a better rate so are watching to see if we can go a full percentage point lower, and then will refi again.  Less than a full percentage point is not worth the costs (fairly high where we are for reappraisal, closing, etc.).  We still won't cut payments by that much!

    Parent

    slightly over 6 (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:40:34 PM EST
    but i live in chicago in a decent neighborhood and home prices in some of our neighborhoods are north of a million.  

    My mom lives in a neighborhood in chicago where the homes sell for 300k.  It is a big city with lots of mortgage sizes.

    Parent

    Yes, it is (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:02:46 PM EST
    and much like mine, with such a range.  But this conservative city never gets rates as low as yours, I know, which explains the difference.  We're at a bit below 6 already but don't know that it will go a full percentage point lower, sufficiently below 5.  I've been monitoring for weeks, and we just aren't showing the drops seen in many areas -- but the upside is that we didn't as much of a boom, either, so we're not seeing as much of a bust.

    We have had lots of Chicagoans in recent years who bought properties here for income purposes, with our prices looking like bargains -- but they found that the boom didn't happen here, and now some want to unload the condos that no one here wants.  There was quite a story on this in our paper recently.

    Parent

    thankfully i did not partake (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:14:53 PM EST
    or else I would be eating a note right about now......Not that i didn't consider mind you, my wife is a hell of a lot smarter that way than I thankfully.....

    Parent
    Good. Widespread absentee landlords (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 10:15:08 PM EST
    did us no good.  I saw the impact in my former neighborhood.  It's one of the reasons I moved.

    Parent
    We refinanced too (none / 0) (#74)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    Went from 6.5% to 4.75%.  BIG help.  We're lucky that dh still has a job, even though he's past retirement age.  Can't afford to retire now, even with the lower interest rate.  

    Parent
    We're waiting for about that rate (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:49:46 PM EST
    but it isn't happening here yet -- except at a couple of companies we know not to trust, from their past tendency to flip the properties the next day to some company somewhere that screws up and screws the homeowner.  We won't take that risk -- because we're in a similar age/work etc. situation to yours.  We think we may get our rate next week. . . .

    Parent
    Forgot to add, we paid a point (none / 0) (#80)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:57:17 PM EST
    Because now we can't retire anyway, so paying a point to get the 4.75% worked out for us.  We refinanced with the same company that did our original mortgage.  

    Parent
    Ah. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 10:16:24 PM EST
    Points just aren't done here.  Different system.  May make sense for us to find it somehow; I'd prefer to pay upfront for the long-term reduction.

    Parent
    I've been watching too but (none / 0) (#119)
    by sallywally on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    my sister and I got our 30-year fixed mortgage at 5.5%, so not much chance. We put down almost 50% on our house, from profits we made from selling our old houses. But we'd lost enough from the downturn in prices that we'd lose too much of our equity if we tried to sell now, having to pay off the rest of our mortgage without getting a good price for our house. If that were not the case we would probably be downsizing to a, say, 1500 sq. foot ranch in our area with a lower mortgage payment, lower costs for lawn care, I could clean myself.....but no chance of that now, so our expenses are just as high as before.

    I am retired from Ohio State Univ communications and didn't hang on long enough (I couldn't)to get my 30 years (24 1/2 for me).....so my pension is rather low, which has been hard on our monthly expenses, and our inherited portfolio from our mother has gone way down, so we can't cover with funds that is earning....

    So still scary. But so far we do cover our mortgage each month...lower income and same high expenses though.

    Parent

    I empathize. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    In my case, with a midlife switch, I started teaching too late to get much from the pension system that gives much more to those who started more than 20 years ago.  But we'll end up in the same boat, though I'll probably exceed your number of years in the career by the time the economy recovers sufficiently to rebuild so I can retire.  And so that we can downsize in housing, too -- I've been reading of many and know others among our neighbors who were ready to do so but now must wait for the market to return for bigger houses . . . which also will mean that younger growing families will have to wait to get into them.  

    Btw, when we last re-fi'd, at our late stage in life, too, we went to a 15-year mortgage.  It may be a bit higher per month, which may not be possible for you now, although I've seen 15-year rates below 5.0, so it could come out the same for you.  And it means less of a tax return on interest, but you need that less in retirement.  The reason, of course, is that you're paying down faster on the capital -- which could pay off more for you when you can sell.

    Btw2, you contributed to a great campus and a great department at it, as well I know.  You deserve the best for that work, and I hope all works out well for you.  Columbus is wonderful.

    Parent

    p.s. You could look into cosigning (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:26:24 PM EST
    with your mother to cut her rate.  I did so for my daughter on a car loan recently, and it helped her.


