Economic policy McCain vs Obama... who wins for you and why?

J

jefa_IHB

New member
We all know that when McCain or Obama become president that what they actually do is going to diverge from what they've said on the stump. Bernanke is in charge of the Fed, not McCain or Obama. And we now know what type of decisions Bernanke makes. In terms or real change, the President has the ability to effect some things and not others.



Paulson says he's going to step down at the end of his term, but with things as wild as they are now, I wonder if he'll stay a little longer.



In any case, what do you think we'd really see when either of these candidates takes office?



Here's the info I've tracked down so far. Feel free to expand and sort the advisors in terms of who you think has the most influence, least influence on the candidate. There was a very comprehensive list out there on Obama (that focused on the heavyweights as compared to a laundry list). I found a McCain laundry list, and parsed out the names I've heard mentioned in news reports.



McCain's lead is Doug Heatz-Olkin. His favorite personal advisor has always been Phil Gramm.

He has a huge list here, I can't tell who's his core team: http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/mccain-economic-team-7-12-07.htm

Some advisors are: , Arthur Laffer, Kevin Hassett (American Enterprise Institute), Donald Luskin, Nancy Pfothenhauer, Gerry Parsky, Carly Fiornia, Martin Feldstien, John Taylor (professor of economics at Stanford,), Kenneth Rogoff, Grant Aldonas, Carlos Bonilla, Jeff Brown, Juan Buttari, Kathleen Cooper, Steve Davis.

Said as president he would consult with people like: Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Warren Rudman, Pete Peterson, and the Concord Group. (last republican presidential debate).

[**EDIT HERE: I had said he has 26 years of history on free market principals, but I based that on recent news reports. I tried to look up his history and I really can't find it. 1998-2001 he appears to be a de-regulator type... but mainly a Phil Gramm agreer. In 2001-2003 he was a supply sider, and he said that he really started paying attention then. Then he became a free market guy. He did call in Phil Gramm personally to help him craft his economic policy as the nominee this year. The last few weeks I can't tell what he is]



I can't tell who Obama's lead is, different people speak for him depending on what their area of expertise is. Obama's favorite personal advisor has always been Austin Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor).

Economic advisor team: David Culter (Harvard health policy expert), Jeffrey Leibman (harvard welfare expert), Gene Sperling (former white house economic advisor), Jason Furman (director of economic policy), Karen Kornbluh (policy director), Paul Volcker (the inflation dragon), Robert Reich and Robert Rubin (the two Bobs, should need no introduction), Alan Blinder (vice chairman of federal reserve), Larry Summers (treasury secretary). Jared Bernstein, James Galbreith, Laura Tyson, Peter Henry.

Also: Michael Froman (Citigroup executive), Daniel Tarullo (Georgetown Law) David Romer (Berkley macroeconomist), Christina Romer (Berkely econimst historian) Richard Thaler (behavioral finance expert)

Regularly consults with (not named as advisors) : Paul O'Neil, Warren Buffet.

Last year, proposed investment banks be as open to bank examiners as commercial institutions. Has been pro-regulatory. Otherwise, since he's so new, we don't really know what he's about. Though Goolsbee's philosophies are probably somewhat of a good indicator. Goolsbee is of the new freakonomic type variety of economists.



<strong>

In the last few days of drama, the candidates have rushed to their go-to people for advice (which may be a better indicator of who they are really going to talk to when things get down to the nitty-gritty?). Obama has specifically talked to Larry Summers, Laura Tyson, Warren Buffet, Robert Rubin and Paul Volcker. McCain has specifically spoken with Martin Feldstein, John Taylor and Carly Fiorina.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajMl5w.sSXGo&refer=us </strong>
 
Alright, I'm sorry, I kept researching, and then I pulled up this nonsense:

http://www.centredaily.com/463/story/851630.html



The RNC is saying Obama is a mistake to vote for because he consults with advisors who were "instrumental" in helping pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? (The act that deregulated the financial services industry).



