"Fineman's piece" Look Deacon, if you are putting credence in any of these hack's, you've lost the scent. The Media and the Beltway are in major damage control. The last eight years, when all of them have set back and watched horrors perpetrated without anything more than a whimper, are now, along with the GOP, seeing a guy, with the backing of a large percent of the citizenry say " uh, no". If I were them I'd be reacting the same way..i.e. scratching at any straw I could find to put a brake on it.
All of the "he's biting off too much in a time of crisis" are the same damn people who sat idly by and let the "crisis" ferment. The same losers who preached "support the troops" when the troops were fighting a worthless battle with bad equipment.
The same people who are daily calling Obama's Economoic team and plan unworthy are the people who called Tax Cuts for the Rich the greatest Economic plan ever. In short, they are the Republican Party, the Conservative Movement and the Corporate GOP Hierarchy ( who now are virtually bankrupt) that got us into this mess. Handing it off to a Democrat was either their plan all along, or their godsend.
All hail Barack Obama for turning the Stock Market around back over 7000 and climbing. Of course it has nothing to do with manipulation... way to go Barack!!
Actually it was because of the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer fight!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 12, 2009 07:03 PMHelp me with this Deacon,
"Yet no one is thrilled so far in Geithner's prescriptions or timidity"
Isn't Obama the guy who hired this rightwing clown?
Isn't Obama the guy who said 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely? Which happens to be the same thing Rumsfield said.
Isn't Obama the guy, who's given [T]rillions to Wall Street and his back hand to Detroit?
Isn't Obama the guy...you get my drift...I am NOT some wacko conservative, I am a FDR kinda guy and I am happy with Obama
Posted by S Brennan at March 12, 2009 08:12 PMnot...not happy at all
Posted by S Brennan at March 12, 2009 08:13 PMum, s brennan--FDR recapitalized the failed banks in 1933 and it cost a lot of money at the time. ALL soldiers must be out of Iraq by Dec 2011 according to the SOFA, and the Iraqis aren't going to ask for modifications.
If you are going to "not" be happy with Obama at least try to do it for reasons based in fact. Assuming you aren't just another "concern" troll, which I think more likely.
As to the talking TV head lice and worthless pundits, as T2 says, this is the same group of "elite" in-the-know fools who literally didn't challenge Bushco's tax cuts for the rich and lying invasions for BigOil. They did nothing but boost, boost, boost the "conservative" agenda for years on end and CERTAINLY the early Bush years.
Where was the "Doing Too Much!" meme when Bushco had embroiled us in one long-term nation-building operation and then started the drumbeat for "Saddam's Gotta Go, Too"? The corporate media brought in more drums!
We're already seeing the corporate press doing everything they can to undermine confidence and support for a (not 2 month old!) Dem admin. Everything is now questioned and criticized, whereas Repub Bushco was blessed and affirmed in every bonehead decision for years on end.
Your Lib'rul Media!
Don't take them seriously for a nano-second, deacon. Scoundrels one and all, with not the slightest degree of independent thought or judgment. They are a warped and worthless reactionary "institution" and proof that the country cannot reform itself, no matter what the majority of "voters" attempt to do or desire.
Posted by euzoius at March 13, 2009 07:22 AMeuzoius,
In reply to the outright lies contained in your apologia for Obama [euzoius at March 13, 2009 07:22 AM, The Harping Gets Louder]
1] Obama’s Iraq “withdrawal” plan:
President Obama’s Iraq “withdrawal” plan will leave up to 50,000 troops in a warzone engaging in combat missions. Today the president detailed the plans for members of Congress, and said the remnant forces, which would remain for an indefinite period of time.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/02/26/obama-to-leave-50000-troops-in-iraq-indefinitely/
Nancy Pelosi isn't the only Democrat unhappy with President Barack Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan. Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer said Thursday that -- like Pelosi -- they were surprised to hear that Obama apparently plans to leave more than 50,000 U.S. troops in the country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/senate-dems-question-leav_n_170319.html
Obama to Leave 50,000 Troops in Iraq Indefinitely | This is Change?
For those idiots who can't remember yesterday when apologizing for Obama's lies:
President Bush is planning to meet today at Camp David with top military and civilian advisers today to discuss the future role of the United States in Iraq. This comes as the New York Times reports that the Bush administration is considering keeping at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for years to come, possibly for decades
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/6/12/headlines
2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a) FDR's handling of the insolvent banks.
FDR's handling of the insolvent banks is not in any way shape or form what is going on with Obama's crew. Timid Timmy under direction of Obama is NOT doing what FDR did.
The day after Roosevelt's inauguration, he instituted a mandatory four-day bank holiday. This act provided for the reopening of banks after federal inspectors had declared them to be financially secure. Within 3 days of the act's passage, 5,000 banks had passed inspection and were reopened. Roughly two-thirds of U.S. banks quickly reopened under this act, and faith in banking institutions was somewhat restored.