    Parent
    Equally saliently (none / 0) (#97)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 07:45:53 AM EST
     what about the millions and millions of homeowners who are not not in default but not upside down? The bubble and and the bust are heavily concentrated in certain metropolitan areas. Many, I'd guess most, people are either not upside down on a loan or have retired their mortgages and own their homes fee simple.

      That doesn't mean they are not also affected by the downturn in myriad other ways. It  seems as if not only is no one talking about targeting them for relief but that they will be asked "to make sacrifices" so that imprudent borrowers, lenders and traders can be "bailed out."

      Ultimately, making the people least responsible for a "crisis" bear an outsized share of the cost will, and should, have serious political repercussions.

    Parent

    Oh God (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    I'm so tired of being a wet blanket but I'm also so tired of reading what I perceive to be drivel.  We are entering a deep recession right now.  If you aren't upside down in your mortgage right now, don't worry........if you bought in the past five years you will be soon unless you  put up a monstrous down (which means you will be losing a great deal of that equity right off the bat without some sort of mortgage writedown).  In any case equity will be lost......and I'm only speculating but I feel pretty certain in saying this situation is going to suck so bad we'll be losing equity beyond bubble equity.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#107)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:18:55 AM EST
     First and obviously, a great many people didn't purchase and finance their homes in the last five years. Second, a great many people who did purchase and finance their homes within the last five years are not upside down on their homes and did not make "monstrous" down payments.

      Believe it or not, many people act prudently in purchasing  their single largest investment-- their homes. Many resisted the temptation to over buy as first time purchasers and many more didn't  "trade up" and remained in houses which they can afford and in which they have amassed substantial equity. Even if the current value of their house has declined they are not and will not become upside down. Moreover, as I said, the bubble and bust was regionally exaggerated with some areas having experienced large price inflation and then  as large or larger devaluation, but many more areas saw much more modest increases and much less severe correction.

      There are a great many people who now face hardship due to their purchasing and financing decisions. That is not in dispute. What is very much in dispute is whether asking the great many people who bought a home they could afford through good and bad times and who have positive equity in their homes and manageable payments to make substantial sacrifices to bail out others whose borrowing, lending  or trading has precipitated a crisis while receiving nothing in return.

    Parent

    irresponsible budgets (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:20:40 PM EST
    thank you Mr. Bush.

    reduce hc costs (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:37:00 PM EST
    why no example on investing in computerization and the associative savings?  Seems like that would be a cherry pick.

    He mentioned technology, meaning IT--I think. n/t (none / 0) (#25)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:38:48 PM EST


    Parent
    i was hoping for some numbers (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:42:07 PM EST
    behind it.

    Parent
    Go to the website? (joke) (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:26:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow, where the softball questions of yesteryear? (none / 0) (#23)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    Some actually good questions tonight. Now about Chinese mentioning they're concerned about getting their loans to us paid....

    major garrett (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:38:25 PM EST
    that "sir" was condescending.  Love the anger he attached to "communist".  

    Man I miss hating commies.

    Hating the commies (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:29 PM EST
    Yes, it was a simpler time.

    Parent
    Darn I missed that --n/t (none / 0) (#26)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:40:09 PM EST


    Parent
    3.5 million jobs? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:46:29 PM EST
    we have lost 4 million in a year and nearly 2 mn in 3 months. We will lose another 1.5 mn this year at a minimum  "Make sure they have a job?"

    Not very reassuring.  Someone please ask him the follow up that the math simply does not add up to make sure.

    And it takes longer for the homeless (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    to get a job. Those kids won't be getting a roof over their head anytime soon . . .

    Parent
    and we are worried about friggin embryos? (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:55:08 PM EST
    unbelievable

    Parent
    Isn't it strange (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    how pro-lifers seem to value embryonic life over fully-developed lives? I never could understand that.

    Parent
    It's easy to value something that (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    doesn't have to be housed and fed and clothed and educated and cared for - so when push comes to shove, there are - I believe - a small percentage of people who truly do put their money where their mouths are.  Who adopt babies and run programs for pregnant women, who open their homes and their hearts to the so-called unwanted.

    Parent
    The numbers will back him up because (none / 0) (#48)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:21:53 PM EST
    the baby boomer's attrition rate will be enormous (3.6 million a year)

    Parent
    The numbers will change (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:44:00 PM EST
    because a lot of us boomers now can't retire as planned, when planned, etc.  Some certainly still will do so, bringing Obama's numbers closer.  But any projections of retirements based even a couple of months ago ought not be counted upon now.

    We are seeing this very clearly in teaching, where a huge swath of retirements was predicted to happen in coming years.  We already have data showing deferred retirements -- as well as anecdotal evidence of many colleagues now having to reconsider.  

