Charlie Rose

tartufe  01/27/2009 06:44 PM Report

Nice post Slim. Boehner may be right (even if it's for the wrong reasons, a la leftover partisanship).

Obama is a work-in-progress in failure. All the more poignant by comparison to 'hope.' Three main areas of failure: 1. economy, 2. ME, 3. A-P (Afghanistan-Pakistan).

The economy. Confidence. The world and domestically would be vastly encouraged if the perps were prosecuted rather than rewarded. Instead of bailouts they need to be left to 'natural-economics,' failure. This would have the salving effect of cleansing the gangeneous corruption that created the collapse. Citigroup et al, and the hedge fund wise-guys (too clever by fractions) should repay all bailout money, fined out of existence and incarcerated. The moral hazard would be solved instantaneously. THE PAIN WE AS A NATION ARE ENDURING IS INCREDIBLE WHEN YOU REALIZE THE PERPETRATORS ARE LAUGHING UP THEIR SLEEVES IN OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS.

Passing out newly printed money that our grandchildren have to repay is merely assuring our dimished status indefinitely. And our climate doesn't support many bananas.

ME. The animal called Israel has lost all rational reasons for support. In fact to do so is counterproductive to humanity. Their unabashed brutalization of their young into indiscriminantly killing 1300 Gazans vs 13 Israelis (100:1), is worthy of the world's and our contempt.

Obama's response. More assurance that Israel deserves to protect themselves. Is there a Gander amongst these Geese? (100:1) After a half century of humiliation, they exacerbate it by fire-bombing their children with phosphorous missles. In more than one school. One-third, or 400+ children murdered by these inhumane slobbering animals.

A-P. Obama, by knowledge through daily briefs, is now complicit as Bush in condoning drone-fired missles into Pakistani villages killing more innocents than bad guys, thus recruitung more of the latter. In short the M-I complex oligarch is (still) in control. We will leave (ultimately). Our mission-creep (or creepy mission) exhausted, with more hate and enemies than when we arrived. So what's new?

Slim  01/27/2009 02:02 PM Report

First time trying to comment in this new format. What a pain. An exercise in futility trying to access the Axelrod site of 1/26 to comment. So I'll do it here. On almost all political fronts, Republicans seem to have adopted the tactic of opposition and delay on a wide array of Democratic legislative and executive initiatives. House Republicans under Rep. John Boehner, sniped via the national media, at the rescue plan suggesting that their thoroughly and recently discredited economic philosophies were the new answers to the economic disaster they themselves created. Apparantly they believe that voters, having in large part elected Barack Obama as a repudiation and antidote to eight years of this conservative dogma, have no memory or sense. They also must believe that he will, when pressed, abandon certain democratic principles and certain minority constituencies, to secure enough Republican support to appear non-partisan. Hopefully Obama will recognize this cynical tactic; to use this noble goal as a poison pill to kill his ability to forcefully lead the nation and to delegitimize the covenant, so hopefully forged, with our long suffering middle class. Seeing Republicans now claiming themselves and their policies as champions of the common man makes me gag at their shameless deceit. Also their automatic opposition to executive perogatives after Jan. 20, which in anothers hands, were enthusiastically supported before. How can one ever trust or compromise with members of a party that advantages itself and supporters through divisions defined by racism and classism? The championing of the rich over the poor; the powerful over the weak and lies over the truth. This low tactic I think will cost them dearly in the upcoming mid-term elections. On a related topic: the second half of the T.A.R.P.; can someone please explain why no common sense solutions to this problem have been tried? i.e., instead of giving more billions of dollars to the institutions that caused this debacle, and have apparently devoured the first half with an arrogance and greed that echoed their previous agregious behaviors, set up an independent government bank to lend directly to consumers of credit, both private and public; corporate and personal; large and small, using standard criterion for lending thus loosening the constraints on credit directly and also by threat, through competitive pressure, forcing existing banks to lend?

