So you at least have to acknowlege the Republican's stance in this seems hypocritical. If something had to be done then, and what was done did not work and we still face a crisis, then we should do nothing now?

____

What the ?

Yes, agreed. I was a believer that no one is above the market and the market always evens things out and corrects itself - something I now admit wasn't going to happen (at least any time soon). Ever since college economics I have been taught this lesson, and wall street was always preaching it. The "little guy" has always been criticized as wishy washy when it comes to the market when in fact we are the one's who practiced a buy and hold approach. I also went as far as to purchase such noble "blue chip" stocks as Worldcom, Lucent, Citibank, and other can't miss companies touted as safe but stable.

I don't think the answer is to throw more money into the hands of CEO's who have proven their inability to manage it, and I don't agree that taxing the rich or spreading the wealth is the answer. Unfortunately, like many things, I don't have the foggiest idea how best to manage the U.S. economy. Some day we'll look back and understand the dynamic, but for now I hope what is being tried will work.

Oh, and as for Daschle, yes score one for the Karma team.

P.S. to Thomas:

Don't worry about your prose. It's a pleasure to read under any circumstances. :)

Thomas:

Geez, man, when do you sleep? You probably know by now that Das has withdrawn from consideration for the HHS position. Cynic that I am also, I doubt he came to this conclusion entirely on his own, despite what the WH press sec says. Karma. Gotta love it.

I would have preferred that Obama or the senate had taken this step, tho. O set the bar pretty high for his admin, and it seems to be whacking him in the head a lot lately. I still give him tons of credit for the attempt to change the ways of Washington, even if it's not working out at every turn.

Of course Steele is qualified for the position he holds. My point is that there were probably many qualified candidates, but the fact that he is African American was definitely a plus for the Reps at this time and probably was the deciding factor. I believe that when faced with a choice, people will act less on lofty ideals and more on what's in their own best interests, and for the Reps this was one of those times.

And don't get me started on JJ Sr. or Sharpton, and you can probably throw Bobby Rush into that mix as well. These guys sound like civil rights era dinosaurs, and I think their efforts do more to keep racism alive than extinguish it. It seems society is quietly evolving and they aren't. The important thing is that they don't speak for Obama or his admin. I don't see their brand of politics playing a part in Obama's presidency at all. If I had, I would not have voted for him.

Sure, the economy will eventually turn around, it always does. The two parties just differ on what, if anything, should be done in the meantime. For all their free market talk, the Bush admin did open that door with the TARP bill, as the perceived consequences of allowing the market to correct itself this time were too horrendous. So you at least have to acknowlege the Republican's stance in this seems hypocritical. If something had to be done then, and what was done did not work and we still face a crisis, then we should do nothing now? If the Reps believe so strongly in the sanctity of the free market, then they should have allowed it to tank last fall rather than circumventing it with the TARP bill. Now that's a role reversal!

In an effort of saving face and providing some clarity. I was up very late last night, and then up very early this morning. If my last posting is redundant and lacking clarity I beg forgiveness. I probably lead the group in the use of the word unbridled!! I get worked up about politics and have a lot of friends who are very vocal in reminding me that the Democrats are in power - I accept it. I just don't believe this group will turn anything around based on their doings - the economy will turn around because that's what the U.S. economy has always done.

Hi What The ?,

Agree with most of your point, I'm just cynical that the Republicans and Democrats will end up with simple role reversal and begin blaming each other for exactly the same things the other side used to do while in power. If the Repubs try to block appointments (hard to do in the minority) they will be lambasted by the Dems as obstructionists - however the Dems spent the past 8 years blocking every appointment they could.

I disagree with you about the appointment of Steele. His position requires ability (albeit ability to generate donations $$). His appointment is no more transparant than some of the Dems claims about minority issues. Repubs have always tended to count on the market to correct itself, simple supply and demand, etc. The Dems tended to want to circumvent this process with hiring quotas, tariffs, and taxes. When the black caucus, Jesse Sr, or Sharpton speak they seem to be speaking for the party - and usually what they speak of is how unfairness in something has resulted in a certain class being put down - and the result is always an effort to pass a law to remedy the matter.

I know, I'm cynical. Always have been, but I'm also very critical in my reading and understanding. Again I think we agree on the issues and the slimy nature of politics, and disagree on some of the specifics.

Hey, Thomas:

I'm not holding out Citigroup as the best example, just the most recent, which it is. And I'm not saying greed and poor performance are Republican issues, you always seem to jump there. But I am suggesting the Bush White House, and perhaps Reps in general, appear a lot more tolerant of it. When it first came to light that TARP money was being misappropriated to bonuses and spa vacations, I don't remember hearing a peep from the Bush admin despite all the public outrage. All it took was a phone call from Obama's admin to stop the Citigroup purchase, and this was something Bush never did. So I don't think it's a stretch to think McCain would have done the same.

And I think Reps get criticized for their African American apppointments as being transparent because, in fact, some are. The Chairman is a prime example. Maybe they just need to work on their timing, but the chairman appointment does seem like an attempt to manipulate their public image. If Steele doesn't mind appearing as a token, then fine, he gets to be chairman, the Reps get to have an African American leader also, so everyone's happy. But it's so transparent we can read through it. We don't need to ask when the day will come that certain groups will start to question their unbridled loyalty to the Republican party; it arrived last November.

I do tend to follow your thinking on the Geithner and Daschle appointments. You didn't mention Geithner, but I am. Both of these guy's "mistakes" just don't pass the smell test. These are not stupid people; they've been around and have dealt with large sums of money and the laws surrounding it. I suspect both of them are simply tax cheats, but I shouldn't have to remind you that being a tax cheat is not a Democrat issue, it's a human one. We'll see if Das gets to eat some of his own cooking!

It will be interesting how Mr. Obama handles the Tom Daschle affair. If Obama is truly cleaning up from such a Republican mess he will without question ask Daschle to withdraw - won't he? Let's see how our Democratic friends handle this issue. An interesting article is in Todays Journal - I cut and pasted the intro as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353200827537439.html

"So Tom Daschle, the erstwhile prairie populist and scourge of multiple Presidential nominees, failed to disclose and pay taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars of income. He also waited months to pay up and told the Obama transition team about his tax oversights only days before his Senate confirmation hearing to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This one is going to be fascinating to watch, less for what it says about Mr. Daschle than what it will reveal about Democratic standards. Every Republican in America knows that if Mr. Daschle were a Reagan or Bush nominee he'd now be headed back to private life faster than you can say John Tower. That's the way Democrats have treated GOP nominees who were accused of far lesser transgressions than Mr. Daschle's tax, er, avoidance. The question is whether Democrats are going to treat Mr. Daschle according to the standard that Mr. Daschle set when he was running the Senate."

What the? on February 2, 2009 9:37 AM
I have no doubt that if McCain were in office instead of Obama, Citigroup would now be the proud owners of a new $50MM corporate jet, compliments of the American taxpayers.

_________________________________

Hi What the ?,

Don't forget about the Clinton appointee and former Secretary of the Treasury Democrat Robert Rubin: According to Wikipedia, "He received more than $126 million in cash and stock during his eight years at Citigroup. In January 2009, Rubin was named by Marketwatch as one of the "10 most unethical people in business".

So maybe if McCain were president, Rubin would still be a paid "advisor" to Citigroup, but the greed and poor performance is not a Republican issue exclusively so I think you should reconsider holding out Citigroup as the best example.

Why is it that the Republicans can't appoint, or have an african american in any position without being criticized? Whenever they do (Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell) the Democrats jump on them as being transparent. I wonder if Obama will attend any of the Congressional Black Caucus meetings and meet with this Democratic group? - talk about divisive! The day may come when certain groups (whether minority or not) will start questioning their unbridled loyalty to the Democratic party - how many years must someone be on welfare before they realize it isn't working?

AA:

Keep in mind that one man's pork is another man's job. Having said that, some of the things in the stimulus package were questionable even to me (like the handing out of birth control??) and it's good those are now gone. But that's the Dems for you. Gotta take the bad with the good.

The kicked booty I'm referring to is all the changes that have been happening outside of the stimulus. I have no doubt that if McCain were in office instead of Obama, Citigroup would now be the proud owners of a new $50MM corporate jet, compliments of the American taxpayers.

I also love the fact that the GOP now has their own Obama in the form of a new chairman. I know the only hope for the Reps in the future is to reinvent themselves, but by copying the Dems? It's obvious that the GOPs selection is an attempt to tap into Obama's popular appeal by appointing their own African American "first". But I guess the Reps will do what they have to as well.

I also remembered that a large sum was ear-marked for Acorn. Kicking some serious booty or more of the same from the other side of the aisle?

I hope I'm wrong, but the other night I briefly read on CNN's site that Obama's stimulus plan has one cent out of every twelve actually going to the economy while the rest is pork. Paying for things like landscaping around one of the Washington monuments. I can no longer find the article on their site. Was I dilerious?

Looks like our man is kicking some serious booty every day! Reversing legislation on emission controls, time limitations on pay discrimination, lobbying laws, even clamping down on TARP looting by Citicorp and other firms sucking up taxpayer money. Go O!!

What the?

The stimulus package is pure Keynesian Economics. Stimulate the economy with government spending. The poster child is the New Deal which didn't work, WW2 worked by employing the entire country in the war effort.

The underpinning of Keynesian economics is that wages are inflexible in a downwards direction. This may have been somewhat true in highly unionized already socialist England.

What we have learned since, is that wages are indeed flexible in the downwards direction in the USA. HP to name one of many implemented across the board 10% wage cuts a few years ago and more recently plenty of companies are doing the same thing: wage cuts, reduced benefits, eliminating matching 401K payments all in an effort to avoid layoffs. Unfortunately the layoffs are now coming as the third or fourth round of cost cutting at companies.

Because of loose monetary policy and government mandates to make loans that can never be repaid, the economy has been distorted in a substantial way.

There is no painless way to squeeze the distortions out of the economy, the more the FEDs distort to put off the day of reckoning the worse the problem gets and longer it will take the economy to self correct. If governments could will an economy the Soviet Union would still be around, inefficiency and disincentives to produce killed the evil empire.

The bank bail outs are designed to save the masters of the universe, not the depositors from losing their money.

As to the stimulus, at least if the misguided effort based on Keynes proven false assumption would leave the country with lets say a national high speed electric rail network, 100 nuke plants to offset oil and some coal, improved highways etc I would feel better about it.

As it is written, it is still Keynesian but it is a vehicle pointed towards taking the country to left wing European socialism. This is what Remake America and Power won't go easily means.

I hope this helps to explain my negative view of the current President's plan and the last presidents plan, I only wish the Republicans had started saying no 6 years ago the country would be in much better shape.

Yes. But note the key facts.

FDR spent money on capital projects, not state subsidies and other spending.

FDR limited the spending.

And it did not work.

The other comparable situation was back in the 20's. Germany spent gobs of money that was followed by hyper inflation and Adolph Hitler.

Bubo, WHTA:

Are you guys talking about comparisons between the New Deal and Obama's stimulus package?

Thomas: Be a butt-insky anytime you like. That's the nature of blogs :)

For the FDR fans, even the New York Times, the "Obama Fan Club Newsletter" is critical of FDR's New (Bum) Deal.

The NY Times: F.D.R’s Example Offers Lessons for Obama So, throughout the 1930s, economic recovery remained frustratingly elusive and arrived only with the buildup for World War II in the 1940s…“Roosevelt had some successes, but we hope that Obama is going to do better,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard. “Otherwise, we’re in trouble.”…Yet despite New Deal programs and some aid to the states, total government spending — federal, state and local — as a share of the economy throughout the 1930s remained at just under 20 percent. (Today, total government spending is more than 35 percent, a larger buffer against weakness in the private sector.) During the 1930s, the unemployment rate fell somewhat under Roosevelt, but remained stubbornly high, averaging more than 17 percent for the decade…
In 1933, the United States economy had shrunk by one-third in real terms since 1929. Industrial production had fallen by 40 percent. Unemployment had soared to 25 percent, from 3 percent in 1929…Roosevelt, it seems, had the same problem. “He was much better at reassuring the public that the banks were safe than he was at persuading the banks to lend again,” said Richard Sylla, an economist and financial historian at the Stern School of Business at New York University…http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/business/economy/27fdr.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Another comment of interest

FTN’s Chris Low: Classical economists argue the New Deal prevented job creation by freezing wages and prices, but that’s too heretical for the Times.

I was told the reason we study history is to prevent the same mistakes. It does not look like we will.

NEW DEAL A FAILURE

In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

Politically, the New Deal was a smashing success, with FDR's landslides in 1932, 1934 and 1936 virtually wiping out the GOP.

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30214

Thomas and Bub:

It's true that CNN tends to be an Obama love fest at times, which is why I tend to alernate between CNN and Fox News. I guess with the Beck show I was hoping for something more middle of the road and even-handed and was disappointed there. I do support Obama and have high hopes for his presidency, but I also want to keep a critical eye on him and that's hard to do through CNN. I guess the last straw for me was last week. It was a slow news day, so Beck was showing emails from people poking fun at Obama and aired one about Obama's appearance. "If he would grow his hair out more, his ears wouldn't be so prominent". Beck was having fun with it, but I felt I was back in high school. You know, when kids would get together and snicker about other kid's hair and clothes. It sounds like he makes better use of his airtime on other days, so I'll give it another try sometime.

What the?

My intent was not to promote the virtues of Glen Beck, I watched him a few times on CNN but never felt compelled to watch regularly.

I thought I would give him another chance since his guest line up at FOX was impressive. While it seems he is trying to keep the show crisp, I wish he would slow down a bit and let his guests expound on their points. In fact I told him so.

I could have listened carefully for an hour interview of the CFR fellow, Amity Schlaes? Maybe Charlie Rose will get her on?

I formerly watched Mathews before switching to O’Reily, the cheer leading for his party caused me to question almost every thing he presented. Lou Dobbs is pretty good until it gets near election time then he literally reads from the Democratic talking points; I turned him off since I don't have time to question every thing he presents.

From a global economic point of view, WW2 ended the depression, the complete destruction of our economic rivals Germany, Japan and Brittan gave the US a huge economic advantage allowing us to grab a 50% share of the world GNP and invest the money in this country.

So if we should thank anyone for ending the depression, it’s Adolph.

Hi What the ?

I'm sure you know that there are some of "us" who feel as you do only we substitute names like Wolf Blitzer and Campbell Brown (CNN) for your Glen Beck and Sean Hannity example, or we substitute Chris Matthews and keith Olberman (MSNBC) for Neil Cavuto or Rush Limbaugh. We all tend to flock to what we (generally - not always) agree with. I find CNN and MSNBC to be a 24/7 Bush Bash with very liberal views.

I read both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times because I think they are as far to either side of the political spectrum as I want to be, and I do watch CNN, MSNBC but I watch more Fox News figuring I am getting both liberal and conservative views watching all.

So, again with compliments for your language usage from the other day, I'm sticking strickly (mostly)with Fox News. Sorry to be a butt-insky because you were addressing this to Bubo, but I couldn't resist and jumped in.

I was looking forward to the Glen Beck show before it aired as it was promoted as somewhat balanced and non-partisan, but his right-leaning biases have been coming through loud and clear from the beginning. Too bad, because he is a lot of fun to watch. But with Beck, Neil Cavuto, and Hannity without Combs, Fox News has become a 24/7 Obama bash. I find it predictable, repetitive, and boring. With the exception of Bill O'Reilly, I'm sticking strictly to CNN now.

Glen Beck had an interesting show this night.

1. A fellow from the CFR was on, her study of the New Deal published in her book indicates that the New Deal was a fiasco and made the economy worse. Bush already shot over 2 Trillion down the drain on fiscal stimulus, look at the results.

2. Beck did a breakdown on the Obama stimulus package, 3% of the total approx 30 Billion actually goes for jobs in infrastructure projects and another 3% goes for energy projects. The other 94% is for big govt and redistribution programs.

Editor Chris,

The Feds will try to print their way out of the deficits if China cuts them off from their drug supply. Get ready for hyper inflation.

50K layoffs announced today.

to What If

We are very much on the same page, sorry if I am a bit pointed.

Two related points for all.

1. As a teenager and young adult, I was able to talk to people particularly my grandfather about living through the depression. He never mentioned Social Security as one of the benefits. He told me what he did to "survive". He had relatives move in so they could afford the housing costs. He bought groceries wholesale and sold them. He extended credit, he was not a mobster, he had to rely on people repaying him. He worked as many hours as he was given. He would collect scrap to sell (an early recycler).

None of these actions had ANYTHING to do with Roosevelt. They started under Hoover and he simply continued to work.

The one change that helped was the FHA mortgage. When he bought his first house in the 20's, the "typical" mortgage was a one to five year balloon from a commercial bank. Many of these loans were called when they came up causing more problems. The biggest problem was that the banks that issued them were out of business.

The FHA mortgage was a saving process. It was for 30 years and no longer did people have to worry about refinancing the loans, just paying them.

Now maybe Roosevelt did not know what solution would work, but in this case, preserving home ownership was the key for my family. And hard work by my grandfather.

2. Back in September, I read a quote that said the major portions of this problem could be solved with a 5% mortgage. I will simply say that again, except make it a 4.5% mortgage. Ten year Treasurries are below 3%, there would not be a loss if the Fed provided this money. This will solve many of the problems.

Well said, Chris.

Glen Beck had an interesting show this night.

1. A fellow from the CFR was on, her study of the New Deal published in her book indicates that the New Deal was a fiasco and made the economy worse. Bush already shot over 2 Trillion down the drain on fiscal stimulus, look at the results.

2. Beck did a breakdown on the Obama stimulus package, 3% of the total approx 30 Billion actually goes for jobs in infrastructure projects and another 3% goes for energy projects. The other 94% is for big govt and redistribution programs.

Editor Chris,

The Feds will try to print their way out of the deficits if China cuts them off from their drug supply. Get ready for hyper inflation.

50K layoffs announced today.

Editors:

The baby boom wasn't a problem for social security at the time it was happening, but it is now. When I graduated college in the mid-80s, we knew then that we couldn't count on social security to fund our retirements in the way it was funding those at the time. Not only would there be a large number of retirees being supported by a much smaller work force, but the government, instead of managing the fund over all these decades, had instead been using it to offset deficits. A population bubble and chronic deficit spending weren't part of the social security equation when it was started.

WHTA:

Okay. If you want to believe that SS was a CRUEL HOAX enacted by a sadistic president who got his jollies dreaming up ways to screw over the working class citizens of his country, go right ahead. Don't let historical facts get in the way. I prefer to think he was attempting to rise to the responsibilities of his office by responding to the misery he saw around him at the time. And I don't see how higher life expectancies in the 60s supports your theory of a Kennedy/Johnson ponzi scheme, either. The baby boom ended in 1963; it wasn't until after the birth rate dropped and stayed that way for years that we realized we had a large bubble passing through the social security sysytem that was going to be a problem later on.

I do agree that our culture has changed a lot over the last several decades, tho. Folks in general no longer take responsibility but instead go to great lengths to avoid it, and we tolerate it.

What The

What FDR DID KNOW

Social Security was a CRUEL HOAX. He expected NOBODY (ok, very few people) to benefit from the plan. Everyone would die before they got any benefits.

From his perspective, Social Security was a cruel plan by an aristrocrat.

The real harm. The Great Society advanced under Kennedy/Johnson. These people had information about the changed life expectations. They knew that they were passing a Ponzi scheme.

So, in summary, one Democrat, a hoax, the other, a ponzi scheme.

And on general assistance, you would need to live at the loweest level. That would only apply to really desparate people. I think more people need to accept responsibility. And we should help people who try, but not those who abuse the system.

WHTA:

Like I said before, I'm not a policy expert, so I'm not going to suggest the circumstances under which a societal "safety net" should kick in. We just simply need to have one. I don't think I've ever said these programs should come first. They should be the option of last resort. My feeling is we probably do have too much "safety net" and this could be trimmed somewhat, but the oppposite, of having absolutely none, could have disasterous consequences for all of us.

Take two extreme examples about 100 years apart, the French and Russian Revolutions. The French had emptied their coffers helping the Americans with their revolution and the rulers were heavily taxing their people to make up for it. This coincided with famines, and their people were literally starving. The monarchy couldn't have cared less. Consequence: the people rose up and overthrew their government. The Russian revolution had different circumstances, with a czar that thought he was omnipotent and used his soldiers as fodder in the trenches of WWI. But the Russian people were suffering and the czar couldn't have cared less. The end result was the same. While very different, what these two situations had in common were governments that were completely indifferent to the needs and misery of their own citizens. Get the picture?

My guess is the payback requirement of general assistance served as a detriment for people going back to work. Why bother to get a job if your pay is going to be taken to pay back assistance loans? Such a program would not work today, the default rate would make it undoable. And unless you want to bring back debtor's prisons, there's not much that can be done to force people to repay them.

As it's been mentioned before, social security was not set up as a ponzi scheme in the 1930s. FDR had no way of knowing life expectancy would get so high, or that there would be a WW2 much less a post-war baby boom. If social security continues as it is, we'll all get something, just a lot less than we thought. If our government hadn't been looting this fund all along and instead had management the fund to meet their commitments, as you said, this wouldn't have happened. The problem is with our government, not the social security concept in general.

Bubo: Both titles are written on a sticky note on my frige. I'll look for Conspiracy first, HBO does great movies. I'll get back to you when I see you on the blogs!

Only in America can we abort a child but yet spend millions of tax dollars on death row inmates who have committed some of the worste crimes known to man. Rapists and murders have a better life and certainly a better exit from this world than an unborn baby who has been killed by a "doctor" from it's own mothers womb.

I would like to ask our new leader whose next, whose life is not worthing living, grandma in the nursing home, a person who has an accident and ends ups paralyzed, animals have more rights than unborn child.

Maybe this is why we need more prayer time or a moment of silence, lets pray for all these poor babies who have never been given a chance.

Thomas:

Thanks! It's a What the? orginial, but feel free to adopt it as your own if you like. The only other time I've had someone like something I said was when I told a friend "A clean house is the sign of a life misspent". She liked it so much, she hired an artist to paint it on a wooden plaque. No kidding.

What the?

When you're done with Conspiracy, which is mega creepy, watch Hitler the Rise of Evil next. Or maybe in reverse order. Either way, you'll be creeped out for a week or two.

The actors in both of these productions gave serious study and effort in performing the parts. Its like being in the room as the action happens, unsettling.

Again, both should be mandatory in HS civics classes and probably required watching for any voter.

The notion of a savior, will have special meaning for you.

Naperville Public Library has both.

Bubo

What the? on January 25, 2009 4:51 PM

When emotion clouds reason, rational discussion is impossible.

________________

Hey What the ?,

what a great line, I really like it. If it's original congrats on the impact it has with just a few words. If not, please share the source.

thanks
Thomas

What the?

While I respect your right to your opinion, I must note that I disagree. Take this statement,

"we would be foolish to turn our backs on those in need for the simple fact that BY HELPING OTHERS WE PROTECT OURSELVES AND THE WAY OF LIFE WE VALUE."

Ok, when are they in need? And when do we start? If I am short of money (in need), I liquidate savings or borrow. If one were to make a mistake, declare bankruptcy. Fortunately, all of my "transactions" have been private and have not involved any government aid.

In the old days (prior to World War II), the primary safety net in the country was general assistance. And the General Assistance program was the same then as it was in the 1300's in England. If you were short money, you went to the local township. They would "advance" you money. It was a loan of last resort. No food stamps, no welfare, no unemployment insurance.

And when you sold your house, the township was one of your debtors. Now General Assistance advances were "high risk" loans. Did the government recover all money "advanced"? No. But people took their responsibility, first, not to need General Assistance (many people moved in with relatives since they did not want the stigma of being on the public dole. Second, if they did go one the dole, they worked to get off.

The result, far less safety net. Peole took responsibility for their actions.

My disagreement with your position is that you put such programs first, I put tem last last. Also, I ask that it get paid back. Under my structure, people will learn to avoid the programs. Then the would be used only when they should be used.

And when I asked you about the programs, it is hard to think about what ones are really valuable. Since they do not roll off our heads, fewer than we thought.

And my good friend, Social Security is a ponzi scheme. They took our money, promised us a payment, and they did not manage the money to meet their commitment. No different than Barry Madolf (or whatever his name is). Had the plan been run correctly, our economy would be better off. And we would all feel good since we woudl know the money is there.

Positive discussion.

Hey, Bubo:

Your response above is precisely the reason why I said I was not going into the abortion debate. When emotion clouds reason, rational discussion is impossible.

I will look for the movie and rent it if I see it, tho, so thanks for that tip. But I've been around since before Roe vs. Wade, and I've heard all your statements above for decades. The Third Reich's policy against Jews (and homosexuals, the mentally disabled, blacks, gypsies, and anyone else they considered beneath them) was state sponsored and endorsed; their citizens were forced to carry it out whether they agreed with it or not. The liberal stance with abortion is attempting to keep the state out of it one way or another, allowing our citizens to work out the morality issue for themselves. That's what individual freedom is, the opportunity to let people choose for themselves and the tolerance to allow them the choice, even when they make one that is different from yours.

