Wall Street drops 400 points when they realize Obama isn't providing an easy out

Paul Krugman gives some possible insight into the new bailout plan announced by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner:

"So what is the plan? I really don’t know, at least based on what we’ve seen today. But maybe, maybe, it’s a Trojan horse that smuggles the right policy into place."

Obama adds a little more clarity and context, as usual (this is an excerpt from ABC Nightline to air tonight):

TERRY MORAN: So, Treasury Secretary Geithner today has laid out the plan for the banks, and judging by the reaction in the markets Wall Street really doesn't like it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: [LAUGHS] Well, you know, Wall Street I think is hoping for an easy out on this thing and there is no easy out. Essentially what you've got are a set a banks that have not been as transparent as we need to be in terms of what their books look like.

It's obvious Geithner lacks the charisma of Obama, so the roll out today was awkward. In the coming days it will be clearer. In the meanwhile we just need to have a little faith in the administration. We have to unlearn what we were taught for 8 years.

Weekly President YouTube

THE STIMULUS PLAN – WHAT DO THE ECONOMISTS ADVISE?

There are a zillion economists, and most of them aren't worth the price of a Radio Shack calculator.  You see most of them on cable news as generic talking heads.  However, there are some good ones.

1) PAUL KRUGMAN is a Nobel Prize winner, author, and critic of Reagan/Bush supply side economics that the GOP continues to romance.  Though liberal, he has been critical of Obama's stimulus plan as too conservative.  He believes a 1.2 trillion plan is the appropriate size.

He is deeply critical of the Senate comprimise bill forged by the Dem and GOP moderates:

"a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts. My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years. This is really, really bad."

2) ALAN VIARD, a Bush administration economist, use to think the right size for a government spending bill was "probably zero" and use more Fed cuts to stem the bleeding. Basically what the Bush folks did last fall.  He's altered his view since:

"Viard shares the view that a stimulus package is needed, although he would prefer one limited primarily to tax cuts and direct benefits for victims of the recession, such as increased unemployment benefits. This is a severe recession."

3)  JOSEPH STIGLITZ, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University and former chief economist at the World Bank, said that the stimulus package was "probably too little, especially given that it is badly designed [and] we haven't yet fixed the mortgage problem so the financial sector is likely to continue bleeding."

Stiglitz said that most households would save rather than spend the money from tax cuts and that the business tax cuts were not closely enough linked to new investments. He said that while plans for infrastructure spending were flawed, it was "unlikely to be wasted as badly as the private financial market has wasted resources in last five years.

Despite the differences in how to split up the stimulus, here is what is agreed on almost unanimously:

A STIMULUS IS NEEDED.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY URGENT IT HAPPENS IMMEDIATELY.

READ MORE.

"So how much bipartisan outreach can you have when 36 out of 41 republican senators take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh?"

Paul Krugman is an exceptional Nobel Prize winning economist. He slams Obama as much as anyone, and he is telling us what the GOP refuses to hear. Please do not let the GOP in Senate trick you.

As a small business owner and the father of a 6 year old, I have a vested interest in the future, and I am in support of the Obama package. Period.

Obama on attack to prevent swift-boating of recovery plan

Obama took advantage of the Democratic Party speech to add some heat to his argument for the bailout/stimulus/recovery/holyshit package. He gave this speech last night, which was technically meant for the Democratic caucus, but he decided to open it up for the media. It's part of the change in rhetoric Obama has taken to regain control of the conversation about the package, which has been dominated by GOP naysayers while the President spent time reaching out.

It seems like a smart tactic as the GOPs picking out of the bill which can be easily mocked as pork, even if there is some rationale behind it once you understand them. The GOP strategy has been eroding public confidence in Obama's plan, I think particularly with less informed voters who are all ready cynical after 8 years of spin.

Glad to see Obama not taking it on the chin.

Separating fact and fiction: Is the stimulus full of pork or not?

1) Millions are wasted giving it to Filipino WW2 veterans

U.S Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republican Whip, said the following:

"I mean, there are so many different things that you can make fun of in this bill," Kyl said. "Let me just mention one — millions of dollars to World War II Filipino veterans in the Philippines. Now, that may be a good thing to spend money on, but not in a stimulus bill. It doesn't stimulate anything."

So, is a provision to pay money to Filipino Veterans in there? YES, however NO MONEY actually comes from the stimulus. The money was set aside from another budget.The 900 Billion is not going towards the Filipinos. Just the authorization to send them the money is in there. Odd that it's in there, but this happens all the time.

READ MORE ON POLI-FACT.

-----

2) Money is included for anti-smoking programs.