Are they crazy? You mean the act that was voted on down party lines? The Republican voted act? The act voted "yes" on by John McCain? Voted "no" by Biden? The act INTRODUCED by McCain's previously favorite (and from what I hear, still favorite) go-to guy Phill Gramm (Yes, he's the Gramm in the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act). Are they seriously trying to use this tactic to make us believe that Obama is going to become a de-regulator? A trickle-down cheerleader?



This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It was this type of nonsense that drove me crazy with the USAID site during the Iraq war. It's the most ridiculous, awful, amazingly stupid thing I've seen written. That's the final nail in the coffin. I am back in the Obama camp. I actually wasted my time fact checking this thing. Does anyone here REALLY feel that Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin are a mistake to talk with? REALLY? Do we think they are going to convince Obama to de-regulate? REALLY???? Is the majority of their history about de-regulation????



Does McCain really know who is the fox in the henhouse? I just don't feel like he has a clue.
 
I'm going to try and stay apolitical in my response here. Laying blame for the current problem doesn't solve it.



The current crisis begins and ends with mortgages; as the asset mortgaged declined in value, failure rates began to increase which FUBAR'd the business model upon which many financial institutions were/are currently running. Until the floor is found in housing prices, the securities and derivitives based on those mortgages will continue to lose value, which means financial institutions will have to adjust the value of their assets accordingly and raise more capital to meet current regulatory requirements. So far, they have tried to avoid making these adjustment and have hidden their true value by taking advantage of current regulations that allow that action. Afraid that others are doing the same, they have either refused to lend to one another, or raised the price of that lending to confiscatory levels, or have begun borrowing only and not lending; the end result of that is the "credit crunch" and the Fed has tried to address this with massive lending directly to affected institutions. When that failed to meet the demand for capital, these same institutions began selling off assets (in some cases several institutions all at once) which led to market mini-crashes, deflating further the value of the equity assets they still held. Wash, rinse, repeat and you get to our current predicament.



Talking about regulation is fine, but it doesn't solve the underlying cause of the problem; it just possibly prevents it in the future. Drawing up bailout plans that don't address the deflation in home values also doesn't solve the problem, rather it slows the process down temporarily while providing time for Government to look for answers (and eveyone else, including Wall Street, to find a way to profit from the slowdown) but essentially it just kicks the can down the road.



So, which candidate or party is actually looking at the core problem upon which all else is failing? Well, flip enough channels and you can find a politician pushing his or her own ideas but it seems to break down into three options: 1)subsidize the homeowner/banker/investor with tax dollars, 2) takeover/bailout everything with tax dollars, 3) let the chips fall where they may and clean-up the mess afterwards. So far, option one is only being proposed by Schumer, Frank, and Clinton, although with variations between them. However, as they will all be returning in January, their plans (and the implications for future tax rates) must be considered as possible future realities. Option two is currently being implemented by Bush/Paulson/Bernanke and recently the congressional leadership has supported the current takeover plan (last night's meeting) which will require legislation (and tax dollars) to create. Paul Volker has also endorsed this option recently in a WSJ opinion piece. Option three is getting little attention because it involves a whole lot of pain for a whole lot of people that are likely directly responsible for this mess but also happen to vote: everyone from the people who bought homes on terms and at prices they couldn't afford to the people who provided those mortgages to the banks who securitized and invested in them to the people and countires that gave those banks the moeny in the first place. In a truly free market, option three is the natural result and provides both an opportunity to punish the people responsible and clean out all the problem areas with new regulation and fresh perspective. However, people tend to vote their own self-interest and no one wants to hurt voters this close to an election.