I do apologize for the fanatic remark. I realized after I hit submit that I should not have used it. I try not to let bias get in the way of reason, but as I've mentioned before, I don't always succeed, either.

What the?

If the Government has no business legislating morality, then should everything based on the Bible be repealed from Law?

Why should we force Jewish and Christian morals (the basis for the Constitution and our legal system) on everyone?

Who is to say the Wiccans, Druids, Aztecs or Nazi's weren't right? What’s wrong with a little human sacrifice once and a while?

What do you recommend as the basis for our legal system and why?

If you can kill your own kid before they come out of the womb, why not allow parents to kill their kid after they are born like the Romans did?

Why are the worshipers of the Greco Roman Gods wrong?

Why do humans inside their Mothers have no rights?

Is this because the Supreme Court redefined them as unter-mensch (sub-humans) like the Jews in Nazi Germany? This was a popular legal decision with some in the German population. The Jews had to accept it since Hitler confiscated all of their guns.

Why is questioning the deaths of 50 Million Humans fanaticism, and promoting it normal behavior?

If the Catholic Church says that abortion is murder, then are all Catholics fanatics?

Since African Americans are aborted in far greater percentages than their percentage of the population, is abortion a form of federally supported racial profiling? Is abortion inherently racist?

Results matter:

Dead bodies resulting from Government polices, implemented without changing the laws, are still dead bodies. Are babies pulled from inside their mothers not dead human bodies?

Bubo

PS While it would be easy for me to say that anyone in favor of abortion is a Nazi, moral pygmy or naive dupe (or all three), I’ll refrain. Let’s skip the name calling in the future and try to stay with fact based arguments.

The thing to watch in the movie Conspiracy is how the Nazi’s, like the liberals, are able to intellectualize the extermination of so many humans.

Bubo:

1. So did George Washington, our first President. Check the facts.

2. I'm not going to the abortion debate. Dems believe in leaving these issues to individual conscience, as a free society would; Reps. believe personal matters should be legislated and governmentally controlled. Doesn't sound so free to me. Only a fanatic would compare the abortion debate to Hitler and The Third Reich. The HBO movie sounds great; I'll rent it if it's out on video. But trying to use this as a parallel to Dem policyf? Not even close.

Link to HBO movie info Conspiracy, should be required viewing in a HS civics class.

http://www.spring.net/karenr/mdbro/conspiracy.html

What do we know after three days in office?

Liberal Sensibilities:

1. BHO believes that pouring water up the nose of known mass murders, terrorists, in order to save American lives is un-American. BHO signed an executive order banning this.

2. Murdering 49 million US citizens by abortion is as American as Mom and apple pie according to BHO.

BHO believes that murdering babies is such a good thing; we should help people do it in other countries using Federal Tax Dollars. BHO signed an executive order allowing this as did Clinton.

Abortion facts:

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

The Liberals and their henchmen in the courts remind me a lot of the movie Conspiracy (an HBO film) which re-enacts the meeting at the Lake House where the Final Solution for the liquidation of all Jews is made.

A memorable line in the movie is when the Lawyer who wrote the NAZI laws governing the treatment of Jews questions the legality of their plans. The response, "many of us are lawyers too, lets be honest we make the polices, then change the laws to implement them". Not an exact quote, but close.

At least they had the spine to take ownership for their decisions instead of having dupe judges make the decisions for them.

T.B.--

Social security is not a ponzi scheme yet, because we still have more coming in than is going out. But once all the baby boomers retire, this certainly could change. All the same, a lot of this could not have been foretold back in the 1930s. For instance, how could they have known that life expectancy could possibly increase to the level it has? Or that there would be a huge post-WW2 birth boom?

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing happened 8 years before 9/11. I'm using the 7-year timeframe that the Bush admin gets credit for to make a point. I guess you missed it.

Thomas:

You are very right, of course. Both political parties are equally responsible for the financial mess the country is in; it's not a Democratic or Republican issue. There's enough blame to go around: The Dems for thinking homeownership is a right and instituting Fannie and Freddie (it's not a right, it's a privilege that is earned, but that's another discussion) and for starting deregulation, the Reps for further increasingly deregulation, failing to do appropriate oversight and letting unrestricted laissez faire capitalism run amok, to all the folks in between: Wall Street and banks who took the money and ran, to average Americans who bought homes they knew they couldn't afford but thought what the hell, why not. A lot of BAD CHOICES were made by a lot of people (wink to What Happened to America).

I don't blame Bush for the financial mess, either, even tho some of my previous posts may have suggested that. But it is ironic that the very party that opposes government intervention and regulation were the first to panic and immediately drag government into the fray as a solution to the financial meldown. And they did it in a very big way, trillions of ways. And what is also ironic is that the people who supported this action are now complaining that Obama is bringing in more big government as a solution. So let's see--the Republicans bring in big government to solve our problems and they're just doing what's necessary. But the Dems do it and they're trying to make the U.S. socialist? I can't be the only one who's getting a kick out of this!!

What Happened to America:

You stated, "This is America. People should have the ability to make their own choices, but also live with the consequences. If they make bad choices like not adequately funding their retirement as they should, then "poor farm". The options should be clear."

Okay, let's look at this. People in America DO have the ability to make their own choices. I said they DON'T ALWAYS MAKE THE RIGHT ONES. If folks always made the right choices, our prisons would be empty, the U.S. wouldn't have a drug problem, our housing market and financial system wouldn't be in ruins, etc, etc, etc. Geez, look around you. How much more proof do you need? And for those who do attempt to make the right choices, they still get victimized by banks that hide their financial losses, by investment firms that lie about their solvency, by very reputable traders running ponzi schemes and falsifying all their records. That's why the SEC is suppose to be overseeing all this and keeping everyone honest, but they too weren't doing what they were suppose to. A real bad choice on the part of the SEC, wouldn't you say?

And what do you mean when you say "poor farm"? A government run (and funded) area where we dump all the indigent and unemployed? This too would cost money and would have to be subsidized by tax payers. Either way we'd still have to pay.

But the biggest fallacy in the thinking of folks who believe ALL government social programs should be eliminated is this: Yes, those who make bad decisions would bear the full brunt of those choices if social safety nets were removed, but the rest of us would suffer the indirect consequences of these choices. You're wrong if you think you can remain isolated from the bad decisions of others, that people are just going to sit around and suffer in silence and not bother you. Doesn't matter if they're the architects of their own misery or not. People in these positions tend to do things like turn to crime (with you and me as the victims), riot, vote for any candidate that promises them a few bucks, attempt revolution and other uncivilized behaviors that can destabilize our society and threaten the very system--capitalism--that has made this country what it is. Like it or not, we would be foolish to turn our backs on those in need for the simple fact that BY HELPING OTHERS WE PROTECT OURSELVES AND THE WAY OF LIFE WE VALUE.

I'm not going to get into what social programs I think should stay or go or argue the specifics of those programs. I am not putting myself forward as an expert on social programs and how they should be run. We just simply need to provide a social safety net for our citizens, in whatever form that takes, for the reasons I stated above. I'll let those more qualified for the task work out the details.

And of course I attribute all the recent fear and government intervention to Bush. He's the one that held the press conference announcing it, scaring the bejeebers out of everyone and insisting government had to intervene. And of course Obama is saying the same thing, that's the reality that he now has to deal with. Obama inherited the TARP mess, the Bush administration created it. That's an important difference.

It was George Bush who sent a message of fear and bad times when he gave his press conference telling us about the need for an immediate bailout of our financial system. Fear that our financial system would immediately collapse and the bad times that would befall us if the government did not intervene. The Bush admin gave us the fear and then gave us the government, not Obama. Let's keep that in mind as we go forward.

______________________

Of course the Democratic Majority in both houses were only too happy to pass this bailout.

I am a Republican but no more blame Bush for our situation than I credit Clinton for being President during the financial glory days of the 90's. Both sides are at fault and I blame the entire bunch of them for this mess. Senator Dodd (Democrat), and Rep Frank (Democrat) praised both Fannie May and Freddie Mac as being rock solid. They also forced them (FNMA, GNMA) to make a certain percentage of their loans to low income and no income verification loan applicants - in hindsight this was not a good idea as they defaulted!

Bill Clinton is on record as saying Saddam Hussain was most definately working on obtaining weapons of mass destruction, so the intelligence community was wrong. Bush acted on this faulty intelligence for whatever reason and I fault him for this, but remember how many Democrats voted along with it? (Remember Kerry and ms. Clinton with their famous lines that they were "For the war before they were against it").

I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, but I'm just pi$$ed off at the whole group in Washington - it's not a Democrat or Republican issue.

Remember when gas was over $4 a gallon? We were innundated with reports on how this was Bush's fault and his fat cat friends were getting rich because of it. Recently gas was $1.79 at BP and I must have missed the stories praising Bush for somehow lowering the price. Of course Obama is my President and I truly hope he succeeds at helping turn the economy around, but if it turns around it will be for a variety of reasons that won't simply be because of him alone.

What the? –

Social Security’s failure is in the actual structure of the program. If you or I tried to do the same thing, we’d be imprisoned for running a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes always collapse at some point and someone gets left out in the cold. Your father in law may be one of the lucky ones, what about you and me?

“There weren't any terrorist attacks in the 7 years PRECEDING 9/11, either. Does that mean the Clinton admin kept us safe from terrorists?” You’re forgetting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

If you want to include terrorist attacks against Americans outside the US, then you can add Khobar Towers (Saudi Arabia) in 1996, the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Oct 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen.

Pres. Clinton’s insistence on treating these as law enforcement issues rather than acts of war did nothing to discourage the terrorists from thinking bigger and bolder. It also did almost nothing to bring the perpetrators to justice.

T.B.

What the says:

"Here are two points I believe to be true: 1) people don't always do what's right and make good choices, and 2) no investment is 100% secure."

I must disagree. This is America. People should have the ability to make their own choices, but also live with the consequences. If they make bad choices like not adequately funding their retirement as they should, then "poor farm". The options should be clear.

And some people would opt for the government plan. Just like some people take more "secure" government jobs knowing that they sacrifice salary now for a better pension (although that concept has not played out).

But again, how much of a safety net should be cast? If a person makes bad investments, lean his house, force the sales proceeds to replenish his retirement fund. No money for his heirs. And again, if we were able to fund our own accounts, we could take a 40% loss and still do a better job than the government.

And a sneaky item. People making over $40,000 would not be subsidizing the rest. A little trick in the social security system. The more you make, the less you get. VERY UNAMERICAN.

Other than social security, what social programs do we need? You seem to be lost, its only billions of dollars in spending and you cannot say what is needed.

To be fair, you mean unemployment although people who make more than $75,000 a year NEVER would dream of walking into an unemployment office even if they lost their job. You also mean food stamps to help the poor eat. Child care credits.

But then the list gets lost. Do we need community organizers? People who figure out how to get government money?

Even as a conservative, I favor Milton Friedman's negative income tax and TOTAL elimination of these programs. Of the $300 billion in "social programs", only 32% of the money gets to the people. The rest is government skimming off the top. Run it through the IRS and cut that percentage to 5%. $100 billion of savings. And create incentives so people just don't take the minimum.

"Fear that our financial system would immediately collapse and the bad times that would befall us if the government did not intervene."

You point all of this to Bush. Obama is saying the same thing. Here is the key point, written in the Wall Street Journal last week. The bad debt of the banks need to be taken off their balance sheets. The banking system is currently bankrupt and contributing to the decline in the economy. Then you have to recapitalize them.

If you don't? We have an example of what happens in Japan when their real esate bubble burst in the early 90's. They did not address their banking problem for ten years. Their economy continued in free fall, ultimately resulting in deflation.

Bush and Obama know this. Bush got scared after Lehman. They should have let Citi and Merrill Lynch either fail or be nationalized like they are doing in the UK.

Did you know that in the $1.1 trillion 2009 budget deficit, that only $180 billion of the $700 billion is reflected as an expenditure? Since the balance is expected to be recovered, they did not expenses the number. Otherwise, the deficit should be $1.6 billion.

My only problem with this money is if the government puts out cash to deal with bad banks and shareholders are not behind the money. Shareholders have lost in Bear Stearns, AIG, WAMu, Indymac. The government chickened out in Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.

By the way, Obama says we have the largest economic problem and proposes government will fix it. There is no hoping he will succeed. Government programs DO NOT SUCCEED. He is promoting a plan to convert us to Socialism (or Collectivism per Rush Limbaugh). STUPID. Once you fix the banking system and money continues to pour into the system, the economy will be what it will be. You cannot make it bigger. You cannot reward people who do not produce. This goal has NEVER been achieved.