ShalomFreedman  01/26/2009 12:10 PM Report

This is an informative discussion especially in regard to Schumer's view of where the Obama Administration is in regard to the economic crisis, and what it intends to do. When Schumer downplayed the possibility of a 'bad bank' in which we be concentrated all the 'toxic paper' he spoke of this costing another two or three trillion dollars. At this point he raised the possibility that the whole system might collapse. He recommended thus a balanced approach in which the small sum of eight- hundred billion plus for the stimulus package would along with the remaining three- fifty billion of the TARP money be what is expended now. He also expressed his confidence in Tim Geithner and had words of extraordinary praise for President Obama.

One question was not asked , one which bothers me not only in regard to Schumer. It is how these people who were responsible for the economic system did not in any way see that all these 'bubbles' were 'bubbles' and would eventually be burst.

REMant  01/22/2009 09:56 PM Report

Most ppl seem to believe that we can grow our way out of this and thus pay off all the debts at the current prices, which is inherently an inflationary belief, in other words, that we should blow up the bubble again. But the bubble was burst by the lack of productivity to sustain it. The situation will not improve until there is productivity. So in the absence of productivity or some deus ex machina, prices deflate. This is not inherently bad, but the problem is that it creates conflict over who should sustain the loss: debtors or creditors. The answer is both, but the devil is in the details. It is fair to say tho that the rich benefited far more from the run up in prices, because they held equities and assets, and that they should shoulder most of the loss. This shift in wealth has also prevented the poor from affording not only the houses, but the goods they make, so sales dropped, increasing umemployment. But creating more money, if that were possible, which, thank God, it is not, would just increase this deficiency. None of this has to do with fear or animal spirits or lack of credit or confidence. We have enough money. The problem is who has the money, what good it will do there, and what incentives there are to make it work better, in other words, in the structure of our industries, trade relations, and financial system. Those few (I hope) who seem to think we can just sweep our debts under the rug and be done with them are just plain silly, if not exhibiting evidence of some psychological deficiency. Too, this crisis was caused by easy money more than lack of regulations, and concentrating on the latter is like trying to stem crime by passing more laws and building more jails. The remedy seems plain enough to me. First, tax the rich to help the poor, and balance the budget as much as possible. Second, move interest rates to levels that will encourage those left with money to invest in the productive enterprise we need and agree to refinance mortgages, while shutting off the possibility of creating more asset bubbles. This policy should have been followed in the spring of 2007. I realize no one will like it. The Republicans for the most part want fewer taxes, and the Democrats want to give everyone a handout, but it has to done for the ultimate good of all.

Re Geithner, I'm afraid that if he neglected to pay two of the three yrs he was in arrears once he saw the statute of limitations had elapsed - as I understand it - he has revealed himself to be as much a weasel as the rest of Wall St. I must say I rather enjoy see these careers wrecked over stuff like illegal immigrants and social security taxes.

DavLev  01/22/2009 05:18 PM Report

Listening to Mr. Schumer, sometimes I wonder whether he and his Congressional coherts understand exactly WHO is paying for all this charity, now approaching 2 trillion dollars? I am a registered Democrat, but voted for the Republican Presidental candidate in the last two elections. I believe Mr. Bush will go down as one of the top 5 Presidents in the US history. That will be his legacy..someone who stopped Islamic fascism after 911, in spite of all those who were naive about allowing it to fester, grow and spread. We (US) did nothing to warrant 911, yet were the primary victims of a despicable, ruthless, murderer, who wanted US out of Arabia..(not our petro dollar however). Senator Schumer is, like Obama, a liberal/moderate Democrat..for MORE govenment, NOT less. With more, there are strings attached.

I would have directed more attention to the 350 billion that has been mis-managed and unaccounted for. Folks, I said, 350 billion..not 350 million. We spent 700 billion to fight two wars in 7 years...and will now spend another 800 billion these next 2 years, with no guaranteed results. Schumer said that perhaps 2-3 trillion will be needed to bail-out millions of home owners who borrowed above their means. Funny, but they also got to deduct interest expenses, unlike those of US who rent., and will never get a bail-out. In fact, rents are going up..supply and demand to my economic professionals. Hopefully in two years, after the next elections, we can begin to reverse the damage that was caused. Wowoow, the government will have first priority over other creditors..on the collateral used for the loans *homes). Maybe it (IRS) should first go after the tax cheats each year to the tune of over 300 billion (who never file or pay their fair share).