Actually, like many items in the package (more efficient cars and buildings, for example), this is an investment to save money in the future.  The concept is that helping people learn how to quit smoking is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying $110 BILLION for lung cancer therapies.  So, yeah, not putting jobs to work, but in the long run saving money for an already battered healthcare system.

It was in there, but was removed to appease the GOP, though it is still often cited as being in the plan.  

READ MORE ON CNN

-----

3) Does the stimulus package really include $300,000 for a sculpture garden?

NO.  Republican Eric Cantor is a lying sack of you know what.  He made this 

up simply to give the media something to pick up on and sway opinion.  There IS money for the National Endowment for the Arts.  Despite what people think, artists do work, and need jobs too.  Ever see a museum?  They are the old looking buildings that aren't churches.

READ MORE AT POLI-FACT

-----

4) The plan has millions for fish, off-roaders

True, but it's mischaracterized as wasteful spending.  These are both works projects that would create jobs.

"Preserving our national parks and preserving our wildlife don't seem to be unreasonable goals," said Rob Blumenthal, a Democratic spokesman for the Senate Committee on Appropriations. "These are ready-to-go jobs that will employ American workers."

READ MORE ON POLI-FACT

-----

5) Stimulus package is to give money to ACORN

The dreaded ACORN!  While the debate on ACORN is a whole different story (it is an organization seized upon by the GOP during the election as supposedly committing voter fraud), THERE IS NO MENTION OF ACORN as a recipient of funds.  It appears to be yet another catch phrase the GOP is using to scare low-informed voters.

READ MORE AT POLI-FACT

Why the GOP tax cuts are the wrong answer.

Against my therapist's advice, I've been listening to more C-Span.

Three Republican Senators have just had their say in succession, including Kit Bond. And though each of them were well spoken, I wasn't impressed with their rhetoric. Overall they are pushing for tax cuts, and the deeper the better, and not for the poorest people. They mostly are aligned in small business top-down cuts.

Some want more infrastructure spending (great!), some want more military spending to refresh equipment (fine!), some want to cut stuff that seems superfluous (many of which were all ready cut, they just like to mention them again). One of them wasted time bitching about shutting down Gitmo (talk about superfluous!).

So why not just cut taxes? Couldn't hurt right? I couldn't disagree more.

Cutting taxes for most would mean that cash disappears. I for one would do my best to keep it in a mattress. Only the poorest would be assured to spend it immediately. This is what has happened in the past with Bush's cuts. And they specifically do not want to give the poorest the money, because in their opinion they have all ready have enough of a break by being so poor they aren't taxed.

Most importantly, these cuts undermine the push for some form of universal healthcare, which we desperately need. This is of paramount necessity for the country, as employee supplied health care is going extinct.

Healthcare for all is a Democratic platform item, and something surely not on the GOP's agenda. And that is why we will never see eye-to-eye on this. We are at cross purposes.

So let's get infrastructure spending going, let's supply the military with what is necessary, but please put my taxes to work for good. Just make my dollars count.

Does Obama have the political balls to nationalize the banks?

During the campaign, Sarah Palin scared legions of low-information voters with red baiting. The ominous words "Experimenting with Socialism" triggers mental images of Soviet style Communism, even in the minds of those who know better.

In reality, we do have some socialist practices right here in the States... Social Security, for example. Unfortunately years of cold-war propaganda programming may be shooting us in the foot. In essence, if John Wayne may have fought in a movie, it is out... WAY OUT. And it may just be required to do this stimulus right.

We have been seeing plenty about the banks lately we don't like. They don't seem to be able to keep themselves out of hot water, and every day it's keeps simmering, presenting the nation more examples of outrageous spending and poor judgement. Many voices, including Paul Krugman in his latest op-ed are screaming for nationalization of the banks for a limited amount of time.

And yet... Obama and his brain trust seems determined to avoid this. But why? Is it because it's the wrong thing to do, or because it's politically risky? Is he afraid the GOP will gain further traction by slamming nationalization as "experimenting with Socialism?"

Perhaps it is politically disasterous, but I agree with blogger Bob Cesca when he states "Nationalizing the banks would be an enormous political risk. However, if it's going to be done anyway, sooner is way, way, way better than later."

In reality, the more this debate goes on, the more the GOP will be able to spin it as socialist or unrestrained spending, and the stimulus will continue to get watered down. I hope Obama will get this under control and push it through soon, and have the political balls to do what he has to. He didn't ask for this when he ran, but the economy may be the make or break for his first year, if not his Presidency.

After billions of dollars in concessions to the GOP... a party line vote.

It still passed, yet not a single Republican voted for it.

Redonkulous.

Can we tell them to fuck off now? I hope Obama gets a shot at strengthening the package back to full strength before it gets signed into law, cause I don't buy that this watered-down bill would do jack.