To Red: Only marginally happy if McCain had won? I'd be interested in hearing your reasons why.

I've heard newscasters use the phrase "one-party rule" in reference to our Dem congress and president. I think this is unnecessary hype; my understanding of one-party rule is a dictatorship. I think our congress is too independent to just rubber stamp everything Obama wants, and that's how it should be. But without all the usual partisan head-butting, they just might be able to get something done!

What Happened to America:

What social programs are needed? Ah, there's the rub.

Basically, I think we should provide a "basic safety net", as I've said. Enough to keep people fed and housed so they're not starving and dying in the streets, but not so much that they're comfortable making a lifestyle of it. Too much aid often removes an individual's initiative to strive for something better themselves.

The fact that there is no social security "fund" is not a failure of the program, it's a failure of our government to stop deficit spending and "borrowing" that money (in the form of treasury bills) to offset our national debt. The program would be sound if the government wasn't raiding it. I don't see why you call it a cruel hoax. It's not a hoax to my 92-year-old father-in-law who would be destitute without his social security payments. He hangs his hat on it every day and is doing just fine.

And you think Americans would be better off if we could keep our social security and invest it like a 401k? Here's the piece you're missing: how many folks do you think would actually save or invest this money if they were allowed to keep it? I truly believe not very many. Most people would spend this money on that big screen TV or new car. It would not be put away for old age or emergencies. And that's where the problem lies. And for the small percentage of folks who would invest it, what do you tell them when they lose it all because they invested it with WaMu, or Lehman Brothers, or God forbid Bernie Madoff? That's why social security has to be mandatory and guaranteed by the government. Here are two points I believe to be true: 1) people don't always do what's right and make good choices, and 2) no investment is 100% secure. Social security covers both bases.

And lastly, I did not hear fear and bad times in Obama's message at all! I heard hope that we can reverse our course and make things better, but that we're all going to have to get real and contribute to the solution. It was George Bush who sent a message of fear and bad times when he gave his press conference telling us about the need for an immediate bailout of our financial system. Fear that our financial system would immediately collapse and the bad times that would befall us if the government did not intervene. The Bush admin gave us the fear and then gave us the government, not Obama. Let's keep that in mind as we go forward.

What the ?...OK, you are right too. I am a sore loser. I'm not going to let it consume me. I'm certianly not an Obama hater as many of my friends, family and of course as intelligent celebrities were Bush haters. Frankly, I would have only been marginally happy if McCain won. I just get concerned when one party has a lock on the separation of powers, Democrat or Republican. Besides, I live in Naperville and complaining is an important part of living in Naperville ain't it?

To What the?

Ok, you generally agree with me. Phew, I thought liberalism, socialism, humanism was taking over Naperville.

Ok, what social programs are needed?

As to your comments about social security, one program you support, had we all been allowed to keep and invest our own money like a 401k, we still would have more even if 100% was in stocks and you lost 40%. The government does not have ANY of the money. And if all of that money was being invested, our economy would have greater potential. Instead, it has been converted to government spending. This would be like taking $20 a day and flushing it down the toilet. NO VALUE.

And your next question would be what if you run out of money? Let's go back to the game of Life, you move into a poor farm. At that point, you are a ward of the state. I don't think you should be able to own any real estate, let alone a typical $400,000 (now $275,000) Naperville house. If you do, the government should be putting a reverse mortgage on the property to recover payments they make to you (welfare payments?). By the way, up until the mid 50's, did you know that General Assistance payments made to out of work people were recorded as loans? If you got a new job, you had to pay them back. The Great Society ended this program.

Social security, as was stated earlier, was a cruel hoax. Not a good program to hang your hat on. Also, if you make over $25,000 ($32,000 for a married couple), you pay income taxes on half of your social security. This provision has not changed in 20 years. Effectively, marginal tax rates increase by 50%. A person retiring today with maximum benefits of $23,000 is almost subject to this tax with zero other income. So benefits will effectively be significantly reduced.

Finally, so many people live in fear. The entire Obama message was fear and bad times. This is not a winning proposition. And then fear is translated into needing the government. I hope I never need the government. We should come up with some backstops, but let's move forward. But I am afraid many people are afraid. This is not good for our future.

What Happened to America: Of course, do not throw out capitalism. Capitalism has made our country strong. But we also need a certain degree of social programs to keep our populace civilized. It's the combination of BOTH that has made the U.S. a world power.

I have had discussions on these blogs with folks who truly believe all social programs should be abolished, because they think any social program = socialism (not), and who resent paying social security taxes because they think they can invest and do better for themselves with this money. Oh, really? REALLY? The last few months have shown us that no matter how hard you work, or how smart an investor you think you are, or how responsible you are with your savings, forces beyond your control can still wipe you out. That's why we need to provide a basic safety net for our citizens, not only because it's the humane thing to do, but also to keep the masses of indigent and unemployed from destabilizing our society. I know that sounds harsh, but that's what FDR understood by seeing it first-hand in the great depression. That's another lesson people are simply ignoring.

By What the? on January 22, 2009 1:58 AM

" And I marvel at people who think they have control over everything that happens in life. Haven't the last few months taught you anything?"

Yes, over the past 18 months (when this first became apparent), comapanies (primarily banks) was that banks made bad investments. Unfortunately, since banks are at the center of our economy, they can impact future direction of the economy.

But there is more to the problem (that nobody is covering). Low cost mortgage money and auto loans (remember all of those 0% auto loan deals) accelerated the purchases of houses and cars (and the multiplier effect through the economy) from 2003 to 2006. People who should have been buying in 2007 and 2008 made their purchases early. As a result, there are no buyers now. So the economic gains from 2003 to 2006 stole the economy from now. People are not buying cars because they do not have to.

But the economy is working as it should. Most of the stockholders of the banks and the financial companies have lost most if not all of their money. WaMu, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., Royal Bank of Scotland, AIG, Citigroup. In fact, the only problem I have is that the Treasury (Government) interferred on Merrill Lynch and Citigroup. They should have nationalized those two banks and wiped out their shareholders.

And I think the failure of regulation contributed to the problem and contiues to do so. Why aren't the rating agencies that told all of us that these securities were Triple A instead of Singe D (default) taking any of the blame? What about the accounting industry and the SEC? How can a bank have $9.5 billion of unrealized losses(this is a new accounting concept)? If they intend and can hold the securities to maturity and their is appropriate "evidence" that this is the case, then OK.

I recently bought United Airlines stock when oil prices were at $140. I believed that oil prices were going to decline (they did by more than my estimate), that the cost cuts of airlines would remain even after prices declined (a good excuse to stop flying to Quincy and these other stupid towns), and JP Morgan gave them $1 billion to remain the credit card of Mileage plus. The stock went from $5 to $15. Then United announces their ill fated oil hedging program. My stock dropped to $9 before I could get out. Now we know that they lost over $1 billion on a REAL BAD decision that I feel was disclosed to late. Had they disclosed that they had hedged oil (with a ceiling of $120 per barrel and a floor of $100 per barrel), one of the three reasons I bought the stock would have been out the window.

I have two concluding points.

1. We should figure out what went wrong over the past five to eight years and correct that. Besides concepts above, we have to accept the fact that if you earn less than $60,000 per year, you cannot own a house. You have to rent. And government "mandates" including Freddie and Fannie and Community Reinvestment Act have to be repealed. People need to be told, go back to school and make yourself more productive or you will not be able to get ahead.

2. More importantly, DO NOT ELIMNATE CAPITALISM. It has made our country strong, it has penalized the people who failed in the past five years (except where the Government prevented it from happening), and the whole world adopts it. In fact, there are MANY lessons that should be learned that people are simply ignoring.

To Red: Okay, you're entitled to not like the results of the election. There's been many election results that I haven't liked, either, most recently the 2004 one. But I really try not to have reason clouded by partisan biases. I don't always succeed, but I do try. When you say your opponent "bought" the election because he made a choice that allowed him to raise more money than you, that's obviously biased. McCain would have done exactly the same if he could have, but he was restricted by having taken public money. That was MY tax money he spent on his campaign, by the way, but you don't hear me complaining. I wouldn't be complaining if McCain had won, either. And I certainly wouldn't be saying that he used my tax money to "buy" the election. It just makes one sound like a sore loser.

I'm sure if you follow the money stream on the Republican side you'll find tax money going to unintended places as well. This kind of thing is not party specific; it's the way the system is. Obama won for a variety of reasons, but one was because his team ran a brilliant campaign. The Republicans did not.

To What Happened to America: And I marvel at people who think they have control over everything that happens in life. Haven't the last few months taught you anything?

To: What the?.. There is inherently something wrong when a candidate purchases the Presidency of this country by spending $750 million dollars. Tens of millions came from the SEIU and other unions who expect card check laws in return. Then they will complain when more jobs are shifted overseas. Tens of millions came from the NEA and those are my tax dollars. You might want to re-think the money stream especially with the NEA. We pay the salary of for example our fellow blogger OWVU with our tax dollars. Her union takes a cut from her check called dues and funnel it to the NEA who gives some of it to their in house PAC. There are other avenues wherein tax dollars go to the DNC. If you think only where the money comes from makes that OK, then you are living exactly where you belong and you get the government you deserve. Enjoy it. I am concerned about it and would be if the Republicans purchased the office too. I don't know what can be done about it but it smells. Once again, I remind you of 1976 when people stuck a fork in the Republican party and proclaimed it dead. I agree it is in pitiful condition and seriously lacks conservative values, conservative leadership or worse for all of us, any power now. However, the little peanut farmer left this country worse off than the prior, some call disgraced Nixon and caretaker Ford. Then this actor fellow from California ( I prefer to think of him from Illinois but lets not get off track. Although if you read what he wrote, he told everyone he is from Dixon Illinois and told me and the rest of the audience at Eureka College one day that everything good that happened to him happened here. Forget about him as a politican, he was a great man from very, very meager beginings and he was our real native son with our Illinois, mid-west values) you know, the "stupid actor" as he was called came along and Jimmy Carter and the Democratic party was wiped out. Republicans were clanging cocktail glasses together all over the counrty. The fact is now after eight years of a Republican Administration, and really only 8 Democratic years since 1980, the only thing I celebrate is the fact the WE get to change our leaders. We don't have to all like the results and a good number of people in this country most assuredly DO NOT LIKE THE RESULTS.

One more point about Social Security: the program has hundreds of billions of dollars coming in every year. It may one day not be able to meet its obligations, but that means at worst, that some of us won't get as much as we had been promised. We will all get something, though.

T.B. and Ken --I don't entirely agree that ALL of Obama's cabinet choices are simply more of the same tho some certainly appear to be, but I don't care enough to get into it. Suffice it to say I'm not going to judge the guy's presidency based on his first 36 hours in office and certainly not on cabinet choices alone. Let's wait and see what these folks actually do, shall we?

Social Security a failure? It definitely looks like that now, but I guess it depends on your place in line. My father-in-law is 92, and tho he saved and lived frugally all his life, he has simply outlived his money. Social security is the only income he now has, so you'd have a hard time convincing him that the program is a complete failure. Sure it's unsustainable, given increased life expectancies, inflation and decreasing contributions. But FDRs premise for it and other social programs as a stabilizing influence on society was and is still sound. That's what I was trying to convey.

I look at the election and inauguration as two different animals. Obama did not spend taxpayer money to run for election; I believe the inaugration was funded by all of us. Red specifically criticized Obama about the amount he spent on his campaign. It wasn't taxpayer money, so why should he care? McCain had no qualms about using taxpayer money for his campaign. I have no doubt that McCain would have spent just as much if his party could have gotten it. Obama's party funded their own campaign and were very successful at it. THAT'S why Red is belly-aching. Sour grapes will do that to you.

I don't know why the inaugration cost so much. It looked to be pretty standard stuff, nothing over the top. I only heard that there was more security than usual. I don't know if the cost of the inaugration was excessive, it may just be that's what they cost and we could either have one or not. I'm sure the Republicans wouldn't have passed on it, regardless of the price tag, so all this is really moot.

I do agree the financial meltdown was the responsibility of both parties; the Bush admin did not accomplish that on their own. I'm not sure about giving Bush credit for no terrorist attacks in the 7 years since 9/11, tho. It's kind of odd, giving him credit for something that DIDN'T happen. It's like trying to prove a negative. There weren't any terrorist attacks in the 7 years PRECEDING 9/11, either. Does that mean the Clinton admin kept us safe from terrorists? I'm sure you're seeing the point. There may not have been another terrorist attack anyway. We'll never know.

To Anonymous on January 21, 2009 3:43 PM--Loved your idea on diversification! LOL--literally!!