I think that what really happens after the election is that Option Two becomes expanded to include any non-performing asset so that business continues to function the way we currently expect it to function. If Obama wins, I expect Option One will receive full support and we will have several new government agencies flooding tax dollars and loan modifications into the market to raise home prices and possibly a foreclosure holiday of indeterminate length. If McCain wins, I expect he'll veto any plans in the option one group until Congress overrides his veto, but I also expect him to come up with some compromise that include some sector getting the full option three treatment. Unless the Democrats lose a sizable amount of the congressional races, McCain will be facing a hostile Congress while Obama would be both supported by the majority and beholden to it's varied constituencies. I have no doubt they will be trying to pass everything they can before the 2010 elections provide the Republicans an opportunity to gain seats.



Personally, I think option three is the only real solution. To use the house analogy: sometimes you can get away with painting the walls and laying new carpet to make a house livable, while other times you need to take out a wall and remodel the bathroom, but when the support beams are rotten and the roof is caving in, you have black mold under every sink, and the foundation has a three-inch crack running from the SW to NE corners... well, you need to tear it down and start over. I'm voting for whomever gets closest to telling me we need to tear the house down.
 
[quote author="jefa" date=1221872061]Alright, I'm sorry, I kept researching, and then I pulled up this nonsense:

http://www.centredaily.com/463/story/851630.html



The RNC is saying Obama is a mistake to vote for because he consults with advisors who were "instrumental" in helping pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? (The act that deregulated the financial services industry).



Are they crazy? You mean the act that was voted on down party lines? The Republican voted act? The act voted "yes" on by John McCain? Voted "no" by Biden? The act INTRODUCED by McCain's previously favorite (and from what I hear, still favorite) go-to guy Phill Gramm (Yes, he's the Gramm in the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act). Are they seriously trying to use this tactic to make us believe that Obama is going to become a de-regulator? A trickle-down cheerleader?



This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It was this type of nonsense that drove me crazy with the USAID site during the Iraq war. It's the most ridiculous, awful, amazingly stupid thing I've seen written. That's the final nail in the coffin. I am back in the Obama camp. I actually wasted my time fact checking this thing. Does anyone here REALLY feel that Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin are a mistake to talk with? REALLY? Do we think they are going to convince Obama to de-regulate? REALLY???? Is the majority of their history about de-regulation????



Does McCain really know who is the fox in the henhouse? I just don't feel like he has a clue.</blockquote>
Here's the problem... no one is unconnected. Before you dismiss me as a conservative spouting the party line, I want you to read this link: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html">A chronology tracing the life of the Glass-Steagall Act</a> from Frontline, as unbiased a source as you can get on the intarwebz. I think that it is impossible to assemble a team of expert advisors (on any subject, in either party) who aren't deeply involved with the current state of affairs in that area. If you do pick someone to advise you that isn't deeply involved, you will be rediculed for that choice. It's a no-win situation for both candidates and will always be political fodder during elections.
 
I appreciate apolitical replies.



I personally think 3 is way too risky. I feel the same way about it as I felt about going into the Iraq war. It wasn't that I thought the Iraq war couldn't work, and that it wasn't possible to "nation build" a democracy there. It's just that we have no real history of dealing with such a thing, and I see no one that I trust to bring us out safely to the other side. Right now, all banks are essentially worthless, because they've given their money away to home sellers in exchange for the promise that stupid home buyers will pay them the money back. A vast majority of home buyers and credit card holders are personally bankrupt. The remainder is the money hoarders. So we destroy the debtors and all the financial institutions, (who made their bed), leaving the money hoarders to "rule the world". Except the money hoarders (unless they physically have gold in their house), are bearing a real risk that the financial system would then be permantly broken, as I doubt anyone would have any faith in currency anymore. So that's why I am against option 3.



However, I do wish people would suffer the consequences of their actions. But I also feel that we've gone so far down the road of bad decisions that there are no longer any good decisions left. It's simply too late. I think we can work our way back towards good decisions, but it's going to take some time.