OKAY.... I'm calming down...

Here is a great link to sooth my worry: "Obama Versus the Republicans: Chill Out, He's Got This" by Bob Cesca.

Here's a thought, Mr. President

Hey Mr. President... hell of a nice thing you did today, making nice with the GOP and all. Real bipartisan. Love that whole concept. It's clear you are trying.

That said, you'll have a better chance at getting North Korea to negotiate in earnest than getting these people to play ball. I realize that the GOP feels "out of the loop" in forming this package and all, but hey... they LOST. Since they obviously have no ideas besides "cut more taxes", and had just completed failed years of iron-fist rule, perhaps it's time for them to SIT-DOWN. Or be told to sit down. By you, the President.

The GOP with NEVER EVER want you to create a NEW New Deal, because they have spent the last 60 years trying to tear down the OLD Old Deal. They mean well, I'm sure. They are just unable to come up with anything new except contradict themselves, site reports that do not exist, or stonewall.

You must know this. You have clearly proven yourself a great strategist. I trust you on this. Most of the country does. As you can see by the image above, millions of people think you are the best thing since kittens and rainbows.

Now go get that thing passed, Mr. President. I'd love a real bipartisan moment too, but I don't think it's possible, and time is short. Despite some jugheads saying you can take your time on this, we may not have any jobs left next week.

But you know this all ready. You live in the real world, at least up until a week ago. But it's still here, and we're bleeding cash, but we believe in you.

Your friend in Democracy,
Jay

Conservative old guy, supposedly smart, appears to support Obama plan.

I don't read long articles — I'll wait for the movie thank you very much — but people I know do, and someone recently posted this on facebook. The guy that posted it seems smart, so I'll go with it. Here are some excerpts:

More to It Than Meets the Eye
The hidden coherence of Obama's recovery plan.
by Irwin M. Stelzer

"It grieves me to say so, but President Obama's conservative critics just don't get it. The new president has put forward a plan for economic recovery that is more coherent than they are willing to admit. Start with the stimulus package of some $825 billion. A lot of money, more even than George W. Bush's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, but not much more as money is counted these days, especially as Obama's will be spent over two or three years. Critics complain that stimulus spending will add to the swollen federal debt. True: President Bush did leave his successor a $1.2 trillion annual deficit. To which Obama will add about $400 billion per year. Query: What empirical evidence is there that deficits of $1.6 trillion are more harmful during a period of economic recession than deficits."

Read the whole thing... if your into that kind of time-sucking investment. I need to update my facebook status to "Jay is posting old guy economic crap."

Obama appears to listen to opposing viewpoints... goddamn socialist.

After two Bush stories which drip with his arrogance and lack of humility, I have an Obama story which illustrates the opposite...

As you may know, Barry-O has been running around Washington trying to get members of Congress to sign on for his stimulus package. This isn't an easy sell, cause Congress has been catching hell for being stupid enough to expect the money they all ready handed to Bush would be spent appropriately (or at least could be tracked in some way).

So Obama has been laying out his plan, and has encountered some criticism. Notably, Paul Krugman (who I think is super – read Conscience of a Liberal) wrote quite a rebuke of the plan last week in The New York Times in an article called The Obama Gap:

"Mr. Obama’s prescription doesn’t live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he’s offering isn’t as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what’s needed."

Rather than ignore his critics, Obama issued a statement looking to talk to Krugman: 

"I want this to work," said the president-elect. "This is not an intellectual exercise, and there's no pride of authorship. If somebody has an idea for a tax cut that's better than we've proposed, then we'll embrace it... If Paul Krugman has a good idea, in terms of how to spend money efficiently and effectively to jump-start the economy, then we're going to do it."

Say what?  

And Krugman took him up on the statement in his latest column: Ideas for Obama.

How un-Bushian!  How Obama-rific!  Here is Jon Stewart being mystified by all of this:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

President Goofus and President Gallant - Peer Pressers

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

And if you think that this blog is little more than an Obama lovefest/circle-jerk... you're right.  Until I hear different, I think this dude is an answer to the country's prayers.  

And, it should be noted that I am a cynical son-of-a-bitch.

Bush's initial reaction to the meltdown...

As reported in the New York Times

It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Mr. Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.

The president listened as Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.

Then his Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history.

Mr. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.

“How,” he wondered aloud, “did we get here?”

Simply fascinating. Oddly, reminds me of a line from Lord of the Rings. Enjoy!

JUST RELEASED: Big Three CEO roadtrip footage

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

CEOs of the Big Three automakers testified before Congress after making a ten hour roadtrip from Detroit in company brand vehicles. This morning, MSNBC aired footage from the drive.

This is from 23/6