Later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act. The act closed down insolvent banks and reorganize and reopen those banks strong enough to survive.
b) Obama / Geithner's handling of insolvent banks
Nouriel Roubini...has warned that the US Treasury Secretary must go significantly further than his detail-light bail-out plan delivered last week, and argues that the Obama administration should move swiftly to take public ownership of those major US banks which are failing...he said it needs to take place "sooner rather than later" for the sake of the wider economy.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21931788-Roubini-tells-Geithner-to-nationalise-US-banks
Treasury didn't just fail to deliver a plan; it actively made things worse. At this point, the uncertainty in the markets about the uncertainty of various financial institutions is making it more likely that those institutions will have problem--no one wants to invest in a bank that might be nationalized, and no one wants to deposit substantial funds in a bank that might not. A plan would at least have shown some commitment in a specific direction, even if its details had to be changed at a later date.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/02/thoughts_on_geithner.php
Let's start with the basics...The problem is that a significant portion of the very biggest banks are insolvent....The US banking system is insolvent. Got that? Insolvent...But...here we have another scowling Treasury secretary, with a bit more hair than his predecessor, serving up the same fatally flawed approach as before: let's just throw money at the banks and hope they get better. This is tantamount to using antibiotics to treat gangrene. You waste good medicine and the progression of the rot threatens to kill the patient.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/02/geithner-bank-bailout-plan-fiasco.html
euzoius,
In reply to the outright lies contained in your apologia for Obama [euzoius at March 13, 2009 07:22 AM, The Harping Gets Louder]
1] Obama’s Iraq “withdrawal” plan:
President Obama’s Iraq “withdrawal” plan will leave up to 50,000 troops in a warzone engaging in combat missions. Today the president detailed the plans for members of Congress, and said the remnant forces, which would remain for an indefinite period of time.
news.antiwar
Nancy Pelosi isn't the only Democrat unhappy with President Barack Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan. Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer said Thursday that -- like Pelosi -- they were surprised to hear that Obama apparently plans to leave more than 50,000 U.S. troops in the country.
huffingtonpost
Obama to Leave 50,000 Troops in Iraq Indefinitely | This is Change?
youtube.com
For those idiots who can't remember yesterday when apologizing for Obama's lies:
President Bush is planning to meet today at Camp David with top military and civilian advisers today to discuss the future role of the United States in Iraq. This comes as the New York Times reports that the Bush administration is considering keeping at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for years to come, possibly for decades
democracynow
2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a) FDR's handling of the insolvent banks.
FDR's handling of the insolvent banks is not in any way shape or form what is going on with Obama's crew. Timid Timmy under direction of Obama is NOT doing what FDR did.
The day after Roosevelt's inauguration, he instituted a mandatory four-day bank holiday. This act provided for the reopening of banks after federal inspectors had declared them to be financially secure. Within 3 days of the act's passage, 5,000 banks had passed inspection and were reopened. Roughly two-thirds of U.S. banks quickly reopened under this act, and faith in banking institutions was somewhat restored.
Later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act. The act closed down insolvent banks and reorganize and reopen those banks strong enough to survive.
b) Obama / Geithner's handling of insolvent banks
Nouriel Roubini...has warned that the US Treasury Secretary must go significantly further than his detail-light bail-out plan delivered last week, and argues that the Obama administration should move swiftly to take public ownership of those major US banks which are failing...he said it needs to take place "sooner rather than later" for the sake of the wider economy.
.dslreports.
Treasury didn't just fail to deliver a plan; it actively made things worse. At this point, the uncertainty in the markets about the uncertainty of various financial institutions is making it more likely that those institutions will have problem--no one wants to invest in a bank that might be nationalized, and no one wants to deposit substantial funds in a bank that might not. A plan would at least have shown some commitment in a specific direction, even if its details had to be changed at a later date.
meganmcardle.theatlantic
Let's start with the basics...The problem is that a significant portion of the very biggest banks are insolvent....The US banking system is insolvent. Got that? Insolvent...But...here we have another scowling Treasury secretary, with a bit more hair than his predecessor, serving up the same fatally flawed approach as before: let's just throw money at the banks and hope they get better. This is tantamount to using antibiotics to treat gangrene. You waste good medicine and the progression of the rot threatens to kill the patient.
www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted by S Brennan at March 13, 2009 12:21 PMs brennan--ok, you're not a concern troll, my apologies.
The very "indefinite" articles you cite acknowledge that all troops must leave by the end of 2011, per the Status of Forces agreement that Iraqi government negotiated with Bush. Why certain sites choose to mislead people on this point is beyond me. Read the SOFA, read Juan Cole's informed comment site.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said about the (timid) Obama bank bailout, although I don't think anyone has a fail safe proposal, including Rubini. He minimises the scope of running these mega-banks for even short periods and the effect on future investment capital should mega-bank debt and bondholders be snuffed.
But you simply criticized the cost in your initial post, as though FDR's plan didn't cost massive amounts as well---it did, and it took quite a while for the gub'mint to get its funds back after he depression. Bailouts of the entire banking system are expensive, however one chooses to perform them. Private capital didn't flood in in the 30s.....and it won't now, either.
Posted by at March 13, 2009 02:02 PMoops, that's me.
Posted by euzoius at March 13, 2009 02:03 PM