As for what each candidate will do, I think: McCain doesn't seem like he's chosen who he believes yet, and I think down deep the only person he really trusts is Phill Gramm. There's no data out there that shows me who he trusts to replace Paulson with. He listens to people with wildly divergent viewpoints, and has shown no favoritism to any of them. He has supported a variety of economic policies over the last 12 years, in direct juxtaposition to one another. Historically, what John McCain likes to do best is to target individual people (who usually deserve it) and make them pay the price, and I think he'll spend most of his time doing that. I think he will be forced into passing some regulation, but he will work to dilute it's effects, and he follow the previous Phil Gramm models in diluting those effects. He will listen most closely to those advisors he has a gut feeling know what they are talking about. Those advisors will most likely be from the Reagan era, and of the Phil Gramm type. (I've read comments from different advisors of his over the years and they are all in direct contradiction with each other. Each advisor believes McCain is completely in agreement with him.)



Obama: If he needs to replace Paulson he would pick someone consistent with those he has already chosen to advise him (Along the two Bob's model). He would do what Bernanke and the Treasury Secretary advised with some tweaks from the freakonomic type advisors he has shown a preference for. Bernanke and those closest to Obama seem to be hewing to the idea that it was the lack of congressional action and the tightening of liquidity that prolonged and deepened the Depression. So yes, I think we will see something targeted towards the lower 30k earners (not a mortgage bailout necesarrily, but probably another tax rebate check or something along those lines). I think he'll usher in regulation and it will have a freakonomic cast to it. Basically I think we'll see a Goolsbee/Volcker/Buffett and the two Bobs approach to everything. It appears to me that those guys are who he listens to the most closely on this specific issue.



So to sum up, I think both candidates are going to be forced to up liquidity to the system and the big thing that will be pushed through is the Bernanke/Paulson solution which will be aimed at saving the financial markets from collapsing. It will be Congress and the Senate who will tweak about 20% of it before passage. McCain and Obama will attempt to force liquidity into the system through consumers. McCain will likely do this by reducing taxes across the board, but have a focus at the high end (he was against this in 2000, but it seems he truly is for it now). Obama will increase taxes on the high end, and will pump liquidity up in the low end with either a big bail out or a tax rebate check or something of the like. Both will be required to regulate the industry. Obama will follow the advice of Goolsbee/Volcker/Buffett and the two Bobs. McCain will try to weaken the extent of the regulation and may continue the policies of Gramm were possible, or may abandon them, depending on his views of the world when he's in office. Lastly, McCain will put a dozen or two dozen jerks in jail and have the FBI go after the individuals who committed mortgage fraud.



If we have catastrophic failure then we're getting into the Franklin Delano Roosevelt years. I have no idea what policies will be implemented. Obama would pull ideas from his main group. I have no clue what McCain would do. I think if you get into a catastrophic depression he'd probably have to do some social programs. I don't know who he would pick. I don't know what your other options really are in a situation like that.



I do like Doug Heatz-Olkin. But I don't see McCain talking to him a lot. He seems to favor Fiorina and Gramm. I've looked up their histories, and (I'm trying hard to be apolotical here). i think they're both awful. I can't see any other way to say it. Phil Gramm has done so many stupid economic things over his life... it's just abysmal. The one thing you can say for him is that he's an excellent campaign financial manager. I'd choose him any day to keep costs down in a business. But on anything else, he's a nightmare. I find him to be a direct contributor to the blackouts in California and the subprime mortgage disaster. I just can't trust John McCain's judgement when he has such a long history with this guy.



All that being said, I don't know if Obama's advisors are going to fix this thing. I don't know if pumping up liquidity will avert another Great Depression. But I don't think anyone knows what they're doing really.



I think what migh sway me (and I'm really not that swayable anymore. Ugh. Phil Gramm) Is if I could see a group of guys that I thought really knew what they were doing, that seemed equal to solving these problems as Obama's group, and that I knew were the ones McCain was going to listen to.



Because if McCain picks really solid advisors, then his propensity to destroy evil doers would tip me in his favor. I like it when jerks go to jail. I really do. I don't think it changes much in the grand scheme of things, but it does really make me happy.
 
<blockquote>

Here's the problem... no one is unconnected. Before you dismiss me as a conservative spouting the party line</blockquote>




I get that. It also is unfair of me to not vote for McCain when its the RNC that's acting like a two year old child.



I cannot help it though, these specific type of lies get me extremely angry. It's not that they are attacking Obama. I could care less. It's that they are attacking one candidate for speaking to "bad advisors" and using a bill called the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" act to do so. Well, it should be obvious to everyone why such an article would make a person angry. It's just how completely ridiculous it is. Why would they bring up one of the great Achilles heels of McCain, and try to make it an Obama problem?



But that's the RNC talking. And the RNC is not McCain.



As for your article, that's actually all the info I read.



It is that exact group of events, and the people involved that have put me solidly back in the Obama camp. I can't imagine anyone reading that article and thinking McCain would be the right choice.



As for Rubin, Obama also consults with Reich (Rubin's former nemesis):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html (Sorry it's the times, but they have the Rubin vs Reich talk here).



Phil Gramm vs Robert Rubin. Rubin promoted a reduction in the deficit and low interest rates, that was his primrary contribution, and I think it was a good one. I can't find any sound economic policy credited to Phil Gramm. I just think he's awful, and he personifies Glass-Steagal. But I'm not saying Rubin isn't checkered. He clearly is. But there are plenty of checks in there against him. Gramm? I see no one with the ear of McCain that will check him.



[Edited to make it slightly briefer]
 
I think the real problem is not our leaders but our electorate. The politicians I generally like the best are democrats in republican districts and republicans in democratic districts.



You know, I really respect the people who frequent these boards. The gist I feel of people who support McCain is that he will be a Republican in a Democratic legislature and he'll provide a check. I think that's a valid argument, but I don't think it's true in this case.



I think it's the advisors that create the policy. Does anyone trust McCain because of the quality of his advisors? If so, why? And who do you think his core team is?
 
The conflict I would be concerned about is not between the two Bobs, but between Rubin and Volcker.

<blockquote>In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. The vote comes after the Fed Board hears proposals from Citicorp, J.P. Morgan and Bankers Trust advocating the loosening of Glass-Steagall restrictions to allow banks to handle several underwriting businesses, including commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds, and mortgage-backed securities. Thomas Theobald, then vice chairman of Citicorp, argues that three "outside checks" on corporate misbehavior had emerged since 1933: "a very effective" SEC; knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker is unconvinced, and expresses his fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public. For many critics, it boiled down to the issue of two different cultures - a culture of risk which was the securities business, and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.</blockquote>
Essentially, Volcker's fear came true and, while Citigroup was still actively lobbying Congress & White House to pass the bill, Rubin headed directly from his job leading the Treasury to Citigroup,. Obama has surrounded himself with talent, to be sure, but what that talent says and does are at conflict. We have all born witness to what happens to a candidate when they take office and their advisors are given power. No one thought Cheney, Rumsfield, or Powell would have anything but a positive influence on Bush and yet... I think you get my point. Rubin is a smart guy, but I don't trust him because his actions reveal that his self-interest outweighs the national interest. Since Obama is an relative unknown (still) and relatively untested as an executive, we don't know whether his vision will trump that of his advisors.



As for Phil Gramm, I think he is an old-school democrat who truly believe in low taxes and small government. He became a Republican in 1983 after winning two elections to Congress as a Democrat. I think he's forgotten more about the Congressional Budget process than most people will ever know. I also think that he parlayed his career in politics into a job almost as cushy as Rubin's (he works for UBS), he's first and foremost about free trade, and he is incredibly short-sighted on economic issues. His famous "Dicky Flatt" test shows that he's only looking at how government effects Joe Sixpack on a day to day level and not how it will effect him in the future, (hence "old school democrat") which leads to short-sighted legislation. As a McCain confidant and advisor, only Carly Fiorina can make him look good. In McCain's plan to reduce the size and scope of government, Gramm is a perfect fit. In any other capacity he would be a disaster. McCain's voting record may be erratic on budgetary issues, but he's never asked for an earmark in his entire congressional career. I think he is hard to sway from his opinions and impossible to sway from his principles, no matter who is advising him. But all of that is moot if he dies in office.



In the end, it's still a crapshoot. Reagan buckled on spending to get tax-cuts and defense spending. Clinton buckled on healthcare and welfare reform but cut taxes and passed NAFTA. Bush43 tossed small government under the bus completely and decided nation-building was a great idea once Cheney explained it to him. Carter was/is a true humanitarian who got over-run by world events and domestic economic issues. Bush41 promised no new taxes and then raised them anyway. McCain could be the next Hoover or the next Eisenhower or the next Teddy Roosevelt. Obama could be the next Carter or FDR or Woodrow Wilson. Who a candiate has been seems (to me) a far better predictor of what they will do than who they choose to advise them. Outside events always seem to dictate what happens anyway.
 
Did anyone know that Robert Reich had his own blog?

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/



Nude,

Obama had Volcker on his team, and Rubin was on Hillary's team. When he won the primary, he folded Rubin into the group. But it appears that Volcker is senior on the totem pole. As far as what he has said about Rubin in various press reports, it's always been about deficit reduction. There's been no mention of him talking to him about regulation or de-regulation.



As for what Obama's talent saying and doing being in conflict. Where? Rubin has had three totems: deficit reduction, low interest rates, and free markets. Volcker disagrees. Sure, what they are saying is in conflict. But I think Obama will do with Rubin and Volcker what he did with Rubin and Reich. Take the areas of agreement (deficit reduction and low interest rates), and implement that first.



Regardless, I don't get why Robert Rubin would send anyone into the arms of McCain. Rubin's failed policies on de-regulation are the policies of the vast majority of Republican economic advisors. It is highly likely that if McCain doesn't turn to Phil Gramm, he'll turn to someone of a like mind, who will have held the same beliefs on de-regulation as Rubin and Gramm. And Rubin and Gramm are just plan wrong on that front.



So I guess I do accept it as a matter of faith that either a) Rubin has realized the error of his ways (as they are glaring obvious these days), or b : Obama won't listen to Rubin's deregulation talk since it is obvious that it is a miserable failure. I could be wrong. But I know McCain admired and listened to Gramm back when Gramm was really, really wrong. So why would I go with the guy who definitely listens to people who are wrong? And voted for what they said to vote for?
 
jefa,



If you are looking for someone to back up your line of thinking, I'm not your guy. But it's not based on politics. To be totally blunt, we are so thoroughly fucked that nothing anyone is proposing is going to fix the problem. All that is being done or proposed only deals with the current wave of issues, but there are others lining up right behind them like waves crashing into a beach. They are using stalling tactics to prevent a systemic collapse from happening all at once, not to prevent it from happening at all. We currently have the world's leading expert on the Great Depression at the helm of the Federal Reserve and a former CEO of Goldman Sachs heading the Treasury and between them the have tried to restrain current events from collapsing the world's financial system, several times. Bernanke certainly know what NOT to do from past example and Paulson certainly understands how everything connects to everything else. But right now, they are both scrambling to keep up with events that are beyond their control. So, the short answer on which candidate has the better team is: I don't think either set has a snowballs chance in hell of saving us from what is coming.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1221874537]So far, option one is only being proposed by Schumer, Frank, and Clinton, although with variations between them. However, as they will all be returning in January, their plans (and the implications for future tax rates) must be considered as possible future realities. Option two is currently being implemented by Bush/Paulson/Bernanke and recently the congressional leadership has supported the current takeover plan (last night's meeting) which will require legislation (and tax dollars) to create.</blockquote>


They aren't even bothering to wait till the election...

<blockquote>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The urgent need for the U.S. Congress to approve a Bush administration plan to rescue Wall Street has given Democrats renewed hope of enacting another economic stimulus package for Main Street, congressional aides said on Friday.



