Financial crisis: Western world will become significantly less wealthy
Corporate America has just lost a chunk of its value the size of the Indian economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/edmundconway/3105965/Financial-crisis-Western-world-will-become-significantly-less-wealthy.html

The best analysis of what to look forward to:

Hunter: Now We Need Leadership

Now that the first vote on the Paulson plan has failed, and barring alien invasion or other game-changer of planetary scope, it seems one of the following things will happen. We'll assume from the outset that neither Bush nor the Republican leadership has control of their own caucus, and it seems a demonstrable fact that McCain does not. That leaves:

1. A Paulson Plan, But Miniaturized. It may be that a lot more people will sign off on a $200 billion dollar bailout than would sign onto a $700 billion dollar one. I'm not convinced that would actually work, however, and I'm presuming Paulson has been saying that too. The whole premise of the Paulson Plan is to ride in with so much freakin' money that you can stabilize the entire mortgage-related marketplace: shock and awe for the financial sector. If you have much less money, it doesn't follow that you'd stabilize squat. It might just create an initial rush, benefiting few, followed by the same systemic collapse when the initial money ran out.

I'm not one who's been fond of the Paulson plan, and it's not because I don't understand or respect the (rather audacious) logic behind it: I just suspect it to be so obviously prone to corruption and corporate abuse as to be unworkable. There are some fixes that could be made, but likely the "easiest" shift would be for the House to simply cut the plan by two-thirds and declare their task done, saying they're revisit it later. It'd be dumb and insincere and quite possibly futile or even harmful in practice, and absolutely none of those things would stop it from being considered.

2. Paulson Plan With Conservative Shift. The House can attempt to pass the bill by loading it up with things that the conservatives want, hoping to persuade them. This seems unlikely to work: if the Republicans really are against any bailout based on their (cough) conservative principles, that would seem a non-starter. And any substantive concession to them seems impossible, or at least deeply stupid: proposals like "suspend the capital gains tax" paint the conservatives as more interested in privateering for the rich than actually helping solve the situation. We're not seeing class riots yet, but if the primary result of this Wall Street meltdown was that Wall Street got out of paying their taxes, I think the pitchfork and torch industries would see a banner Christmas.

So that seems a blind alley. The hardcore conservatives can't bring themselves to vote for anything that smacks of "socialism", which pretty much would kill any possible useful approach. And their own proposals are asinine money grabs that would do nothing to solve the problem -- the Democrats would deserve whatever scorn the public dished out on them, if they went along with anything even approaching their "solutions."

3. Paulson Plan With Leftward Shift. The House can attempt to pass the Paulson bailout plan by "owning" it, including strong measures to help homeowners and the general public, and telling the Republicans to get bent. (You know, like many of us were urging them to do, to little substantive effect.) That'll lose them most Republican support, but the premise would be that it would gain them more Democrats. The House could fundamentally alter the rules of the bailout in order to much more forcefully demand taxpayers be treated as investors in the companies benefiting from the plan: something akin to the 1992 Swedish plan.

This would have the benefit of, you know, actually working. Or at least being more likely to, since it is a more tested solution, and would by design discourage abuse of the program. Including at least some economic stimulus would help boost the economy such that, in theory, less intervention would be needed. Getting rid of "help" for financially sound companies would make things more palatable. Instituting a minor market transaction tax seems an absolute no-brainer, and should have been done long before now. Executive compensation caps? Meh. Compared to other far more vital structural requirements, it pales in immediate importance. The bailout plan that failed was weak-kneed in the compromise areas, and even then didn't get GOP support, which means the GOP support was never gettable in the first place.

As far as actually demanding taxpayer equity in the afflicted companies, yes: some Republicans would indeed scream "nationalization," primarily because they are dunderheads. But if your financial sector manages to collapse into a black hole of incompetence, book-cooking or generally irrational behavior, and furthermore manages to foul things up so badly that it is threatening to take the entire world economy with it, a short-term nationalization or whatever-you-want-to-call-it of collapsed companies hardly seems a surprising or outrageous intervention. It's happened before, it'll happen again. The CEO's in question should instead thank heavens that this is the new millennium, and modern governments have no plan to place their severed heads on pikes as a warning to others. Viva progress!

The common assumption, however, is that Bush would veto any plan that either provided substantial economic stimulus or taxpayer equity. Quite possibly -- though that'd be one hell of a gutsy veto, with the entire economy on the line. Certainly, if he vetoed it the Republicans would make sure the veto stuck, depression or no depression.

4) A New Damn Plan. The Congress can abandon the Paulson bailout plan entirely, and craft something different -- radically different. A bottom-up economic stimulus plan coupled with some short-term liquidity boosts; a radical plan for failing financial companies; buying every American a puppy. Who knows.

What's frustrating about this entire process is that it has been absolutely devoid of leadership. Bush is nothing but a paper doll standing in the background; nobody honestly expects he even understands the problem, much less has any confidence that he can rustle support for a workable plan. He has zero credibility left, even with his own party. Likewise, McCain has been, shall we say, unhelpful -- jumping to and from positions like an over-caffeinated child who's gotten into the coffee-flavored ice cream. He's shown no leadership, only campaign bluster. The Republican leadership itself is clearly not in control of their own caucus -- ironic indeed, given how often they have held their caucus in complete lockstep for years for even the most trivial and ridiculous of votes, only to have it fall apart now, when the economy of the nation is on the line.

And Democrats? Well, the Democrats haven't displayed anything resembling leadership either. They accepted the Paulson plan at face value, content to use it as the base upon which they could attach minor changes. There has been no substantive discussion of other possible plans. There has been no attempt to come up with a "Democratic" solution. No economists have been queried in order to find out what an alternate plan might even look like.

That is a failure of leadership -- and in a financial crisis, no less. Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats -- in all of Washington, there seems not one damn group worthy of confidence. Paulson deserves some credit for even coming up with a plan for people to shoot arrows into, given that it's a hell of a lot more than anyone else in power has done.

This is the same failure to lead that has marked this entire Congress. Time and time again, the Democrats have been content to let their opponents set the agenda, and have been reduced to constantly reacting to developments instead of controlling them. It is a dysfunction that seems in no hurry to self-correct; heaven help us, dealing with a financial crisis at a time when there seems nobody in the entire government up to the task.

This leads, alarmingly, to the fifth possibility for what's next:

5) We Do Nothing. This seems the most likely of all the scenarios, and would be the most damaging one. As in, very, very bad. The financial sector does need an intervention: the only question is how it should be done. Given that a large segment of the Republican congress has absolutely no interest in such an intervention, it falls to everyone else to come up with one -- and it's not clear that, given the divisions, anything has the votes to pass.

That's the key difficulty, here. I do not consider this first failure of the Paulson plan to be cause for alarm -- far from it, it was a crappy bill, even with the "compromises" installed -- but the dynamics surrounding the defeat may very well be alarming, because our capability for doing anything substantive has now run headlong into the functional and ideological divide that has paralyzed the Bush economy since Bush first seized control of it.