Anyone looking for facts on promises made and promises kept, here are some good sites for you. Obama supporters, here are your positions you support.

OBAMETER: St Petersburg Times.

Cool web site:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

It tracks all 500+ Promises that he made during the election.

Are politicians a cause of global warming?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx

Another cool web site with all of BHO's positions:

http://politicalfacts.com/barack-obama/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Annenberg: Fact Check

Another cool site that has been tracking the political promises:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/closing_arguments_obama.html

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The new issue of Time Mag compares the stimulus spending of Presidents in constant dollars.

Obama is definitely the champ, or at least his proposal is. It looks like Moby Dick vs the guppies on paper.

FDR should be called the biggest fraud in American history.

When he passed Social Security, the life expectancy of the average worker was 64 years old. The average 65 year old lived to 70.

This was a con to make people feel better. I wonder how hard FDR was laughing when people took this program seriously?

We need real solutions, not cons. We are still stuck with this con, made even better by the Great Society democrats of the 60's.

And I marvel at people who feel that they cannot manage their own destinies. Does the government do better?

By Always-Right on January 21, 2009 9:21 AM
What a great start, Obama is sworn in, and the stock markert tanks!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You may have spoken too early my friend. Here is how the day ended:

The Dow is up 279.01

The Nasdaq is up 66.21

The S&P is up 35.02

This is Bush's first day out of office where you can hold Obama fully accountable.

He was still in charge yesterday till noon when the market tanked.

We are geting a good start here. I was up 6.61%. Hopefully, we will get on a roll sooner than later.

But we still have tough times ahead.

The market usually turns 6 months before the economy recovers.

Having said that I think we have more down days in the market than up days in the next year or two. So I would recommed selling on these pops. Another pop like today and I will unload many of my stocks.

I think we well see Dow 6000 before we see Dow 12,000.

The former high of Dow 14,100 may be a decade away.

The Japanese stock market has not recovered from its collapse in 1993 to this day. We may never recover in this decade or even next decade.

Nasdaq never recovered to its highs of 5000 plus in the year 2000.

Put your money in the mattress in a fire proof safe with a 1550 Fareheit protection. And have good fire insurance policy that includes your cash. Consider diversifying by putting half your cash in a mattress and the other half in a safe deposit box. At least if there is a fire, you will have half of your cash left. Who says diversification does not pay off?

Or give it to another Bernand Madoff type and have him buy a yacht and vacation home with it at your expense. If you want to ponzi your money, make sure you are not the last one standing. Cash out early and don't try to get every last dollar.

CASH IS KING they say! With the devaluation to the dollar due to all the money the USA is printing to bail out every large corporation I think CASH is WORTHLESS.

Buy Gold Bullions and put them in your mattress and safe deposit boxes. Gold should hold its value while the dollar bill will one day say 1,000,000,000. Just my speculation. It happened in Africa, European, and S. American Countries during inflationary times. It could happen here. Trust me!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If you still trust the stock market and brokers, you can buy Gold by clicking to the symbol GLD. It is going for $84.15 a share. I can not guarantee you they are not another fraud pretending they have gold in Fort Knox when they have none. Who can you really trust with your money these days....seriously!

By Always-Right on January 21, 2009 9:21 AM
What a great start, Obama is sworn in, and the stock markert tanks!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You may have spoken too early my friend. Here is how the day ended:

The Dow is up 279.01

The Nasdaq is up 66.21

The S&P is up 35.02

This is Bush's first day out of office where you can hold Obama fully accountable.

He was still in charge yesterday till noon when the market tanked.

We are geting a good start here. I was up 6.61%. Hopefully, we will get on a roll sooner than later.

But we still have tough times ahead.

The market usually turns 6 months before the economy recovers.

Having said that I think we have more down days in the market than up days in the next year or two. So I would recommed selling on these pops. Another pop like today and I will unload many of my stocks.

I think we well see Dow 6000 before we see Dow 12,000.

The former high of Dow 14,100 may be a decade away.

The Japanese stock market has not recovered from its collapse in 1993 to this day. We may never recover in this decade or even next decade.

Nasdaq never recovered to its highs of 5000 plus in the year 2000.

Put your money in the mattress in a fire proof safe with a 1550 Fareheit protection. And have good fire insurance that includes your cash. Consider diversifying by putting half your cash in a mattress and the other half in a safe deposit box. At least if there is a fire, you will have half of your cash left. Who says diversification does not pay off?

Or give it to another Bernand Madoff type and have him buy a yacht and vacation home with it at your expense. If you want to ponzi your money make sure you are not the last one standing. Cash out Your choice! CASH IS KING they say.

What the?, you better send that message to the democrats, not to me. I don't see any different path being examined despite President Obama's promise of change. As I have said before, I hope he, with the help of the republicans, can manage to guide us back to prosperity as we are all affected by the kind of of political party first/country last politics practiced by the democrats for the last eight years.

The republican's only hope is to return to conservatism, not the lip service they have been giving it. The last election proved that we don't need two parties taxing and spending, and the electorate knows that the democrats are much better at it. The republicans have to give a obvious different choice to the electorate if they expect to come back.

What the?—

I hardly think its sour grapes to simply point out that Obama ran on “change” and his cabinet selections are more of the same (Clinton leftovers, really). It just runs counter to the speech he gave when he announced his candidacy. That’s all. I wish Obama the best. Those who would like to see him fail forget what the consequences would be for all of us.

While not trying to paint an overly-rosy picture of what has and hasn’t worked for the last eight years, there are two things I know for sure: we haven’t been attacked since 9/11, and the financial meltdown was a failure of both parties.

As for the way the word “socialism” (notice no caps?) is being thrown about now, I have to say I sort of agree with you. I think it’s a poor choice of word and I believe that most of the people using it are really expressing their belief that bigger government is the problem, not the solution.

Please spare us the FDR Social Security example. Social Security is a complete failure. I don’t know anyone under the age of 45 who actually thinks they will collect a dime from Social Security. The program will either be bankrupt, or the full retirement age will have to be pushed up to 80 to remain financially sound.

And you missed the point about the millions spent on the election and the inauguration. It isn’t where the money came from (public vs. private), but the fact that there was such excessive spending when there is a better use for the money right now. It makes our politicians appear to be even more out of touch with the common citizen than they really are.

T.B.

T.B.,

I'm a little disappointed in you. I think you're one of the more clear-minded posters on this site, even though you and I don't always agree. I would think that you would recognize and acknowledge the importance of yesterday's events, regardless of whether or not you like Barack Obama's politics.

As for, Rep. Rush, African Americans certainly do not have immunity from the disease of racism (or, in his case race-baiting). But I think you would agree that they have, on balance, been far more the victims than they have been the perpetrators. Not that this excuses Rep. Rush's behavior, but I think what he did pales in comparison to the import of what took place in Washington yesterday.

-JQP

"...the time has come to set aside childish things."

You should be ashamed.

Hey, Ken!

I'm not advocating working together with group hugs all around. It would be nice, but if the Republicans are focused on payback instead, it's not going to happen. But this may not matter. The republicans can be as obstructionist as they want, but the fact is they have little power. If the GOP wants to make a comeback, they really need to regroup and refocus over the next several years. The party is in disarray and their policies appear archaic and unresponsive to mainstream Americans. That's why they were voted out. The elephant is fast becoming a mastodon; they really haven't kept up well with the world around them.

Who am I going to blame now that the Dems have control of congress and the presidency? Blame for what? Let's wait for the new administration to actually do something before we label it a failure, and I fully expect there will be some. But to not attempt change, to continue unquestionably down the same path that led us to the crisis we're in now seems, frankly, stupid. Adapt or perish, Ken.

What the, how come when you bring up the last eight years, you fail to mention the first six that featured obstructionist democrats in congress, and the last two that featured a democrat congress? Now all we hear from the democrats is that we all have to work together, something they were never interested in. Who are you going to blame now that the democrats now have control of congress and the presidency?

What a great start, Obama is sworn in, and the stock markert tanks!

An interesting question was posed yesterday. Did Obama cut deals with all of his opponents for cabinet positions so they would drop out of the race? In fact, the same for Hillary Clinton as well?

I don't think so. But I think the Democrats have a very significant talent problem. Most successful businessmen DO NOT BUY INTO OBAMA's socialism. THEY WOULD NEVER WORK FOR THE PARTY (Obama is really irrelevant).

So who is left? Losers, YES LOSERS, like Sommers and Reich, who could NEVER hold a job, make a payroll, and create stockholder value. And some poor businessmen, like Penny Pritzker who really wanted to be Commerce Secretary, had so much baggage in her demise of Superior Federal Savings Bank that she could NEVER be approved (her dad or uncle had to pay hundreds of millions, if not billions to keep her out of jail).

The more interesting consequence. These LOSERS perpetuate bad ideas and policies. That is the really scary part of a Democratic administration, no American capitalists willing to work with them.

JQP --

Your last post is perhaps the longest I've ever seen from you.

You're right. We're not yet living in the world Dr King envisionsed and Rep Rush slapped us all upside the head and reminded us that race still matters.

T.B.

My God, what a bunch of sour grapes on this blog! Some of you haven't seen any change yet? The man hasn't been in office 24 hours yet. Give him at least a day on the job before you start to complain about his track record. I bet no President was more happy to leave Washington than Bush was this afternoon, given the mess he's leaving behind. There will be no quick fix to all this--the sinking economy, the Iraq/Afghan wars, our eroding national image. The mop up alone is going to take some time.

And Redskin claims "O" isn't his president? News flash for you, Red--if you're an American citizen, and Obama is the American President, that makes him officially YOUR president, like it or not. Refusing to acknowlege this fact shows how far into denial you've gone.

I think what we're seeing now is something akin to political Darwinism. Many things this country has been doing for the past 8 years are clearly not working well for us, judging by the results. We need to adapt, and adaptation involves change. I don't know how successful these new strategies will be, but I'm certainly willing to give them a try.

And since this seems like a good opportunity for a rant, I'm so tired of the histrionic bloggers who scream "SOCIALISM!" (and it's often in ALL CAPS) whenever taxes, welfare or any other social program is mentioned. When FDR instituted social security, the wealthy class wailed and foretold the end of capitalism, and when he taxed them to pay for it, then all hell broke loose. But what FDR believed the upper classes weren't understanding was that his policies were preserving capitalism, not destroying it. He knew the poor would be more likely to bring about revolution as a means to ending their suffering. Providing a basic safety net for the disadvantaged protected society from this threat. He protected market capitalism by instituting social programs. Change, however unpopular, can be a good thing.

It is no accident that U.S. citizens enjoy the highest standard of living on earth. This was made possible by balancing capitalism with social programs and paying for those programs with taxes. All taxes are a redistribution of wealth; it's the price we pay for civilization. We wouldn't be a first world nation without it. The U.S. is nowhere close to truly socialist nations, so get a grip. There's a much bigger picture involved here. Try to see it.

P.S. to Redskin: What do you care that Obama spent $750 million to get elected? He got all that cash through private fundraising and loans. No taxpayer money was used for his campaign. It was McCain who initially accepted public funds. If the Democractic party wants to spend $750 million on a campaign and raises the money themselves, it's no sweat off your or any other taxpayer's back.

Redskin, the problem is that you think we already live in the world that Dr. King envisioned. It’s well and good to tell yourself that a person’s skin color is of no import to you, and maybe that is true, in your case; but it’s not true of a lot of other people. Believe if you want to that we are post-racist society, but the facts of daily life say otherwise to any person of color. Forty-three people have now taken the oath of office as President of the United States, but Barack Obama is the very first one who is not a white male, even though white males have always been a minority in this country. Add to that the history of extreme oppression under which African Americans have lived throughout most of the history of this country, today’s events are beyond remarkable. It’s not kind racism to celebrate this fact; it’s simply to recognize that we as a nation are, to paraphrase Dr. King, a big step closer to realizing the true meaning of our creed that all men are created equal.

Barack Obama is significant for precisely the same reason that Jackie Robinson is significant. As good a baseball-player as Jackie Robinson was, and as deserving as he is to be in the Hall of Fame, there have been dozens of players who were better. But he is the only one that kids learn about in school, and rightly so. And just as you don’t have to be a Dodger fan to appreciate Jackie Robinson’s achievement, it should be a simple enough thing for Republicans to acknowledge the significance of Barack Obama’s inauguration, and many have done so.