For months, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats in Congress have been pushing $50 billion in emergency spending they say would spur the flagging U.S. economy.



Now, with Congress leaving town soon so that members can campaign for re-election on November 4, the likely passage of a Wall Street bailout requiring hundreds of billions of dollars could make it easier for Democrats to make their case that a fraction of that amount be spent to help the poor and middle-class.



"I can see it being one of the items up for discussion when Pelosi sits down with (Treasury Secretary Henry) Paulson. 'You want a trillion dollars for Wall Street? We need this for Main Street,'" said one House Democratic aide.</blockquote>
 
Nude,



Yeah. I'm afraid you might be right. I hope you aren't.



I just read this about how usury laws started getting undermined. Not a party thing, just a cascading set of circumstances really. I think this is the origin of where we got screwed:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/rise.html



Man, I wonder if I should liquidate out of the stock market. I'd just have to pay so much in taxes. I swear to God Bernanke is going to pull something out of his butt, and everyone is going to lose their minds again. I feel like we're all living in an alternate universe and we really are never going to wake up. Poor credit practices started in 1980. 28 years for it all to fall apart? Fall apart Russian style? Or Bernanke will do some bizarre magic? Only time will tell, I guess.
 
Alas, nude, I agree.



If the candidates combined the virtues of Washington, Jefferson Lincoln Teddy Roosevelt, FDR,

Truman and Reagan, it still wouldn't make enuf difference to save us.



But we can make it thru.



I think.



I am voting for O because I think he will do the best fireside chat, won't start

WW III, and didn't pick a bimbette (tho pretty & smart) for VP. Not great recommendations,

but the choices are not good.



The bail out bill says no lawsuits allowed. That won't play, but it shows you the

mindset of these people.



Also B & P have been operating on no sleep for weeks now. They are probably so

tired they can't think any more. Really confidence building, right?
 
I think that the answer is jefa's door number 3, no matter who wins

or which advisers they pick. It's too big to solve. We are at the top of the

rollercoaster, and it doesn't matter whether power is cut or the brakes

are applied, the coaster is gonna roll, and we are gonna roll with it,

like it or not.
 
Alas, I am thinking we are headed down the rollercoaster as well. Which means we are in the FDR scenario. So it is who you think would make the best FDR redux. McCain and if he dies of a heart attack from the stress, Palin. Or Obama, and if he gets shot by a crazy person, Biden.



But, even though it's all probably not going to change the outcome one bit, I do like this guys addendum to the plan:



<blockquote>U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, the Newton Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, vows to puncture other golden parachutes, too. ?One of the things we want to put into (bailout legislation) is a rule that if you take the government?s help, you?ll have to limit how much severance your top people get,? the lawmaker said.</blockquote>


Make the jerks suffer!
 
I'm starting to wonder if, as far as economic policy goes, it's irrelevant who wins ... as long as the current power brokers Paulson/Bernake remain.
 
You know, I have to remind myself of a few things though: In 2000 I really didn't think Gore vs Bush made much of a difference. Now, I think how different things might have been if we'd had a president who made FERC step in and be the last regulatory backstop that it was supposed to be against the raiders of Enron. California would be millions richer today if FERC had done the things it was required to do by law. I think about how different Katrina would be if we'd been led by a guy who didn't put cronies in power of FEMA and hired people of substance instead. Sometimes I feel presidents don't matter. But hell yeah, they do.



At the very minimum they're going to be in charge of creating the New "New Deal". Which will be a big deal.
 
Sorry, the new "New Deal" is being done this weekend in a rushed panic.



CR reports that Paulson wishes to extend the bailout to foriegn investors if deemed necessary by him...



$700,000,000,000.00 my *ss.
 
I'm talking farm plans and public works. Which, incidentally, should make you commodities traders think a little more about what you're doing. We could be subsidizing a lot of food, or asking a lot of it to get plowed under depending on what they think is important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top