Let's take the Republicans at their word, and presume they're not going to vote for any "bailout", nor any "nationalization", or "socialism", or anything else that would inject government into the crisis in a significant way. Well, that's a problem, because without government intervention we're all but assured the crisis is going to get much, much worse. Their ideas? Tax cuts. More tax cuts. That's pretty much all they're interested in.

The Democrats can attempt something without them, but a plan of their own making may very well run into the immobile object that is the Bush administration -- an ideological hole so deep that nothing the slightest bit functional or non-reactionary can escape from it.

And Bush himself? Good God. I can't imagine a worse time for The Worst President In History to be in office. You can practically hear the markets collapsing every time he speaks, at this point.

The precipitous drop of the markets, in the wake of the unexpected failure of this first vote, will certainly light a fire under all parties. What's not clear, though, is that there's any middle ground that can be reached, if the Republicans really are that determined to foil any government intervention.

In short, every truly useful option seems impossible, and every expected source of leadership has come up painfully dry. We may be completely screwed -- at least until January. And that is much, much too long.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/30/2562/85965/17/615262

Here's a GREAT solution:

Devilstower: Seize the Day

Republicans egged on this economic crisis and applied every lever of the Shock Doctrine in an effort to turn it to their advantage. They created it, they stoked it, they owned it, and they desperately tried to make it work for them, but this time the flames of fear got out of their control. Unable to suss out their next move, and facing an electorate that sees them as worse than useless, House Republicans scattered in all directions. Yesterday, in a self-confessed fit of snit, they walked away from the table because that mean lady hurt their feelings.

Democrats, well aware that they were being stampeded toward a solution their constituents hated, went into the deal with eyes peeled and teeth bared. They were unwilling to walk this thing across Capitol Hill without a decent amount of cover in the way of Republican votes in the House. Which was good, because the bill that came up for a vote yesterday was little more than the all or nothing proposal that Bush and Paulson had presented with 107 pages of obfuscation. It really shouldn't have been passed with Democratic votes alone. In fact, it shouldn't have been passed.

The temptation now is going to be to coddle the poor right. Give them some minor tweak in the bill to salve their fragile egos and gain the dozen votes that are needed to pass yesterday's bill.

Don't. Don't do it, damn it.

Things have changed since yesterday. The wind is blowing from the other direction now, and if you give the Republicans one thing -- if you even give them another chance at yesterday's bill -- it'll be the biggest mistake the Democratic Party has made since it signed on to George Bush's endless war. Not only that, you'll have passed over the best opportunity in this whole sorry mess.

Instead, take the bill in hand and mark up big changes.

* Add the ability for bankruptcy judges to review and adjust first mortgages so that ordinary Americans stand a better chance of staying in their homes.

* Put some real teeth in the caps on pay and bonuses so that Americans don't see this money as patching in the holes on executive's golden parachutes.

* Make the continuation of payments on this plan require an affirmative vote of Congress after each review, rather than having them continue by default, so we only pay if the plan proves to be effective and continues to be needed.

* Place realistic limits on the power this bill affords the Treasury Secretary, providing for both review and revision.

Will any of this gain a GOP vote? No. It'll probably lose most, if not all of the Republicans. To borrow a phrase from Daily Kos history: Screw Them.

Don't just pass the bill, own it. Pass it on a party line vote if that's what it takes to get it across the Hill and on the desks of the Senate. Let the Republicans chose whether they'll filibuster or veto.

And Nancy, if you want to fire off a few salvos at the GOP while you're doing this, please feel free. They're so cute when they sniffle.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/30/94331/0933/896/615400

Divisions at Daily Kos, Markos writes:

"[...]So I've been torn from the site at a time of great turmoil, as the site divides in between those who think this bill should've been passed because catastrophe is around the corner, and those who prefer to spend a little time exploring better alternatives to mortgaging Obama's first term and destroying our financial ability to enact progressive priorities (which is in the GOP's best interests), or even exacerbating the crisis with the wrong medicine.

[David] Sirota, like me, has been skeptical of the current bailout bill, and his response to his critics is spot on:

"Throughout the day, I have received some email and seen some comments from people purporting to be "progressive" yet claiming that anyone who opposes the Paulson version of the bailout bill is thrilled to see the stock market decline today, and more generally, happy that America may go into a second Great Depression. These outbursts are likely spurred by fear, which is understandable, considering the Bush administration, congressional Democratic leadership and media are all insisting what Margaret Thatcher famously insisted: that There Is No Alternative to what's being proposed, and that if what's being proposed doesn't pass, we're all going to die [...]

I'm not going to be blogging tomorrow because of the Jewish holiday, but let me just respond to the comments, because they are, in effect, the same tactics the Right uses is likening progressives to terrorists. When you claim that opponents of this bailout want to see a Great Depression, you are questioning our patriotism, and that's unacceptable. Just because we disagree - or just because what principled opponents say doesn't comport with your election-year partisan desires - doesn't mean we don't love our country. We speak out BECAUSE we love our country. And let me reiterate what I have said all day: The House vote against the bailout bill SHOULD NOT SPUR CELEBRATION - it should spur us to demand a more responsible bill. Claiming that because opponents supported the House rejection of this bill means we are "celebrating" the stock market decline is a malicious and disgusting lie worthy of a right-wing hate site."

Amen. And this is also good:

"Let me be clear: I have a modest retirement account that I've worked hard to save. I'm worried when I see what's happened to the market. But I also realize that while Wall Street says this is a new crisis, there's been a health care, wage, job and pension crisis that's been going on for the last decade - and so forgive me if I find it a bit ridiculous that while no one said we had to act quickly on those life-and-death crises, we are supposed to nonetheless see this banking sector problem as Armageddon that demands handing over 5% of our entire economy to one unelected political appointee (Henry Paulson). In that sense, all the alarmism - especially coming from such a discredited Washington crowd - rings a bit hollow.

I'm not saying there's not a credit problem - there is. But we cannot let the authoritarians use that credit problem as a rationale to trample our deliberative democracy in the name of helping their cronies. If we hand over $700 billion to one man - Henry Paulson - under insane deadline demands, we are quite literally subverting our democracy to the whims of authoritarian capitalism, flown under the banner of kleptocratic socialism. Those of us who hope Congress says "hell no" aren't rejoicing at our economic turmoil - we're the ones who have been predicting it, and who think the way to prevent things from getting worse are to actually do something other than giving money to the same people that got us to this awful point."

The Emeritus reports that the privately owned banks operating the monetary system under the Federal Reserve label, also know as the central bank, may have license to manage citizen’s monetary systems revoked, for failure to maintain an equitable balanced value exchange system. The world’s largest casino group operating under the Wall Street label has managed to take over the system causing market volatility and economic instability. Bids may be taken from interested parties on system maintenance and management of a new system that meets the new system requirements being outlined for more details regarding the new system requirements visit CoinAge.me
~Newswire.pro

Click my name for the Newswire Story

Hey Gotham
Would you like to barrow my rowboat for awhile?

The rays of light that dance in the water are quite beautiful.

This stuff will work itself out and we will learn to live with the outcome.

peace comes from peace

derek

Could be they listen during election time, say whatever they need to say, and then they get 4 years to take the money and run, citizens are irrelevant during this mean time.

The citizens need tighter control on representative performance and a way to measure adherence to the collective will and intent. The flaw in the current system is that representatives beginning with good intentions get dragged into a game and come under the influence of special interests which seek to benefit the few to the detriment of the many. These forces of ego exert a much greater effect then the citizens can based on the archaic, horse and buggy days government system architecture.

These new requirements and controls will be outlined in the new participatory universal self government system. As it stands the citizens are unable to properly manage there servants in government and hold them accountable during the period between elections.

Well, without reading the replies.... ya'know, I don't think anyone will be able to make too much progress on this issue of finance, but maybe we will have some slow and good changes like the Rabbi mentioned, if someone will listen.

I too noticed that both candidates are starting to sound a lot alike on many issues, so they are doing want the majority wants and is demanding. However, I do believe Obama will be a fighter for changes, as much as he can possibly affect - notice that Obama even mentioned a second term last Friday, which was cute.

In short, no one is going to touch anyone's money, no matter what you make and a little tax cut for those who make $250K and under will help a little - like the last give away by Pres. Bush. We just need some better management plans and return to what this country represents and why the United States of America was created in the first place.

Like Gotham mentioned, creditors should NOT be loaning money like they have been, which hurts the people who borrow that really cannot afford the loan. I suppose the America way of 'got to have it right now' has hurt us all and someone needs to be responsible, which includes the creditors. I don't see a bail out for those who borrowed, however, borrowers are allowed to file bankruptcy, which is a saving grace.

I think the question is why are there so many many bankruptcies and foreclosures? It's not just one party, but both parties on the each end, i.e., the receiver and the giver. It's just not working .... Again, I like the Rabbi's recommendations.

BTW: I got laid off and I my separation money was taxed at 43%! Is that fair? I don't think so. I'm spending this month getting rid of everything in apartment that I worked for these last 25 years and will store the paperwork & some small items in a 5 x 10 storage unit. Then I don't know where I will be living in November and I have just enough money to get by and start looking once I get thru this part ... maybe in a few months, as I might a take a camping vacation and visit my mom and son :-), which I have not been able to do. Then I will be looking for work in a few months from now to pay my bills with 30% interest due to one difficult month a few years ago and I was never 30 days late, but maybe one week! That's steeling and I cannot do anything about it! So I pray for JUSTICE!!!!

Cheers!
Char

Well ... no one is going to touch anyone's money, unless they are not paying what I am paying or what the majority of Americans are paying, which I heard is 95% of us. It's all about balance and fairness and if corporations are taking care of their employees and paying their fair share, they have nothing to fear, unless they are stealing!

"It's hard to tell these days amidst the orgy of campaign cliches which candidate is which....they slowly seem to be morphing into the same political machine."

duuuh --- sad that this truth only came to light thanks/no thanks to the economic crisis

"The CEO's in question should instead thank heavens that this is the new millennium, and modern governments have no plan to place their severed heads on pikes as a warning to others. Viva progress!"

Dang it!! I for one would be inspired by the sight of their heads dangling from sticks! There are definitely people responsible for the breakdown of the oversight process, and they should be prosecuted.

"Those of us who hope Congress says "hell no" aren't rejoicing at our economic turmoil - we're the ones who have been predicting it, and who think the way to prevent things from getting worse are to actually do something other than giving money to the same people that got us to this awful point."

Like I said in another recent post: what you won't see is adults taking responsibility for their sorry past actions.

Most likely, as pointed out, we will do nothing except more of the same. After all the blah, blah, blah, Congress will pass a huge, pork-laden bill with all the special interests earmarks in it, that will not solve the problem, but will enrich the same people who created the problems, and saddle the middle-class taxpayer with a tab that will take generations to pay off. And cut off any remaining oversight powers that the public may have left.

They are simply incapable of any other course of action.

Look for a bill with a tax cut for the wealthiest 0.5% with a special incentive for companies that invest in abstinence-only sex education initiatives. Or some such similar nonsense.

This is so-o-o predictable.

Gotham,

They teach the illusion in those Ivy League schools. There is the thought that Ivy League schools maintain the illusions that benefit those that graduate from them in service to the status quo of course there are exceptions and the understanding that all were indoctrinated with the prevailing fictions and did not know better.

Let’s talk about the reality behind the illusion.

Businesses do not create jobs. Jobs are created by consumer demand. Both private sector (individual) and public sector (collective) a business has no existence without the consumer needs and wants. It is the consumer that creates the jobs, and it is producers that fill them. Generally a producer specializes in a single area of production or service while as a consumer he consumes a multitude of products and services. This is the reason we need an intangible value exchange system backed by intangibles.

A business is simply a framework for a joint venture between a group of economic system participants to produce a product or service that is needed or in demand because of want by other economic system participants.

The economic system participants create all new money however the amount created is not based on actual production. New money is created by the creation of debt based on a commitment of said economic participant to produce future value. The amount of money that can be created is somewhat unlimited over time and is in direct proportion to the commitment to produce future value. In other words the consumers are not subject to any lack of money as long as they have a skill set or activity that opens a revenue pipe.

The amount of future value that needs to be created is collectively determined by the economic constituency first based on essential needs, public works, and then wants.

It is essential to all economic participants that every other ESP have a revenue pipe resulting from an available contribution channel allowing all economic participants the opportunity to participate in the creation of value.

One of the questions is how do we measure the value of a contribution. While we can determine the value of the finished good or delivery of service it is not always easy to determine the percentage of value each ESP involved in the production or delivery provided. A proper evaluation of the contribution involves a measure of skills, experience, knowledge, certification, creative intelligence, artful capability and genius.

To create jobs an economic constituency simply needs to collectively decide to create some value whether it is a dam, bridges, communication system, roads etc. Jobs are also created by collective want. If enough economic participants want a particular service or product it then becomes feasible for a smaller group to form a joint venture to provide the service or produce the product. If enough miscellaneous wants exist it creates a non-essential economy and with enough variety all ESPs can participate in not only the essential economy but also the non-essential economy.

There is one entity that can create jobs in an indirect way and that is the inventor. Often the general population of ESPs are unable to conceive of products and services from which they might benefit, yet those gifted with a creative genius can invent new things seen to have value by other ESPs. In which case the inventor can be assisted by a group that with a shared intention can produce the product or service invented.

Usually the business owner is responsible for bringing together ESPs to produce a product or service. The business owner or manager has the most responsibility and in general receives a larger percentage of the revenue pipe feed. Some businesses can be owned by a multitude of people shareholders which elect a board of directors to over see a hired management. Creating value greater than the cost to produce said value is generating a profit.

As for government regulation in the new economics collective consumer control replaces most government regulation.

well, I thought I would add my doom and gloom this thread since there is no open thread today....wed......

this past couple of weeks watching McCain/Palin and their side of the Nation's great divide....I am beginning to understand how those in Germany must have felt when the realization that in fact...Hitler was indeed a popular politician and a real proscpect for their Nation's leadership...I am feeling the gloom and the doom....someone.....give me some poll numbers that will say it ain't so.....

a very gloomy wed in the northeast...ruth

@13

"...I am feeling the gloom and the doom....someone.....give me some poll numbers that will say it ain't so....."

brownsox: Quinnipiac: Obama opens up wide leads in FL, OH, PA

FLORIDA

Quinnipiac University. 9/27-29. Likely voters. MoE 3.4%

Obama (D) 51
McCain (R) 43

OHIO

Quinnipiac University. 9/27-29. Likely voters. MoE 3.4%

Obama (D) 50
McCain (R) 42

PENNSYLVANIA

Quinnipiac University. 9/27-29. Likely voters. MoE 3.4%

Obama (D) 54
McCain (R) 39

Astonishing.

In the wake of the economic crisis, and the debates, Obama has surged to a wide lead in the three most critical swing states of the bunch, worth a total of 68 electoral votes between them.

If these polls are accurate - and Quinnipiac is generally a pretty good pollster - McCain is virtually doomed, according to Quinnipiac's analysts:

"It is difficult to find a modern competitive presidential race that has swung so dramatically, so quickly and so sharply this late in the campaign. In the last 20 days, Sen. Barack Obama has gone from seven points down to eight points up in Florida, while widening his leads to eight points in Ohio and 15 points in Pennsylvania," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Sen. John McCain has his work cut out for him if he is to win the presidency and there does not appear to be a role model for such a comeback in the last half century," Brown added.

"Sen. McCain's problem is not with this or that demographic group. Although he still leads among white men, albeit by a smaller margin, his problems are across the electorate."

The McCain campaign knows it, too, and they are scrambling to discredit these polls as quickly as possible:

"McCain pushback on Florida polls: "Our polling shows us up 7. My guess is they over sampled blacks and under sampled Cubans.

McCain pushback on Q-polls: "These polls are laughable. We hope Obama thinks they’re true. The national tracking is clear: Some polls have us down 2 percent, some 4, some as high as 6. How could you have national numbers like that, but have those kinds of numbers in three of the largest, most competitive states in the country? These states are bellwethers because they closely mirror national demographics. Given the volume of campaigning in those states, we expect that they are close to the national track – if not tighter."

So in other words, it's impossible that swing states can deviate from the national trend, and therefore these polls are bogus. The national tracking polls indicate how Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania voters think, in other words; they can't be trusted to make up their minds for themselves.

That's a pretty silly argument on its face...and even if it were true, our own tracking poll (from Research 2000) shows Obama leading by 10 points. So the "Ohio will stick closely to the national tracker" argument ought to be cold comfort for McCain supporters.

Barring a surprising turnaround in national trends, McCain's last, best chance at winning is to do what Kerry could not quite do; lose the popular vote but cobble together an electoral-college victory by winning the closest and EV-richest competitive states. Unfortunately, per the Quinnipiac polls, it doesn't look like the math is there for him.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/1/111716/569/781/616556

Nate Silver: Today's Polls, 10/1

Gonna try and make it to the Cubs game tonight, which means that I've got a ton of work to do this afternoon, which means that ... you're getting a rare AM edition of Today's Polls. And it's a good one for Barack Obama:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2904170057_6edd6a6c45_o.png

What's up with those Quinnipiac polls? Why have I listed them twice?

Well, Quinnipiac broke its sample into two halves: pre-debate and post-debate. For all intents and purposes, these are two separate surveys, and so that's how I list them. Obama gained ground in the post-debate versions in all three states (OH, PA, and FL).

More importantly, however, the polls represent significant gains for Obama since the last time Quinnipiac had been in the field in early September, particularly in Florida, where he had been 7 points behind before.

The McCain camp is going a little crazy over these polls. Usually, when a campaign does something like that, it's worried about morale. But do their complaints have any basis in fact?

Quinnipiac's polls have shown a slight Democratic lean this cycle -- they've been 1-2 points more favorable to Dems than contemporaneous polls of their states. From what I can tell, their head of polling (Peter Brown) has fairly conservative politics, so I don't know that it can be called a partisan lean. But that is the side that the polls have tended to end up upon nevertheless.

At the same time, they are highly-rated polls, use large sample sizes, and have plenty of rich trendlines for comparison. Is it possible that they are outliers to a certain degree? Possibly -- maybe even probably -- but as I intimated yesterday, with Obama's surge nationally it was inevitable that we were eventually going to get an oh sh*t set of state polling for Obama. There clearly seems to have been some movement toward Obama in Florida, as well as in Pennsylvania, where the Morning Call tracker has had him gaining a point literally every day since its inception. Ohio, I am somewhat less convinced about, but InsiderAdvantage also gives him the lead there (as well as a 6-point lead in Virginia).

The most critical point may be that the McCain campaign now faces something of a Hobson's choice. In terms of states where they had hoped to play offense, Michigan began to break away from them a week or so ago, and now Pennsylvania -- which had initially reacted well to Sarah Palin -- seems to be doing the same. But if all they're doing is playing defense, that gives Obama so many scratch-off tickets -- Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and perhaps Indiana, Nevada, and Missouri -- that it's essentially inevitable that he'll get lucky in one or more of those states, several of which he already appears to have the lead in.

My gut instinct if I were the McCain campaign is that it might be time to pick one of Pennsylvania and Michigan -- whichever state my internals liked better -- and consolidate my offense there. McCain certainly can't be spending time in Iowa, where he spent much of yesterday, but where he has never led a single public poll against Obama.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-101.html

Phase Three: Profit!
by DarkSyde
Daily Kos

After the shit Republican gnomes to pull this week, anyone who votes to hand over almost a trillion taxpayer dollars to the same Wall Street tycoons -- almost all of them big GOP donors I'm sure -- who fucked up their own companies so badly they're now on the corporate auction block, deserves to be voted out of office. I knew this smelled, but I had no idea how rotten it was. Check out how this evil scam was supposed to work folks:

Phase 1: Paulson tells a group of Senators that if they don't act something -- something never specified but surely oh so dire -- bad will happen.

Phase 2: Bush rams through a 700 billion dollar taxpayer funded pay day for his big Wall Street donors that screwed the pooch.

Phase 3: Republicans then run against Democrats for passing the bill Paulson and Bush demanded in hopes of riding it to victory!

And it'll still work if Congress is stupid enough to roll over on demand like a puppy dog. Lawmakers, be very careful what you give these crooks. They've wrecked our military, they've destroyed our reputation in he world, they attacked the wrong nation and let the mastermind of the greatest terrorist attack on the US get away. Now they've mangled the strongest economy on the planet. They might only have a few months left in office, but thanks in large part to your toothless subpoena power, they have nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, left to lose.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/1/65823/4609/951/616370

re: #14 & #15

ahhhhhh...yes...feeling better already, now, this is the Nation I know and love......thanks...ruth

We haven't had the VP debate as yet. If you're a Dem and like scary movies, watch this:

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=ebfac2eaf3489d19fc07c79758598d8b02b3dcbb

Palin undeniably has a presence, both live and on screen, that is powerful. There will be people who will be swayed by her natural power, despite what their minds tell them is right.

The Couric make-up interview the other day, with both McCain and Palin, showed a McCain who's profoundly embarrassed regarding Palin. If Palin's abysmal interview performances so far have been a setup, meant to pull down expectations for her VP debate, Dems have something to worry about. Let's hope McCain knows far more about Palin than we do, and that his embarrassment in the Couric interview is well-justified.

Hey Tipper, if there's no bailout, the people who'll lose the most are average folk like you and me, worldwide. Don't you realize the Reps don't want this bailout, it's against all their principles, but even they are scared and for very good reasons, and that's why the bailout program almost passed despite Rep opposition?

Ruth, you will love this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KTkqosRiyYo

Watch the older woman (at about 15 sec into the video) who pulls down the hand of her husband (perhaps the only one who wants to vote for McCain in that diner in Pennsylvania.)

& the laughter towards the end -- as the Fox News correspondent makes his "split vote" call -- is priceless!

#19. heath

There should be a rescue/bailout, but a better plan is needed. A small group of progressive democrats in the House(DeFazio-Edwards plan) came up with an alternative, which has zero chance of getting any Republican vote, so it's a non starter anyway.

There are many issues with the current plan (especially with the high amount, 350 billion without any questions, before the next president takes office, which will curtail, if not destroy, any chances of pushing for a health care reform for many years), and the issue of trust too. As Paul Krugman notes "To this day [the bailout proponents] have never been able to explain clearly why buying up bad mortgage assets at market prices will solve the credit crunch...The Wise Men, as far as I can tell, have never had a clear idea of what they're doing."

Anyway, the congress is trying to bend a bit towards the republicans with the plan to get it passed, but the House republicans are NOT so much voting because it is against their ideology, but becuase it is unpopular and many of them have crucial elctions coming up.

______________________

200 Economists Don't Believe In the Plan
by Devilstower
Daily Kos

In the aftermath of the House's failure to pass the bailout, there was really only one thing I wanted to say to Democrats in the legislature.

"The temptation now is going to be to coddle the poor right. Give them some minor tweak in the bill to salve their fragile egos and gain the dozen votes that are needed to pass yesterday's bill.

Don't. Don't do it, damn it."

Rather than offering treats and begging Republicans to come on board, the failure of the House bill was an opportunity to both demonstrate leadership among Democrats and to write a better bill that wasn't just a warmed over version of the original Paulson plan. I wasn't alone in voicing that opinion. Heck, I might have been the last person to reach that not so hard to come by epiphany.

So, naturally, as Hunter pointed out this morning.

"Majority Leader Harry Reid and GOP Leader Mitch McConnell say, however, that they're going to add a tax cut package already rejected by the House on Monday.

The bipartisan move caps a day of behind-the-scenes maneuvering on Capitol Hill over what sweeteners to add to the bill to attract votes from House Republicans.

Reid and McConnell's move may prove popular with Republicans, but it risks a showdown with House leaders insisting that a popular measure extending certain business tax breaks be financed by tax increases elsewhere in the code."

In the face of this race to be the biggest bunch of doormats possible, I've modified my position.

Don't pass the plan. Vote no.

And again, I've got a lot of company with credentials far better than my own.

"Since the Bush administration proposed the bailout this month, more than 200 economists have signed a petition opposing it.

Narayana Kocherlakota, of the University of Minnesota, calls the White House's case an unconvincing one. "I think one of the reasons why so many people were signing that is the administration has not brought forward the information that would be compelling, that yes, we are facing economic Armageddon," Kocherlakota says."

It's taken us five years to dispose of $600 billion in Iraq, and now we're prepared to hand the same administration that came up with that masterwork even more money and authority -- and this time we're not even getting Colin Powell trotted out to give a slide show. After everything that's happened in the last eight years, after all the lies that we've been told, why should we believe these guys? Where is the evidence that would make us support this plan?

"The skeptics aren't advocating that Congress do nothing. [University of Chicago economist] Cochrane says the government should help, by taking steps like making it easier for banks to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. But he calls the bailout bill the "nuclear option."

It's like we have a boating outing," he says, "and some of the boats are sinking. So somebody says, 'I got an idea. Let's blow up the dam and drain the lake.' OK, that will keep all the boats from sinking — not just the three that are in trouble." In other words, Cochrane says the bailout is a broad fix for a narrow problem."

Unless the administration puts together a much more compelling case for this plan, it shouldn't even be coming out of committee, much less being sugar-coated by the Senate for easy swallowing by hard right House wingnuts.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/1/105114/972/791/616530

That above is from consumers.me [click my name]

I listened to Obama today and he has a good grasp on the material and articulates it well totally on the right track, very positive.

Every one should realize in a truth based system there is no such thing as anti-business because each business unit is a joint venture between a group of economic participants.

Many businesses are still functioning in the old consciousness and they will need to evolve.

The Consumers are the number one employer, in other words other economic participants and every consumer should also be a producer of value, economy is all about value exchange between economic system participants.

The essential economy is eternal the artificial or non-essential economy waxes and wanes.

"Obama Sells Bailout Plan to Skeptics"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/obama-sells-bailout-plan-to-skeptics/

Wrong link above, correct one below.

How about that 1.2 trillion dollar loss in the markets? What is the reality behind the illusion?

The 1.2 trillion of market value loss is not real value, so in reality there was no real loss only a loss of perceived value. A stocks current market price only represents what was paid for a single stock not the whole of the stock. The only real future value is in the dividends It does not actually represent an actualized value until it is sold. In fact stock values may be artificially inflated by those that purchase based gambling market value, rather than long term dividend returned.

It the same with the value of the dollar, thanks to the fractional reserve system the banks are only required to keep about 15% of the deposits on hand. The rest can be loaned out. What this means is the currency has an artificially propped up value allowed by the fact that economic system participants are not going to try and spend all there money at once or take it out of the bank. If everyone were to try to spend all their money each dollar would only be worth only pennies. Which is why a run on banks is feared when perception shifts and the illusion folds and reality is realized. People realize that only a small percentage of the deposits money is actually there and the first to withdraw get there money and nothing is

Isn’t ironic that the greatest cost for shelter is not materials or labor, but is in fact for interest (banker profit) as we can see there is definitely a flaw in the system.

Isn’t ironic that the greatest cost for shelter is not materials or labor, but is in fact for interest (banker profit) as we can see there is definitely a flaw in the system.

Public Campaign Breaks Out the Keating Story

"Campaign Money Watch produced the following ad detailing Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) involvement in the Keating Five scandal and, 20 years later, his campaign manager's receipt of undisclosed payments from Freddie Mac."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oE9_nUtB4Q

Public Campaign Action Fund went where no one else would.

What to Expect from Palin in the VP Debate
by Kagro X

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/1/13102/9139/493/612776

my thoughts on the bail-out ...
I do not trust any plan that is proposed by Bush & Co!
I vote No.
~ Kate

Polls Swing To Obama
by DemFromCT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/1/12222/0547/701/616636

"My feeling (supported by the polls) is that this isn't so much the debate as the bollixed McCain handling of the financial crisis, plus Sarah Palin. Both scream gimmick at a time when America wants leadership.

In that sense, I don't expect much shift with tomorrow night's debate, either. Palin can't do worse than Bentsen-Quayle (which did not help Dukakis), and however she does (she'll do fine), it'll be about her own future career, not helping McCain."

"Finally, words of wisdom from Matthew Dowd:

'Rule One: When a campaign starts attacking the media, things aren't going well.

Rule Two: When a campaign says the polls are wrong, things aren't very good.

Rule Three: When a campaign says "the only poll that counts is the one on election day" usually means a campaign is about to lose.

Now we could probably add a new one: when partisans start saying let the candidate be the candidate, it means things are off course.'

Let Palin be Palin, let McCain be McCain, and let the attacks on the media continue. Fine by me."

The current bail out plan is not the same as the orginal Bush-Paulson "blank check" proposal. There are several changes, the only commonality that didn't change is the $700 billion.

If a 'rescue' plan doesn't go ahead, Bush can do other things (like sign a trillion dollar check with a single stroke of pen -- yes he can do it, to say buy off bad mortgages) that wouldn't require the approval of Congress. That would be disastrous.

For all those who are looking for excuses to criticize or vote against Obama if he supports the bail-out, NOTE: Clinton took the same stand as Obama in stating that the economic situation is dire. Hillary would have no reason (like say Obama who is running for presidency and needs to cover his ass, she is not up for re-election and her Senate seat is safe anyway in NY, and any Bus-opposition on popular grounds would only help her for any future presidential runs) to support a "Bush plan" if she thinks it is bad. She would have come out all guns blazing against a deception. Guess, its the right thing to do; to support the rescue/bail-out, even if it is unpopular.

Also, those who love to compare the current economic crisis with Bush-Iraq-WMD, get this into your head: This would be more like Bush-Katrina-inaction disaster than the Bush-Gustav-more prepared 2008.

It's not Bush et al who are making this proposal -- they're just having to front it.

It's like having a murderer trying to convince you that he should get a severe penalty. You mistrust everything he's saying, because you've learned he lied in the past. But even criminal speak the truth sometimes.

The fact that Bush et al are selling the plan is a measure of how important it is. It's not their plan and if they could get out if this any other way, they would.

Don't let the fact that Bush is promoting this scare you away from the realities, and the advisability of the plan.

The plan is important and has to be passed.

Richard, since the greatest part of cost for shelter is the banker profit, which is part of the not-real-value aspect of our financial system, and yet we still have to come up with real dollars to pay that, we better treat the not-real-value as real and put a cushion under its weakest parts.

To anyone against the bailout:

If you have 100 million in the bank, and you lose 99% of it, you have one million left, which will let you live without even working, if you do it modestly, for more than ten years.

If you have 20 thousand in the bank, and you lose 99% of it, you have two hundred left, on which you cannot live for even a month, modestly or otherwise.

If the bailout doesn't pass and the economy collapses, its the guys with 20K in the bank who will get hurt. OK, the big guys will get hurt too, but they'll survive. Some of the small guys won't.

That's not theory, it's reality.

"maybe, just maybe, one of these dudes running for president will stop with the cliches and admit, if nothing else, that at last we are all united in the problem that must be solved. Maybe one of them will stand up and lead."

Hi Tipper, John and Heath,
I do wish we could wait until after the election to vote on the bail-out plan. This would also allow for more time and more discussion and input.

I don't want to see a rush for a plan, that could do more damage in hurting everyday people. And appear to 'reward' those who have been corrupt or greedy.

~ Kate

Tipper, are you aware that the New Deal admin bought up bad home mortgages? And that ultimately the US government turned a profit on them? As per Wiki, anyway.

If you can read the situation deeper...

Bush is so scared he can hardly stand it. He and many fellow Republican promoting a plan that must stick in their collective craw, big time.

There is a reason for them to be scared. If something bad is coming, the sooner something is put into place to forestall it, the better chance we have of reducing its negative effect.

This is why Dems are supporting this plan. This is why Dems are supporting this plan. This is why...

We don't have time for perfection.

#35 heath

Actually, I support that, its helping common people who need urgent help. But I guess that should pass through the Congress like New Deal -- I suppose -- not unanimously signed by the president who acts like an economic dictator. Anyway, I don't think any republican president would spend so much as trillion even if he has the power.

There's no reward in the plan for the bad guys. They are just saved from hurting the rest of us as much as would happen if there is no plan. Even bad guys have consciences, damaged though they may be.

Damn it, the bailout helps us, not them.

See past the politics, into the money aspect of it.

Well it will have to pass through Congress and the Senate. That's why it hasn't passed yet. And it was Republicans holding back on passage, in the Congress. That should tell you how decent it is for the rest of us.

# 34 Kate

I guess Americans can delay with their inaction, but the world won't wait for the next US president. Th world is watching carefully, if America shows signs of weakness, it's game over. The global meltdown will begin and guess what, America will pay more than other countries.

Tipper, you're right on that.

I can't get over this clip of Sarah Palin on CBS with Katie Couric. No, it's not her infamous Russia answer nor her inexplicable financial bailout response. It's not her latest admission that she doesn't really read any newspapers or her inability to state any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe Vs Wade. It's an overlooked clip from the original Couric interview about Hamas.

This answer should simply disqualify her from the race. Game over. Go home.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PsTLQ612F-A

This is unacceptable. She has no idea what Hamas is or what their role in the Gaza Strip is. No idea. This person must not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. The greatest country on earth cannot allow a person this ignorant to be our leader. We have to be better than this.

Can anyone say with a straight face that Sarah Palin is the best and the brightest we have in this country? Would anyone dare insult America like that?

hi, everyone,

heath, when I wrote # 13, I had just finished listening to some folks discussing the upcoming debate with Palin and it really worried me, she has a lot of fans. A columnist at washingtonpost.com wrote about the fact that she wrote a very qestioning piece as to Palin's qualifications and got incredible hate mail and actual death threats.....now, I, do not think your average voter, even, if, they like Palin will go that far in numbers to send that much hate and death threating mail, in response to a column...of course, she would get some, but I think it is just a very organized political response campaign to intimidate folks who voice their criticisms....she said she now knows what the Dixie Chicks have gone through....

anyway, I agree the bailout is not a bailout....when you have voices like Warren Buffet saying pass it already....you know we are in need of it...as far as I am concerned the Democrats responded appropriately to this crisis and McCain and his fellow republicans hold outs...have toyed with this crisis, creating unnecessary....worry to many innocent victims.

there is a time to play politics and this crisis was not the time....

have a great day everyone, ruth

Sean Quinn: The Tongue Jut

Last night on The Colbert Report, Dr. Stephen T. Colbert (DFA) noted that John McCain was doing something peculiar with his tongue. The upshot of the joke was that McCain was repeatedly sticking his tongue out like a reptile.

While the late-night laughanistas were having their fun, as a professional poker player I instantly recognized an increasingly well-known poker tell that I’ve been able to use to my advantage at the table.

Retired FBI agent Joe Navarro, a Bluff Magazine columnist and author of Read ‘Em and Reap, a book on poker tells culled from his professional interrogation experience, has written about the “tongue jut,” which is exactly what McCain was doing in the Colbert debate clips. Its significance?:

"Tongue-jutting behavior is a gesture used by people who think they have gotten away with something or are “caught” doing something. I have seen this behavior in flea markets both in the United States and in Russia, among street vendors in Lower Manhattan, at poker tables in Las Vegas, and in business meetings. In each case, the person made the gesture – tongue between the teeth without touching the lips – at the conclusion of some sort of a deal or as a final nonverbal statement. This behavior has several meanings – depending on specific situations – but is usually associated with one of these: I got caught (taking candy from a drawer), gleeful excitement (look at what I just did, Mom), I got away with something (and I didn’t get caught), I did something foolish, or I am naughty."

Naturally, this made me curious as to what exactly McCain was saying when his tongue jutted. So, today, I watched a replay of the whole debate tape.

A few examples:

“Greed is rewarded. Excess is rewarded.”
“I have a fundamental belief in the goodness and strength of the American worker.”
“I don’t believe we’re gonna go back to the Cold War. I am sure that that will not happen”
“... loss of all the fragile sacrifice that we’ve made of American blood and treasure which grieves us all.”

Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMCXFzLt2jI

What can we conclude from this? I’m not a trained psychologist, but I have used observation of this particular tell in the past to my financial advantage. Usually when I’m observing two players are in a hand against each other, one decides to make a laydown, and the other tongue juts when that happens, I’ll mentally capture their entire body language during the hand in my memory bank, and when I see it again, I’ll assign greater likelihood that the opponent is bluffing. I’ve profited from this tell.

Does that mean McCain is getting away with something he knows he shouldn't? Not necessarily -- he could be excited to be scoring points -- but Navarro's long FBI experience tells us this unconscious reptile-brain mimic is in that ballpark. Perhaps trained body language experts will see the clips and make more definitive conclusions about what McCain is doing here.

Looked at as a composite body of jut-work, I notice these are definitely moments when McCain is feeling pretty good about himself and the points he's making. McCain partisans may even like this clip being out there, because, juts or no juts, they're a lot of the comments he wanted to get in. Every mention of General Petraeus seems to be something McCain feels good about, for example.

Or he could just have a really hilarious tic and it could mean nothing.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/tongue-jut.html

heath

If this were not such a critical situation and so many innocent people will be hurt, I would vote NO.

There is a big difference between what was done in the New Deal and the RTC run by Bill Siedman to rescue the S/L fiasco in the'90s. They transfered hard assets into the plans. That's why they made money. In this case, they are having to BUY paper. A large percentage of which is worthless. From what I can tell, there is absolutely no transparency and Paulson has absolute discretionary power as to what and from whom to buy. That's a lot of trust placed in one man.

This is bad legislation, but it's the only thing being considered for now and it's not going to solve the problem. It's still better than nothing. The consequences are already showing up.

It would be nice to see the politicians on both sides stop pointing fingers, playing politics and the blame game and actually do what they were elected to do.

b

NYT: Folks wanting "to do nothing" caused Great Depression

The Times has an article up that tries to explain the parallels between not only the financial aspects of the Great Depression and the current financial crisis but also between the political aspects of both crises: both crises had a furious public that wanted to hang the rich assholes out to dry that caused the crisis.

As explained in this article by a former Federal Reserve member whose grandfather lost his business due to the political decisions of the 1930's, doing nothing is the worst possible mistake in our financial crisis.

Lesson From a Crisis: When Trust Vanishes, Worry

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html

"We are facing a major national crisis," as Meyer Mishkin’s grandson says. "To do nothing right now is to do what was done during the Great Depression."

I know the above analogy is likely hyperbole and a modern depression would be different than that of the 30's (but maybe not): maybe American citizens should re-read the Grapes of Wrath and imagine having to drink milk out of some lactating woman's breasts to avoid dying. Or imagine your teenager having to do that, or your father.

Remember: the money from the Savings & Loans bailout came back to the government.

And remember the kids and old folks.

Please don't repeat history.

Well said, ruth and Bonnie.

Preity, you're 100% right. And thanks for the Young Turks video, I've subscribed to their channel.

My mom's family was devastated by the Great Depression. She craved chalk and plaster because they had no milk to drink. Finally, she and her sister were committed to an orphanage for four years so they wouldn't starve. My dad's family suffered too, but they had started out much more well-off, so what was hurt was pride and emotions.

Gotham,
"...all united in the problem that must be solved. Maybe one of them will stand up and lead."

I agree and from another angle would like to add:

This is a time for individual grassroots citizens (those "units of peace") to stand up and lead. A time for each one of us to contact our representatives, speak out and stand up.

Our leaders are a reflection of their consituents. It's not up to them; it's up to us!

Trish~~

"It's hard to tell these days amidst the orgy of campaign cliches which candidate is which....they slowly seem to be morphing into the same political machine."

again this statement is a big duuuh ---
and so late in its realization that it boggles me why you only though of it now, not so smart considering you're a self-professed intellectual elite.

or maybe that's it - you're so blinded by your own Ivy League's "intelligent" gibberish that you failed to see things as what they really are.

in summary --

VOTING FOR OBAMA
is like voting for a BLACK MCCAIN

VOTING FOR MCCAIN
is like voting for a WHITE OBAMA

one wants to bomb Iran,
the other wants to beat the hell out of Afghanistan

guess who wants to do which.

Something just went wrong with McCain's face on national TV

http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/something-just-went-wrong-with-mccains.html#disqus_thread

"Several conditions can cause a facial paralysis, e.g., brain tumor, stroke, and Lyme disease. However, if no specific cause can be identified, the condition is known as Bell's Palsy.

...Another theory being discussed by a number of doctors who have written me is mini-strokes, or "transient ischemic attacks."

McCain needs to come clean on his health records.

Senate Passes Bailout 74-25

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/senate-passes-700b-rescue_n_131088.html

Is it good?

Paul Krugman:

"I think that Congressional leaders know that it's a bad bill, but feel compelled to defend it, because they're (rightly) scared of the financial consequences of a second rejection. And to some extent economists like myself are in the same position; I think I called it the "hold your nose caucus."

So am I for the bill? Yuk, phooey, I guess so. And I'm very angry at Paulson for putting us in this position."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/stockholm-syndrome/

In Contrast to House, Few Signs of Electoral Politics in Senate Bailout Vote

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-contrast-to-house-few-signs-of.html

Bill Clinton, campaigning for Obama in Florida:

"Here's why you ought to be for Barack Obama. Number one, he's got the right philosophy. He knows you have to grow an economy from the ground up, not from the top down. Number two, he's got better answers. Better answers for the economy, for energy, for health care, for education. He knows what it will take to get this country back on track.

I have carefully read everything these candidates put out. And I'm telling you it matters. Because the history is this, notwithstanding what people think about us politicians, the truth is virtually every person elected as president does his, and someday I hope her, very best to keep the commitments made in the campaign. And you need to know what they stand for. Obama's answers are better.

Number three, he's got better understanding, better advisers, and better instincts on this economic stuff. All of us who've been involved in this have been in a very harrowing period these last few days as you know. When all this happened, it was a matter that was unprecedented in the lifetimes of the people who were dealing with it. What did Barack Obama do? First of all he got his advisers on the phone, then he called all mine, then he callled some more. And you know what he said? 'Tell me what the problem is and how to fix it. Don't tell me what the politics are. Let's do the right thing and we'll sell it to America."

"Irritable," "Sarcastic," "Testy" and "Angry"
by Jonathan Singer
MyDD.com

These are all words used yesterday by the establishment press to describe John McCain's interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. The Associated Press' headline: "McCain turns irritable, sarcastic in interview." Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post asks, "McCain: The Angry Warrior?" The New York Times writes of McCain becoming "testy." I'm not sure that these are the types of adjectives the McCain campaign wants associated with their candidate. And then there's this, from Congressional Quarterly:

"Let the record reflect that Barack Obama made the approach to John McCain tonight.
As the two shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.

So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.

He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. And he stretched out his arm and offered his hand to McCain.

McCain shook it, but with a "go away" look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.

Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: "Good to see you."

Obama got the message. He shook hands with Martinez and Lieberman -- both of whom greeted him more warmly -- and quickly beat a retreat back to the Democratic side."

McCain's looseness with the facts -- which even prompted Karl Rove to speak out -- marked a beginning of the shift in tone within the Beltway, with reporters increasingly incredulous towards the rhetoric from the McCain campaign. Could the last 24 hours -- with the Register interview and now a report of a cold meeting between McCain and Barack Obama last night on the Senate floor -- mark another such turning point? There is a point when passion can become too hot, when one becomes too strident an advocate for one's own position. And at least to those in the establishment media, McCain, it seems, may have crossed that line.

Kagro X at Daily Kos writes:

"...one upshot of last night's Senate outcome is the storyline that when John McCain jetted into town to broker a deal, his deal fell apart. When Obama came to town and started working the phones, the bailout passed.

I didn't like the bill, but that's something to take away from it."

Meanwhile, on Planet Make Believe:

"Democratic nominee Barack Obama was irresponsible, though, to not get involved in bailout negotiations, Palin said. "John McCain was leading this charge toward a bipartisan effort that could help support Wall Street," the Republican vice presidential candidate said, "but Barack Obama was phoning it in."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/palin-says-media-censors-her-2008-10-01.html

And that's not even the dumbest thing she says in that article."

Thanks for sharing (#47), heath.

We can look back at the Great Depression and say, "it was history, won't happen again" or look at current disasters like Haiti where many are eating mud cakes and think, "well, it won't happen to my country, my family" but we should never fool ourself with false comforts of an unstable economy and our irresponsible consumption of world's resources.

The political philosopher John Gray, who recently retired as a professor at the London School of Economics, wrote in the London paper The Observer: "Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably.

"The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over... The American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated."

"In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7645743.stm

Tipper, you might find this interesting:

"Parents Give Up Youths Under Law Meant for Babies (from NYTimes.com, by Erik Eckholm, October 2, 2008)

"OMAHA — The abandonments began on Sept. 1, when a mother left her 14-year-old son in a police station here.

"By Sept. 23, two more boys and one girl, ages 11 to 14, had been abandoned in hospitals in Omaha and Lincoln. Then a 15-year-old boy and an 11-year-old girl were left.

"The biggest shock to public officials came last week, when a single father walked into an Omaha hospital and surrendered nine of his 10 children, ages 1 to 17, saying that his wife had died and he could no longer cope with the burden of raising them...

"...Some who work with troubled children add that economic conditions, like stagnant low-end wages and the epidemic of foreclosures, may make the situation worse, adding layers of worry and conflict.

"“I have no doubt that there are additional stresses today on families who were already on the margin,” said Gary Stangler, director of the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative in St. Louis, which aids foster children entering adulthood.

"Mark Courtney, an expert on child welfare at the University of Washington, said that what happened in Nebraska “would happen in any state.”..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/03omaha.html

Gray is overstating his case for a collapse of an entire model of government. The US government is still working. At least at the moment.

Indeed. Although "American free-market creed has self-destructed" we need to involve government in the economy. Government is the SOLUTION, not the problem. It is the only way, along with strong unions and grassroots organizations, to provide any countervailing power to Big Capital, to wealth. Without an activist and progressive government, we face exploitation and self-destruction.

I hope this year would turn out to be a realignment election, like it was with FDR and JFK. A simple victory won't do. Maybe a 60 Senate seats and a clear majority in the House would do wonders. The democrats had a health care plan when Clinton was the president, which was good, but was successfully opposed by the republicans. They had the numbers. Republicans in 2005 wanted to privatize Social Security, but failed even though they controlled House, Senate and Presidency. Democrats had enough numbers to oppose something that was that bad. Hope Obama wins by over 300 electoral votes, with 50+ popular vote and add a good number of Senate and House seats, to claim a mandate and implement a progressive agenda.

Just so. Well said. Hope so too. :)

Heath, #33 I am for a bailout as well but one done correctly.

The Citizens of the United States of America are going into debt, and in doing so should loan their money to the banks and business at 6% interest.

Does anyone not see that through the illusion?

We are creating the money we should be loaning the money to business and Wall Street and charge them interest.

Only fools would go into debt give the money to a third party and have the third party loan the money back to the people at a profit.

It's a shame that people can't comprehend that shift in thinking, breaking free of the fictional perspective regarding money they have been indoctrinated with.

How many of you think that would be a good plan, we loan business money at 6% and we loan ourselves money at 3% to buy up foreclosed homes or refinance high interest loans.

If McCain gets this idea before Obama, he would win the election if he presents it first.

John, I want to thank you for the youtube link to Fox's interview with the "split" decision. Finally, a video that works!

I remember when the government bailed out Chrysler Company too. Has that increased sales for Chrysler? Will a bailout really do any good? Does it not teach the banks to simply rely upon good old Uncle Sam a bit too much? Should not the banks take responsbility for their own decisions? It sounds like 16 tons, and deeper in debt? Isn't that the right song for this old saw?