    Or look at the data on the retirement mainstay of many in teaching, TIAA-CREF.  I've been in it for decades, and I never have seen it show losses.  It does so now.  Every month of loss may mean another year of working.

    Parent

    Some Retired Boomers May Be Forced (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:20:07 PM EST
    back into the job market due to loss of income and higher expenses. My health insurance premiums went up 735% in the last two years and the insurance covers a lot less. Major health problems this year. My pension doesn't even cover the increased premiums and hundreds of dollars a month in medical expenses.  Negative cash flows seriously cutting into savings and dividend income is now a thing of the past.  

    Luckily I will finally be eligible for Medicare at the end of the year.

    Parent

    TIAA-CREF has killed us too (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:44:48 PM EST
    We're looking at least another 2 years of working past planned retirement of later this year.  That's assuming that both sons can find work.  

    It's really depressing.  

    Parent

    Not to minimize what you do (none / 0) (#65)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:10:18 PM EST
    but can you honestly not see that those who have had physical jobs for 35 - 40 years just cannot continue for an additional 5 years - sure maybe the day laborer will quit and become a Walmart greeter but now Obama will have 2 jobs gained on his job creation score sheet.  The numbers are with Obama on this

    Parent
    We understand that concern, you bet (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:24:59 PM EST
    with sons in the construction industry.  For them, 40 is the new 50.  That's part of the worry, as we hoped to be able to set them up to not have to work past what their bodies can do.  

    So many of those construction and manufacturing workers' minds can do so much more, and we need to mine them.  I have had several terrific older students who were in heavy-lifting work until it took its toll, while others had line jobs that were not so much heavy lifting as mind-numbing.  They get laid off and take the leap, or their worn-out bodies force them to do so -- to come back to school.  They tend to end up earning honors.  Most I've known go into teaching, and they're great at it.  Others I've studied go to voc schools to train for the health care industry, for example, and that is where I hope some of that stimulus funding will go to help more retrain.  Then they can keep working, as so many of us boomers will have to do.

    Parent

    Boomers can't retire! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    My DH is older than the boomers and he can't retire.  I don't know ANY boomers who are planning on retiring now.   All their retirement accounts are kaput.  

    Parent
    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:54:29 PM EST
    All of your messages here are so similar to our situation, especially to that of my spouse as well as to many others we know.  At least I have TIAA-CREF; some pension plans, like our state employee retirement system, are doing much worse -- with the first cuts in benefits to retirees in its history.  And the state is the biggest employer, with the most retirees, in our state.  So this is contributing to the economic freefall here . . . as are the again-soaring health insurance costs.

    But we're glad we have work, to support our kids, almost all of them, who now do not.  My heart breaks to see the psychological toll on them at the start of their careers, but we know they will have time to recover emotionally and financially . . . if not with the help we hoped to give.  

    Parent

    We're sad that we can't help our kids, (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 10:02:45 PM EST
    Like we had planned.  The good news is that they can live with us and DH can keep working, although it breaks my heart that he has to.  He's worked so hard for 50 years, saved so hard too, sacrificed so much, so that he could retire, could help his kids, and then travel a little bit.  Now he can't do any of that.  Maybe in a few years?  I sure hope so.  

    Parent
    Here's a column (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:01:55 AM EST
    in the globe that I really liked that touched on this subject a bit.  For all the talk about generational warfare, and people fighting over jobs and social security, I feel like it is often forgotten that for most of us, we're not fighting, we're family trying to stick it out together.

    Anyway, your stories are all very familiar.

    Parent

    An, an Ellen Goodman column (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    is always worth reading -- it will show up in my paper in a day or two, but it's never too soon.  Thanks, and yes, she captures well the push-pull mixed messages to and about us boomers in general, but that has ever been so in different ways as we grew up being the best ever, the worst ever, the stuff of our parents' dreams, the stuff of their nightmares, the hope of the country, the ruin of the country, etc., etc.  But she also captures well that the generalities obscure the specific personal experiences.  We are the sandwich generation, trying to care for our longer-lasting parents and our kids dealing with a different economy at the same time -- paying heavily in taxes for our parents to get Medicare and Medicaid while our kids do not get health care benefits in their jobs these days, if they have jobs. . . .  But the older ones of us among the boomers also can fall back on the legacy left to us by parents who grew up in Depression and devastating war.  So we can hope, from their example and from one of their favorite songs, that we also will muddle through somehow.

    Parent
    You've been posting here (none / 0) (#130)
    by Spamlet on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    for a little over a month, and clogging the blog the whole time. Give it up. Sheesh.

    Obama Press Conference | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment