Obama's '4 basic principles' may contain next wk's Democratic critique of the Bush Bailout plan:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

I really see FIVE principles, not 4, and IMO principle #4 may be the dealbreaker.

From http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGgmmL

(1) "For too long, this Administration has been willing to hit the fast forward button in helping distressed Wall Street firms while pressing pause when it comes to saving jobs or keeping families in their homes. Swift and unprecedented action to shore up Wall Street must come alongside equally swift and serious efforts to help struggling families on Main Street, create new jobs, and grow our middle-class once more."

(2) "Extraordinary steps must be designed with only the public good in mind, not to enhance the personal gain of CEOs and management at taxpayers' expense."

(3) The "plan must be temporary and coupled with tough new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions. There must be a clear process to wind down this plan and restore private sector assets into private sector hands after restoring stability to the system."

(4) "Taxpayers must share in any upside benefit that such stability brings."

(5) "Finally, this plan should be part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20. We are facing a global financial crisis and the United States can take a leadership role in coordinating a global response to the present crisis, as well as greater regulatory cooperation and alignment to prevent future crises."

What do YOU think?

See also "Barack Obama on the Emerging Federal Reserve - Treasury Plan" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7118911

[jkshaw]

1. Taxpayers must share

sounds like a great idea, given that it's our money that's bailing them out.

Elementary to everyone except Republicans worrying about their corporate base.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

2. But for ideological Republicans, especially Greenspan, centrally-managed government

ownership of publicly tradable stocks and/or bonds is "SOCIALISM"!

Few people realized how ideological Ayn Rand enthusiast Greenspan was until Bill Clinton tried to ensure that positive FICA cash flow would in fact be paid out to retirees in the future. That's when Republicans, led by Greenspan, insisted that any investment of FICA in assets on which Congress could not renege MUST take place within privatized individual accounts. Otherwise, "incentives would be wrong" and corporations might not maximize profits.

Of course dozens of OTHER countries own US securities in centrally-managed sovereign wealth funds, and every State pension fund system invests in publicly-traded stocks and bonds, but that fact did not dissuade Republican ideologues throughout the past three decades form opposing government management of tradable securities.

There's even solid economic research that shows that state pension fund investment returns are no worse than returns on private portfolios of the same size. But Greenspan and his minions flat-out LIED about this research in government conferences and Senate hearings on Social Security reform in the 90s.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. .

[eshfemme]

3. I really love how reasoned he is.

It makes all the wingnuts who still spew BS about him sound that much more out of touch and desperate. What Obama's saying is very commonsensical and what we've been lacking for too long. What's even sadder is that he's so obviously outshone Bush AND McCain or Palin in this crisis. He's shown that he is the exact sort of leader we need in a crisis because he's still calm, cool, collected and direct.

Plus, he took questions from the press! I loved watching how in answering the questions, he inadvertently showed off how well he had a grasp on the situation. He's not just spewing out talking points or random terms that were just crammed into his head.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. "He's not just spewing out talking points..." Great point--we've forgotten that our leaders

once could do more than that.

Even the vast majority of so-called "reporters" today have been dumbed down so far that they don't quite know what to make of a leader who reasons about policy from basic principles rather than from talking points provided by lobbyists and PR "spinners".