As for Clarence Thomas, as I pointed out, he is not a particularly significant barometer of racial progress as he is not the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court. He is the Larry Doby of jurisprudence, if you will. And I agree that politics had much to do with his treatment during his confirmation, just as it did for Robert Bork. Thomas is black, and Bork is white. Is that meaningful? Thomas is not just conservative by they way; he’s an arch-conservative who, though he usually votes with fellow conservative Antonin Scalia, often writes separate concurring opinions because Scalia’s ideas are apparently too liberal for his taste. It’s not too surprising that he receives a lot of criticism from the people whose viewpoints are to the left of his, because most people, even most conservatives, have viewpoints that are to the left of Clarence Thomas.

Good Luck to our new president. I have some serious concerns about the people that he has surrounded himself with but believe he will try to do the right things. What continues to make me pause is the deification from his most ardent supporters and the main stream media. No one, no one at all can live up to the level of hype and fantasy that has grown in anticipation of his presidency. Some people are going to be very, very disappointed.

Geez yourself OWVU. I find it remarkable that YOU and many, many others keep "kind" racism (and kind sexism) alive in this country. Kind vs. the evil Klan style of racism. What do I mean? Dr. King uttered an array of words that were some of the most powerful words ever said. He of course looked forward to the day that his daughters would not be judged by the color of their skin but because of the content of their character. Of course OWVU see's this as a historic "Black" event. I understand why people like you think today is the historic day of the first African American President. It is no less disturbing than the number of people who look at accomplishment of people based on their ethnicity, race and gender. But I guess if you buy into an educational system (and you do) that makes the "celebration" of ethnicity, race, gender (or physical incapacity) the most important underlying criteria of a persons success, then you are in fact thrilled today and really, the big O's ability to fulfill the job is not even in consideration. So, Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice and that is why Clarence Thomas was treated shall we say very poorly? Judge Thomas was treated like other conservative nominees (Bork) and like Bush was treated today by the very ignorant mongrel hordes. And the funny thing, if you read the Judge Thomas auto biography, you will quickly see the poverty, adversity and hardship that Thomas overcame was a far greater success story than the "O". But you won't read it because Judge Thomas is a conservative and you can't accept a conservative let alone a "Black" conservative in your narrow sphere of reference. Here's for you A123-the "O" is the President but like you with Bush, "O" isn't MY President so don't bother telling me otherwise. It is possible to have politicians who do not share your values, interests and of course do not represent you accordingly. And if his success comes at diminishing what I value and consider important, (market driven economy, not government driven economy, the importance and not the erosion of the Bill of Rights) I don't want him to succeed. I would not consider trampling my values as success in a country that OWVU, was founded on INDIVIDUAL liberty. Not public education, group think be it at your grade school, M.S., H.S. or NCC.

The separation clause never said their could be no religion, it just said that the government could not designate one religion as the only religion. This has been twisted over the years by justices that believe in a 'living constitution' instead of basing law on what the constitution actually has written in it.

________________

Could someone point out exactly where in the U.S. Constitution it discusses the separation of church and state? (Be careful, this is a trick question). I seem to remember letters written by Thomas Jefferson indicating this should be the case, but no where in the constitution is this written. Ken is correct, the separation existed by Jefferson in order to prevent the Government from mandating just which religion you must belong to. They were getting away from the anglican church in england who did just that.

OWVU, as a teacher you probably already know the answer to your question. The separation clause never said their could be no religion, it just said that the government could not designate one religion as the only religion. This has been twisted over the years by justices that believe in a 'living constitution' instead of basing law on what the constitution actually has written in it.

Hey Anonymous...
This POTUS is everyone's President. Unless you've decided to give up your citizenship. Is that what you're telling us?

Really, some of the comments here are actually deeply disturbing. You don't have to have voted for a President for him to be your President, the President.

As for the idea of a bunch of Clinton-ites being appointed, one idea I haven't seen discussed much is that you almost have to initially staff with experienced people, while developing your own and replacing as time goes by. Watch what happens and you'll see. None of this means Clinton Part II, just like Bush II started with a lot of Bush I people.
Really, why so much hate? How about just a little bit of hope, kool-aid or no?

Thank you John Q. Public! Geez! Yes, this is history, unless there has been an African American President before? Why would you not think that is historically worth celebrating no matter what your beliefs are.

I do want to bring up something interesting. I found it so interesting that we keep pushing Church & State being separating, taking prayer out of schools & yet they not only have a prayer but say the Our Father. Now, before I get bashed, I am very spiritual, religious could be argued, but I do say those prayers. I'm not saying I would not want to or don't value it, but I do also believe in this separation for a good reason & why would they take it out everywhere else but here? I know we have "In God We Trust" on our mail etc. I just find it odd I guess & wondered how they find it ok here when they don't elsewhere. Perhaps it is the idea of being forced to versus choosing. That I understand. There was an special on HBO Sunday on Reporter Helen Thomas & she asked Bush this idea & I guess she got yelled at a while back on blidesiding him. She said she had not, it was a fair & legitimate question. She also said that Bush would NEVER let you ask follow-up questions. I find that QUITE interesting!

I love watching/hearing the kids talk about this day! They are sooo cute!

Fix America wrote:

"As Rush Limbaugh stated, NOBODY celebrated when Clarence Thomas was appointed as the First African American Supreme Court Justice."

That's probably due to the fact that Thurgood Marshall was the first African American Supreme Court Justice.

The Chicago thug and the corrupt cronies he harvested from the criminal administration of billy and hilly clinton arrive and take over today. The sec of state is illegal, the treasury sec if appointed is a tax evader criminal, the senate leader has shut down Minnesota office of one senator, the AG believes that water boarding is criminal while he assisted in getting pardons for some of billy's slimy friends, and it goes on and on for each appointment this agent of change has installed another criminal. He's not even the first black president according to the media, but at least he causes tingling feeling running up matthews leg. Thats a great endorsement for a position as leader of the nation! PATHETIC!!! With a House led by corruption and a senate led by a fool, the Daily stooge from chicago leaves ione disgrace to perform another. He will perform miracles by raising the level of corruption in DC higher than ever. This POTUS is not my President.

Historic event.

As Rush Limbaugh stated, NOBODY celebrated when Clarence Thomas was appointed as the First African American Supreme Court Justice.

Make it very clear. This is a LIBERAL victory, of which BHO is just the puppet.

He talks about responsibility. Well, responsibility means studying, not dropping out of schools, working in real jobs instead of government jobs, rewarding people on results, not on quotas.

People do not want to take risks and work. They want things handed to them. What should we do with high school dropouts from the inner city that do not kill each other? They can't work, they are a drain on society. If this was 18th century America, they would be put in debtors prisons. These people are committing crimes against society.

What is the liberal solution? SHARE THE WEALTH? Let's create a school somewhere that these people are forced to go to until they graduate.

Why should we have to take responsibility for these outcasts>

Can Obama bring about change in this country? That depends. What kind of change? He hints at a new civility and a new way of doing things. We'll see if that amounts to anything. He will certainly bring about a change in policy, though, which is to be expected when any new President takes office, and even more so when the new President is of a different political party than the outgoing President.

I think a large measure of the excitement attendant with this inauguration, though, is simply due to the fact that the ascendance of an African American to the Presidency is change in and of itself. At the very least, it is a powerful symbol of a process of change that has been at work in this country for fifty years, or so. It is a much-needed confirmation to tens of millions of Americans that the highest office in the most powerful nation in the world is not off limits to them. I would hope that today, at least, we can all put aside our political differences and celebrate this fact.

I heard that White Eagle Elementary was planning on holding some sort of special convocation for the inauguration today. This is second hand info, maybe somebody else can confirm whether it is true.

If yes, then I have two other questions to ask:

(1) Would White Eagle Elementary have held the special convocation had John McCain won the election?

(2) Has White Eagle Elementary held special convocations of this nature for past inaugurations, such as the two recent inaugurations of President George W. Bush?

Thank you.

T.B.,
Very good point. There is an awful lot of fanfare about parties and outfits and tickets... all of this costing a LOT of money. You would think the U.S. was rolling in dough. Stimulus? Military aid? Bailouts? What's another couple million bucks?

And the Treasury Secretary? How could Obama appoint him with a straight face? Is this all payback for helping get him to where he is now? When will it end? When will someone in politics start doing something because it's the RIGHT thing to do, not because it's in his best interest or it's in the best interest of the special interest group that got him where he is.

I really hope I'm wrong, but I'm not expecting much at all. Especially with such an inexperienced person in the White House. I don't think he can deliver what he promised.

Well said T.B in its entirety! I do remember the hoopla about the inauguration expense and armor. Nor the $750 million plus BHO spent getting elected. Don't worry, no one is thinking now. This is a mesmerizing event. It is another example of the media trading their constitutional protection of free speech and press, of being the peoples advocate for advocates of a party. Like the blaring headline today; "Chicago's President" with Lynn Sweet, one of the most corrupted with a front page by line. I'm surprised Mary Mitchell isn't covering the African American angle since she is and an expert of racial matters. Well the good news is I suppose even they took a recent pay cut showing that there is consequence of action when you chased away people like me, who believed in newspapers, the importance of having several, who lamented when the Daily News or the Chicago American folded to only buying the SUN newspaper, only on Sunday. I learned about the world outside Napeville as a kid growing up here in the West Highlands. The newspapers proved when they became politically corrupt that you can ignore them as a source of objective reporting. Of course now many think because a new President is elected there is change. As you point out, there really has been no change. Same players in different chairs. Imagine if the infighting in a one party town (DC) mirrors the one party state (IL) after the first year of BHO. Will his approval rating be the same as Blago's? Can't wait for Rambo to give us those latest poll numbers then. But lets have at least muted hope that cooperative government is the result of the 44th President. Otherwise BHO will not be able to remember if he is in Springfield or DC. Its the same game.

I couldn't agree more about being embarrassed to be from Naperville when reading these posts. The arrogance and closed minded statements of so many posters is truly sad. Thank goodness there are at least a few who are willing to speak up against this - those who have give me hope.

Anonymous,
What specific views do you find objectionable?

Reading this blog entry, you would imagine that Naperville is the most ignorant city in DuPage county. I'm embarrassed to live here.

Amen Thankfully these views are not those of most Americans. How embarassing this is.

I didn’t vote for Obama but quietly hoped after his win that he would bring a new set of values and real change to DC. So far, I’ve seen neither.

Obama launched his campaign in Springfield by stating that you can’t send the same people to DC and expect different results…then he picked Biden as his running mate and asked most of the former Clinton administration to join his administration.

Obama was supposed to stand for real values, but then he and the rest of the Dems flinched when it came time to seat our esteemed Senator Burris (you know, the one picked by Gov Corruption?). He chose expediency over values.

Just weeks after being told that Obama’s election signaled an end to racial politics as we know them, Rep Rush plays the race card as if nothing had changed. Obviously, he’s never read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. Obama meekly came out against Rush, but caved in and seated Burris. Expediency over values.

Obama’s pick for Treasury Secretary is going to head the IRS and has tax problems? His tax problems are such that if he were applying for a job at the IRS he would be deemed unsuitable and if he were a current IRS employee he would be fired. But he’s OK to run the entire department because he understands TARP? Again, Obama chose expediency over values.

If his brand of change doesn't change, we're in for a long four years.

T.B.

P.S. Does anyone recall the articles around W’s second inaugural when the press was hooting that the $40 million spent on the inauguration should be spent on armor and assets for our troops? Where are those same authors to clamor about all the money being spent this weekend which could go to help out those in need in these tough times? I thought so.

Sorry Rambo, I thought Mitt Romney the most qualified among ALL of the candidates in terms of political resume and more importantly, what has he achieved in his life outside of politics. Maybe you liked Edwards until he flamed out? I did not nor have ever previously voted for McCain of course until this general election. You see, I do not believe career politicians make good leaders and proponents of public policy. A mix of public and personal service with successes and lets face it, some minor failures result in a more well rounded visionary but importantly, practical leader. Obama is a dreamer with little practical experience. His legislative resume is as thin as Palin's but you are not able to acknowledge it. And as far as Joe the Plumber is concerned, I like it when a citizen challenges respectfully, as Joe did any politician. They work for us Rambo and serve at our pleasure. They are not enigmas or icons to be worshiped and drooled over for example the press does with Obama. Politicians generally do not solve problems, they cause problems such as TARP. A number of other posters on this have hit the B-12 pistol target bullseye on the financial problems this country faces and the incorrect and wrong federal response to it. While I like and admire McCain, consider his contribution to this nation overwhelmingly superior to his Majesty the Obama, the fact is McCain is too not the answer. And you cite polls and comments from poor downtrodden people as hope and inspiration? The road to hell is paved with good intention and hope. At the rate politicans of both parties are deficit spending, this county is going straight to financial hell. Everyone was dreaming in awe and the polls were through the roof in 1976 when that little peanut farmer from Plains, GA was elected President. Even today some bloggers still consider him a genious and brilliant scholar. But when he took over after Nixon with mythical expectations, he soon ran the county so hard into the ground, he could not win a second term. Yeah, some scholar and world leader. I hope Obama is successful and does not do too much damage to our market driven economic system. I agree it will be to everyone's advantage if he is successful. I don't want to see him impeached or disbarred like the last pillar of the Democratic Party. But I'm not buying the audacious hope and becoming entranced with wild abandonment by a man who really is a neophyte just because the polls are high, the press, pundits, wags, wonks and you like him. We live in a diverse society and there are a great many of us who do not care for him, his friends or his supporters and we don't have to. But the big difference will be the absence of hate for Obama that you Bush haters have poured into public discourse over the past eight years. And some people above complain of ignorance? The Bush haters have cornered the market of ignorance and the beauty is the more angry they became, the true ignorance of a great many people who claim to be highly educated and intellignet was shown as the reality.

Ali Abunimah, a friend of Obama from their days at the University of Chicago, wrote this article on the Electronic Intifada today. It is a long but good article. I copied the first few paragraphs. If you want to read the full article here is the link. Obama has full knowledge of the Palestinian conflict from both perspectives. I am anxiously awaiting his comments tomorrow.

Abunimah is the author of many books and the co-founder of Electronic Intifada which originated during the 2nd Palestinian Intifada.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10215.shtml

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Israel won't survive
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 19 January 2009

The merciless Israeli bombardment of Gaza has stopped -- for now -- but the death toll keeps rising as more bodies are pulled from carpet- bombed neighborhoods.

What Israel perpetrated in Gaza, starting at 11:30am on 27 December 2008, will remain forever engraved in history and memory. Tel al-Hawa, Hayy al-Zeitoun, Khuzaa and other sites of Israeli massacres will join a long mournful list that includes Deir Yasin, Qibya, Kufr Qasim, Sabra and Shatila, Qana, and Jenin.

Once again, Israel demonstrated that it possesses the power and the lack of moral restraint necessary to commit atrocities against a population of destitute refugees it has caged and starved.

The dehumanization and demonization of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims has escalated to the point where Israel can with full self- righteousness bomb their homes, places of worship, schools, universities, factories, fishing boats, police stations -- in short everything that sustains civilized and orderly life -- and claim it is conducting a war against terrorism.

Yet paradoxically, it is Israel as a Zionist state, not Palestine or the Palestinian people, that cannot survive this attempted genocide.

Israel's "war" was not about rockets -- they served the same role in its narrative as the non-existent weapons of mass destruction did as the pretext for the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the link again if you want to continue reading the artilce. It is a great read for those who care to understand the conflict from both perspectives..

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10215.shtml

Here is an interesting article about a major US Bank, State Street of Boston, that is the 13th largest bank in the US.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/01/19/daily2.html?ana=from_rss

This article shows that this bank will report a $800 million of loss reserves in the 4th quarter of 2008. But the article goes on to disclose that they have a potential of $9.1 billion of additional "unrealized" losses. This bank needs to keep the $2 billion State Street received from the TARP funds. In fact, it is $7 billion too little. They cannot loan any new money, they need to hold on to what they got until they clean up their balance sheets.

I suspect there are similar problems for other banks. Until this is fixed, our economy will not recover. Again, no stimulus package cannot revive bankrupt banks.

It is interesting to note that the Israelis are showing a lot of respect for Obama by withdrawing COMPETELY from Gaza Strip in less than 48 hours before his inaguration tomorrow. Under Bush their policy was to continue to occupy and settle. Unlike us, I believe the Israelis already know what to expect from Obama. We will learn in the upcoming days and weeks.

The Israelis apparently understand they don't have Obama(or at least not yet) in their rear pocket as they had Bush the last 8 years.

By Keyboard Rambo on January 19, 2009 12:43 PM

Rambo,

Presidents express themselves with a set of policy objectives some require the buy in of Congress some don't.

My impression of Obama is that he is an intelligent articulate very liberal politician who wants to roll the clock back to the Great Society (pre-Clinton reforms) while continuing and accelerating the current reckless spending and debts.

To the question asked by the moderator:

How much of his platform do you think he will actually be able to accomplish?

What do you think his platform is, and what do you think will get done?

Which parts of his platform do you support?

Here is an opinion in the NY Times as to what we can expect from Obama's Presidency as opposed to his predecessors. It seems like the US position on the Middle East is acceptable to the Arabs and Palestinians but what is missing is a US President to push it through by imposing "tough love" on the Israels. Obama is promising to speak tomorrow on the issue so let us give him a listen.

The link is

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/the-ace-in-obamas-pocket/

Below is a summary:

The Ace in Obama’s Pocket

The U. S. A. is the most important country that can actually do something about the crisis in the Middle East. America has stood with Israel, defended it even when there was international consensus against it. But Palestinians and Arabs think that Barack Obama will be different. They think he will be an honest broker in the conflict. Former presidential advisers like Dennis Ross and Elliot Abrams were advocates of Israel in the White House rather than defenders of America’s broader interest in the region.

For many in the Arab and Islamic worlds the litmus test of any sane U. S. foreign policy will be how it deals with the Palestinian problem. And to his favor Mr. Obama seems committed to his promise that he will not wait four or eight years to get involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but will pursue peace in the Middle East from Day 1 of taking office. Indeed, his philosophy of talking to his enemies will certainly be an improvement to President Bush’s military unilateralism and political exclusionism. And although Mr. Obama has not favored talking to Hamas, it is hard to see that he will block some type of indirect talks with the Palestinian Islamic movement for ideological reasons, especially since he favors talking to its Syrian and Iranian patrons.

“Palestinians and Arabs think that Barack Obama will be different.”
But perhaps the ace in Mr. Obama’s pocket will be the official position of the U. S. government over the years. Washington has repeatedly opposed Israeli occupation in 1967 and has called for its end. It has been consistently against settlement activities, and the current resident of the White House has articulated a policy that calls for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state on the lands occupied in 1967. The United States has also opposed Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and — along with every nation on the planet — has refused to recognize Israel’s application of Israeli law on residents of East Jerusalem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

We will have to see if Obama can be fair and deliver or if AIPAC will roast him and put him on a silver platter for the Israeli Cabinet to feast on as they have done with all his predecessors.

@talk about drinking the Kool-Aid on January 19, 2009 10:10 AM

I seriously recommend you close your browser window and don't read any more comments on this blog unless you want your skull to implode as you try to figure out where these people come from and how they can be so crazy.

@glock 22 on January 18, 2009 6:38 PM

There are two types of Republicans. Ones whose candidate didn't win, and have decided to make the most of it and support the current president even though they don't completely agree with him because like it or not things aren't working the way they are and need to be CHANGED. The other type of Republican, still haven't changed their dirty diapers after crying about McCain losing and how Obama has "fooled America" and everyone has "drank the Kool-Ade".

Check out this article- Obama can save us, says America as polls show wave of optimism sweeping the nation.

According to a survey published last night, 71 per cent of Americans believe the economy will improve during the first year of the Obama presidency and 65 per cent said they think unemployment will drop.

Asked about cash-strapped Wall Street, 72 per cent said they thought the stock market would recover.

Some 63 per cent were confident that their personal financial situation would improve.

Personally, I couldn't agree more with this quote from the article-

Raleigh, a teacher and mother of three, said Obama 'brings a different set of values, a different viewpoint to Washington, to the White House in particular, that we haven't seen there in the last eight years.

'His openness to other ideas, his willingness to take advice from other people is something that I think has been lacking in the presidency.'

So... enjoy being a sour puss and sitting around with your arms crossed about how Kool-Ade drinkers have ruined the country and how if America had a brain John McCain and Joe the Plumber™ would be riding the Straight-Talk Express® to the white house right now. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans support Obama, and think he will do great things for this country.

I have never seen anything close to the mania that is surrounding Obama over the past view days. It's more like a coronation. While I was never a supporter, I thought he had the potential to lead, but the self-serving nature of his conduct over the past several days is very disheartening. He seems bent on deciding how he will be viewed and is comparing himself to Lincoln and FDR. As yet, he has no basis to justify such comparisons. To me it seems like a huge marketing campaign to convince us all that he is the greatest president of all time.

I don't mean to diminish his accomplishments, let him get down to taking care of the business of government. Let's not write the history before he even takes office. This is the audacity of hoopla.

I don't hope President Obama fails. But I accept the reality that the previously failed policies he hopes to enact which include massive amounts of government taxation and spending will fail to "get the economy going." Freedom and free enterprise is the engine of this economy and will always be the key to jump start it and produce wealth.

President Obama has already backed away from his hope and change sweet talk, and is all about gloom and doom now. I have the same expectations for him that I have for any affirmative action candidate: none. His sycophants in the media and his surrogates will protect and make excuses for him no matter what he does, just like they did during the election.

Unfortunately, he'll probably be able to accomplish much if not all of his platform. But even if he didn't accomplish any of it, the fact that someone as liberal, unqualified, and unaccomplished as he is has ascended to the presidency, is a sure sign that too many voters are already out to lunch.

By talk about drinking the Kool-Aid on January 19, 2009 10:10 AM:
"Reading this blog entry, you would imagine that Naperville is the most ignorant city in DuPage county. I'm embarrassed to live here."

With you on this one!

Reading this blog entry, you would imagine that Naperville is the most ignorant city in DuPage county. I'm embarrassed to live here.

OBAMA’S FIRST TERM

Q
Do you think the Obama administration can live up to the hype?

A.
Nope, neither does he.

Obama has already backed out of most of what he promised the simpletons who voted for him. Welfare and a Gay Military are still on the burners along with various wealth redistribution programs.

Q.
What are your expectations for the Obama presidency?

A.
• Break the middle class with taxes, deflation, and then inflation with possible hyper inflation. Same policies as Bush. Keynesian monkeys beating on the engine of the car with baseball bats to make it go (one of my favorite TV ads).

• Break the Military by turning it into a Gay affirmative action program.

• Break the CIA by criminalizing the behavior of those who saved tens of thousands of American lives. Holder and Panetta are the scum bags to do it.

• Break the value of the dollar even more by printing even more of the stuff to pay the bills. 95% drop in value since 1974.

• Break the Constitution even more than it is by pushing the “flexible Constitution” argument. We'll tell you what your rights are this week.

• Break the value of citizenship by creating millions of instant voters dependent on the Great Father in DC for their handouts.

• Break the second amendment with lots of lawsuit enabling legislation.

• Break the first amendment with the "Fairness Doctrine". Too many people are listening to non-liberals on the airwaves. Perhaps the FEDs should open massive re-education camps run by Harvard and Yale so we can all have our minds ruined.

• Break the courts with more judges who can't read the law or comprehend the words. “Rule with their hearts”.

• Break the right to secret votes in Union Elections so the goons know who to beat with baseball bats in the factory or hotel parking lot.

Q.

How much of his platform do you think he will actually be able to accomplish?

A.
This is my short list:

Ruin the Military, ruin the CIA, reinstitute welfare, ruin what’s left of the middle class, amnesty, no new regulation of financial institutions or reform of regulatory structures, sell out Columbia to the Marxists, sell out Israel to Iran and Saudi Arabia, further erode the value of the dollar, create Federal and State government jobs for 600,000 unqualified unionized employees who will help fund his next election.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Does anyone else think Obama should cancel the victory party and donate the money (150-$200 million) to the homeless?

Obama's choice: Truman or Marshall

By Akiva Eldar

Tags: Barack Obama, Israel

Akiva Eldar: Obama mustn't let Israel kill and bleed all the way to an apartheid state.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056660.html

Well, Glock, whatever criteria you want to use to determine where a President is from, just be consistent. The convention is to use the state of most recent residence, but if you want to use birthplace, then Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton were/are from Illinois, Lincoln was from Kentucky, Grant was from Ohio, and Obama is from Hawaii. If you want to make it really complicated and use the place where the person lived the longest, then Lincoln and Obama are still from Illinois, Reagan from California, Grant from Ohio (probably), and Hillary from Illinois or Arkansas or, perhaps, Washington.

If this stiumulus plan is any indication of the next four years, then Bush will no longer hold the title of the worst President, Obama will lead us to financial ruin--deflation followed by unprecedented hyper inflation. Maybe not as bad as Germany in the 20's, but close to Brazil in the 90's.

He will achieve at destroying the middle and upper class.

But if he had REAL investment plans (such as a major plan for alternative fuel cars and support system) and a sounder regulation system (how much money is being put into that area--ZERO),
he would be more credible.

Instead, a page our of Mao's book. Oh, he must have been reading that along with Lincoln.

This says something when people want to argue where one is from rather than get into what is really important! Who cares? Does it really make any difference? Unless you start a conversation of how their attitudes & values are shaped by the region of the country you live or want to claim being able to look outside your backyard & see the Russians has some significance to preventing them from coming over for a BBQ and use your hot tub, then what does it matter! GEEZ!

I'd like to ask what other president accomplished all he claimed he would accomplish? Perhaps we are holding him to too high of a standard than past presidents? As one mentioned he is following the worst president (by many accounts) in history. He has almost nothing to lose & everything to gain. Any improvement at this point will be welcomed & make him shine. Do I think he will make mistakes, why not? He is human. He has to rely on other humans! I would not expect him not to. When I make my personal goals for the year do I accomplish them all? Heck no! Do I still make mistakes at my age...yep! But as the saying goes, you shoot for the moon & you do get some stars! :-) I don't expect him to accomplish everything in 4 yrs. I don't epect him to be a God.

As for Kool Aid drinkers...first of all it was Flav-Aid but I know most just use Kool aid as it is more common. Many believe it is those who believe Bush played no hand in this downward spiral of our economy and blind belief of the reasons we are in this war who are drinking so eagerly & so much.

I am not BUBO.

To SE Side, please take note of my number 2. There were suppose to be safeguards so that greed cannot exceed legal bounds. Again, accountants, rating agencies, regulators, where were they? If the Wall Street Journal is correct and there are still "unrecognized losses" of $1 TRILLION, what gives? What kind of accounting treatment enables BANKRUPT companies to continue?

Like the old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." We know that socialism has failed, look at Russia and China. We cannot let Obama create his new form of Socialism. That is my take, when you "GIVE" $250 billion to states for their deficits, that will not create jobs. That is another form of transfer payments.

By the way, I was long winded, but nobody has countered, several have agreed.

And Obama is not an Illinoisian, he used our state for his personal gain. What has he ever contributed?

Thanks for sorting it out for me. I think I get it now. Let me try a practical application. Hilarious Clinton (because she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia and is named after the famous Sir Edmund Hilary BEFORE he climbed Mt. Everest) is not really from Park Ridge, Illinois. She was living in New York for about a year when she ran for US Senator, D-NY. She was elected Senator there. So she is from New York. AND, since she lived in Little Rock as Mrs. Governor Clinton for two terms right before they were elected President, she was from Little Rock in 1992. Beautiful thing that Kool Aid, ain't it?

Glock,

As Chris pointed out, Grant only resided in Illinois for about a year or two, though I believe he continued to identify Illinois as his state of residence until he was elected President. President-elect Obama moved her shortly after college, which means he was about the same age Lincoln was when he moved here (early 20's). As for Obama's birthplace, he was born in Hawaii; if you have any doubt about that, you need to dump the Kool-aid from your own drinking glass.

-JQP

Note to Chris: Ronald Reagan's second term as Governor of California ended six years before he became President.

Some of my Democratic friends cried foul when Bush 43 beat Kerry in the Electoral College in 04. They claimed the only real measure was the popular vote and the electoral college should be eliminated. Flash forward 4 years and these same friends claim a landslide victory by Obama because, you guessed it, he dominated in the electoral college!!

As the moderator indicates, 46% of the population voted for someone other than Obama so while he is precedent setting in his achievement it is (IMHO) no mandate

As for failed "conservative" parties referenced by SE Side, I hope you're not too shortsighted to recall Reagan taking over for a failed Carter (talk about bad, if not the worst). I'm sure you also remember that Clinton inherited an economy already turning around and if you believe Economists, Bush II inherited an economy headed into recession - so let's not annoint Obama as the greatest just yet. Hopefully Obama won't buy into the line that all wealth was created by evil robber barons and needs to be redistributed to the poor.

I think Mr. Obama will have a very difficult time accomplishing all he promised. I also believe some of his biggest opponents and critics will come from the very liberal side of his political organization. The ultra liberals will find him too centrist and will become very unhappy that he does will not be able to deliver the "liberal agenda" they believe should be coming.

I urge all to remember the phrase from a few campaigns ago: "It's the economy...".

I think we are in for some very rough times ahead. More so than what I think most truly realize.

Obama has one thing in his favor - he has the worst presidency in history to follow. I think he'll do fine.

Psychos like the first responder have their heads in the sand when they ignore that the problems have all been caused by their failed "conservative" policies, which gave the country to the rich in a way not seen since the turn of the last century ( robber barons, anyone?).

Money corrupted everything - contrary to the famous movie line - Greed is certainly not good. We do have to be more "socialist" - we have to be more patriotic and not always do what is best for ourselves alone in the short term and think about what is best for everyone in the long term.

If FDR's stimulus didn't work, it is because it was not *enough* stimulus - it's called macroeconomics - you should look it up - we should be helping any and all companies that will actually make things in the US and start putting tarrifs on imported goods to pay for it. It's what best for the nation.

Best wishes and prayers for our new President and our nation. May we defeat the naysayers at home and again be a light of freedom throughout the world as we wash the stain of the last 8 years from our nation's soul.

I did not drink the Obama Kool Aid so I and 48% of the American public will not participate in the mania. However the daughter, an NCC student and not fond of any politicians, received a general e-mail from the president of the college WHO DID drink the Kool Aid. He was inviting the students to visit a number of locations on campus because televisions and refreshments were going to be served during this magnificent event. Not since 1861 I think the date was he wrote have two presidential inagaurations occurred with the two presidents calling Illinois home. What a joke! 1) Lincoln (who he likens to Obama for crying out loud) was born in Kentucky and moved to Illinois as a young man. By the way, I have visited the Lincoln Museum and read a good deal of Lincoln history and I will tell you Obama is NO Lincoln. 2) I don't know where Obama was born and skeptical of anyone who claims they do. But it was not Illinois and actually he has only been a resident of Illinois about ten years of his 40yr something life. Calls Illinois home. Really! 3) Our college president forgot about Reagan of course. A Native son if there ever was one. 4) Most people I suppose forget about U.S. Grant.

Again, no one wants to "debate" you, because there is no debating. Your idea of "debate" is calling your opposition racist establishment nazis and belittling anyone who disagrees with you.

What are your expectations for the Obama presidency? How much of his platform do you think he will actually be able to accomplish?

___________________________________________________________________

Keyboard Rambo and Seriously,

The moderator asked a question and I have a right to answer it.

Israel is the cause of WORLD INSTABILITY and it must be dealt with by Obama as soon as possible.

We must deal with the Palestinian refugee crisis. Not cover it up and sweep it under the rugs. Obama has promised to deal with it on his first day in office.

It is time we put this 61 year old horrific crisis on the front burner and deal with it.

It can not be postponed from President to President. Obama seems like he wants the puck to stop with him so let us see if he can deliver.

I am enjoying the Arizona/Philadelphia game and unlike yourselves can multi task very easily. I also have no use for commercials.

I wrote this post during 2 commercials. It would probably take you an hour to write what I can write in a minute. Get a life!

If you guys or gals can't blog about an issue, your existence on this site is useless and has expired. You really sound like useless human beings since all you do is attack fellow bloggers instead of tackling the issues the threads call for.

Why don't you guys try to comment on the thread the moderator posted. If you want different subjects discussed, tell us what subjects you want discussed by discussing what concerns you instead of attacking me. Is there no issue that concerns you guys but getting rises and highs by attacking others and seeing your moniker posted?

Honestly, you guys seem immature and I hope the Moderator can see through your uselessness. Neither of you have anything to contribute or seem capable of making a contribution to advance the agenda of the Moderator.

Now let us see you guys answer some of the excellent questions the Moderator asked. Let us see if you can collect your thoughts and write a full paragraph. Goodness gracious!

Oh god, not again.

Anonymous's massive diatribes on Israel just got pushed off the front page and here we go again...

Holy cow dude. All you do is blog on the Napersun Potluck. It's getting really old to read these superlong posts, posted by the same person over and over again.

What Happened to America,

You sound like Bubo....are you him or her with a new handle.

Maybe the Moderator can check into it if he wishes.

I am interested in seeing what President Obama will do to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict once and for all. He promised he will have a statement the first day on the job. I am looking forward to hearing that statement.

It will be interesting to see if he continues to give Israel the unconditional love Bush gave her for 8 years or finally gives her the tough love it needs and deserves to shape up and join the civilized world. Currently, Israel is a country practicing "state terrorism."

President Obama can bring great relations with the rest of the world. All he has to do is demand Israel evacuate all occupied territories according to UN Resolutions 224 and 338. No exceptions. No more UN VETOES.

All settlements must be dismantled, E. Jerusalem must be returned, and all lands stolen from the Palestinians must be given back. Suffocating blockades need to be lifted and Israel must not be allowed to run the concentration camp known as Gaza and properly described by the Vatican.

Once we become a law abiding nation that respects the resolutions of the United Nations, I believe we will be accepted by the rest of the world and we will have world peace. We won't have to spend a single dollar fighting world terrorism as it will evaporate if there is no cause to rally behind or justify it.

There are many points, but a couple to start.

1. He is going to fail because he is pursuing failing plans. Everyone wants someone to bail them out, but that is impossible. People have to get a grip with the new economy. If you do not keep up, you LOSE. PERIOD.

Autoworkers will lose their jobs and their penions because of their greed and poor management. I would prefer automakers in the US being owned by foreign companies, they make better cars for a lower cost.

The old adage, if you expect to get something for nothing, you will get nothing for something. GOVERNMENT CANNOT SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS.

FDR was a complete failure (contrary to our liberal textbooks). The economy was worst in 1938 than it was in 1932, same level of unemployment. The only issue that restarted the economy was World War II. Should we declare war on Iran now instead of wasting 8 years?

2. The problem in the financial markets still needs to be fixed. Citigroup and Merrill Lynch should have been put into bankruptcy and their shareholders should have been wiped out. Instead, the US government is protecting these companies. And Bank of America has been ruined as Paulson forced them to take Merrill Lynch.

The lessons from the Japanese, fix the financial system and your economy will restart. Don't do that, you have deflation. Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal (yes, one of the few remaining REAL newspapers) stated there is still $1 TRILLION of bad debt remaining. These losses have not been recognized. FIX IT!!!!

And going forward, put in the safeguards so this does not happen again. Remember, this is the second time in 30 years that housing lending has caused this country to suffer. The first was the S&L crisis, this is a more elaborate form. Where were the accountants, rating agencies and regulators? These losses did not just occur in 2008, they have been being "expanded" since at least 2001. These loans should not have been made, the houses should not have been built, and we would have a smaller economy, but one on sounder footing. In fact, if we had fewer houses, all of our housing values would not have fallen by 25 to 30%. Too late.

3. The Stimulus. What a joke. How does funding state deficits for Medicaid, schools, "general" and others to the tune of almost $250 million CREATE jobs? Instead, it takes precious resources to continue jobs that should be eliminated so that the private sector can use that capital to create jobs. And what happens after the money is spent in 2 years? These people will not have created anyting of value, just government spending. Will the Federal government have to continue to subsidize state government?

As to the tax cuts, at least half are WELFARE PAYMENTS. Half of the people who will get the $1,000 do not pay taxes. Another $150 billion wasted.

In short, this stimulus package is not going to work. More than half is waste. Rather, it is the first step to SOCIALISM, "SPREAD THE WEALTH". What will we have in two years? Hyperinflation and more job loss.

4. What should be done? How about a $200 billion investment into either (or both) electric (plug in) or hydrogen fuel cell cars. Loan the money to startups (or separate subsidiaries of existing companies so they can be split off in case of bankrupcty--like GM) to replace our dependence on foreign oil. A working car on the market in two years along with infrastructure. The resulting companies can sell stock to repay the government and recreate capitalism.

At the same time, a $200 billion investment in the electric grid and/or a distribution system for alternative fuel (hydrogen fuel cells). You read that electric cars would cost 3 cents a mile. That is a major savings over a gasoline car that gets 20 miles to the gallon with $2 gasoline.

And implement a tax on gasoline cars or gas so that an alternative retains the value. Oil producers, most of which are our enemies, will fall into complete poverty unless they can stop these moves (who in their right minds would want to live in the deserts of the Middle East or the jungles of Venezualia?). They will attempt to flood our markets with low price oil to defeat our attempt to become independent of them.

Now why not a plan like this? Because the unemployed people will not be employed in these endeavors. They do not have the education or skills. The reason the "middle class" is falling behind is becuase they have not kept up. Part of it is cultural. We were taught that once you got a job, you were good for life. WRONG!!! You need to stay current and reinvent yourself every five years. Jobs for life are gone because those companies go out of business.

There is a great path that we could take, but instead we have this garbage. That is why Obama will fail.