Honest question for the "NO BAILOUT" crowd... why do you think Obama is for it?

[scheming daemons]

A. Does he not want to win?

B. Is he secretly a Republican?

C. Does he want to save Bush's legacy?



Seriously... Why is Obama *FOR* the bailout?


He's not a stupid man.



My opinion?

He doesn't want to preside over an economic depression for his entire term.

[soothsayer]

1. He'd rather get it out of the way before the election cuz then it's not really his fault when it

fails

[scheming daemons]

2. Get what out of the way? The bailout or the collapse?

[pnwmom]

5. Why would he want to hamstring his administration with this $700 billion bailout

if he was sure it was going to fail?

[marshall]

89. I agree--it's a wedge issue that needs to be set aside until AFTER the election

With the votes so spread out in both parties between noes and yeses it's too much of a crap shoot.

[Tallison]

3. Great post -

although I'm sure it will cause the heads of many here to explode.

:exploding smilie:

[girl gone mad]

16. My head is intact.

I disagreed with Obama on the FISA bill, too.

Democrats are not dittoheads. It's one of our more endearing qualities.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polpilot]

93. Obama wants to win & to win you have to 'agree' with the fearmongers. This Handout is absurd to the

max...and only an idiot would be in favor of it. It's totally absurd to believe, basically, if you give the 'money men' enuff cash it would trickle down to the common man. Absurd. Absurd.

[snot]

105. Agreed and agreed. The question remains -- as to both this and FISA. nt

[Skink]

4. Obama is for Fiscally sound legislation.

the monstrosity that did not pass today had little in common with what he has said is needed. If we act resposibly then fine, he wants this process to start as soon as possible.

[scheming daemons]

6. He said this morning that he reluctantly supported THIS bill....

The very bill that went down.


*HE* said he would vote for it.


Why?

[Skink]

9. So did Krugman and he said so right after throwing up.

[scheming daemons]

10. Yep... sometimes the necessary medicine tastes bad.

[BuyingThyme]

7. He's doing exactly what Pelosi has done since the Dems took control.

[scheming daemons]

8. Ok....humor me.... what is THAT?

Obama wants to win on November 4th, presumably.


If the bailout is bad... and the calls against it were 300-to-1... why would he do something that is POLITICALLY BAD for him?


Makes no sense.


Unless he knows that it is needed to save the country so he'll have something WORTH governing on Jan 20th.

[BuyingThyme]

11. Whatever the Unitary Executive wants, it gets.

[scheming daemons]

13. Obama is about to BECOME that Unitary Executive.... this will be HIS problem in 4 months

Why would he want to make his job HARDER?


Answer: He doesn't. He knows his administration will need this in place.

[BuyingThyme]

19. Like the ability to spy on me without a warrant?

[Two Americas]

67. whoa

Are you sure about what you just said?

"Our" dictator is OK?

[datasuspect]

90. this country does not need another unitary executive

[Tallison]

14. He's a Dem-bot for Pelosi?

:rofl:

I'm sorry, but I just can't respond to the bailout detractors anymore, so I can only speculate on their crazy reasoning.

[aquart]

27. Why did Dems vote for IWR? the Patriot Act?

I'm sorry, but you are hoping he knows something you don't...but, considering how many Dems felt that way about WMDs, the answer is likely he doesn't.

[girl gone mad]

12. Pressure from banking lobbyists and the media?

Fear of inaction?

:shrug:

It doesn't really matter to me. The bill was a bad deal.

Would you support the Bernie Sanders plan or a debt-for-equity swap?

[scheming daemons]

15. I would support whatever thaws the credit freeze quickly. Sweden 1992 comes to mind.

[girl gone mad]

18. Then let's get it done.

There was no reason to rush a bad bill through.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. 'xept this bad bill had many elements of the 1992 bailout plan

as well as New Deal legislation

Yep, the last week I have read more bills than members of congress it seems

[Two Americas]

17. he is a politician

Let's not drag him into it and blame him.

If the core activists - the people here, for example, the 10% of the population who control and dominate the national political discussion at all levels - truly had his back he could take more risks.

If he came out right now in favor of an alternative New Deal style solution to the crisis he would win an LBJ type landslide, and the right wingers would be routed for a generation or more. He would enter office with a strong mandate, and we could start repairing the country. The people would support him. But he has to have us on board with that.

Too many people are placing their pro-free market views above a Democratic victory and above rebuilding the country and giving the people relief. This has been the source of most of our failures over the last two decades or more, and the source of all of the division and rancor within the party.

The tail is wagging the dog.

[Tallison]

21. How's he being dragged into it?

He's going to vote for it. The OP is inquiring into whether any of the bill's detractors have considered why.

Hint: Obama's of terrific integrity, which should clue people into the necessity of this legislation right now.

[Two Americas]

35. that sabotages representative democracy

We are not choosing a Pope.

It is the politician's job to listen to and represent the people, not to decree doctrine from on high that we are all then obligated to genuflect to. He must assess what we are willing to support and fight for, and then chart his course accordingly.

No politician can do an effective job when we give them no feedback, nothing for them to represent. "Whatever you say boss" is not something anyone could represent and it should not be called "support" for the politician. To the contrary, that attitude hurts the politician. No executive can be effective when surrounded by "yes men." No democracy can thrive when the population is dominated by true blue loyalists, and a healthy back and forth between the people and their representatives is discouraged.

[Tallison]

43. Then Obama should oppose it?

Why, then, doesn't he?

[Two Americas]

46. that is not possible

The crisis and the dangers are very real.

[Tallison]

73. My point exactly

I thought you opposed passage of this legislation?

[Two Americas]

95. not that simple

Politics isn't that simple. Rarely is there an either/or yes or no situation. It is always the art of the possible and involves compromise.

For example, if there were broad support here (which is representative of a certain influential group of people) for Obama to take a stronger position on the bailout, I think that could work. But if we sit back waiting to see what merchandise is presented to us, then deciding whether or not we like it, we are pushing politicians to be more cautious. Under those circumstances I do not blame Obama for being cautious. We are not encouraging bold leadership either when we in effect say we will support them no matter what they do, and show no courage ourselves. Once the politician makes a statement, then we all get in line and demand that everyone else does as well. Very weak.

Some sort of bailout needs to happen. (Like it is up to me.) But I think that the strong position for us to take right now is to oppose it, in order to force the best possible terms for working people. It is not so simple as merely being for it or against it, lining up on opposite sides, and screaming at each other. The voice of the poor and left behind, the working poor, is the one that gets heard the least, so there is no harm done in advocating for them as strongly as possible.

You can't achieve anything politically without negotiating, and you can't negotiate successfully when you start with the position you would settle for."No bailout" is a strong position from which to start negotiations. That forces the other side to come back with a compromise. When people here say "no bailout? Are you out of your mind? The whole economic system will collapse!!! Are you a communist or otherwise deranged or something??" all that does is weaken us. Convincing me to stop saying "no bailout" is what will save the economy? I don't think so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. New Deal? What's that? A new mythology

you'd be surprised at how many people didn't read this bill,

If they had, they would have realized a couple things

There was no mention of ACORN anywhere in any draft... lying scum-bag on the floor (repug)

And they would also realize that the legislation to expand HOPE was pulled out of whole cloth from 1930s era legislation... the same kind that took over bad mortgages

So there WAS plenty of New Deal legislation

My favorite question is... why did the Chicago School fanatics oppose this?

Now was this perfect... no bill is perfect... but once credit dries out, and it is already starting to... people MIGHT finally get it

[Two Americas]

39. I agree

When this started, there were people saying we must support the bailout, and that opposing it would make things worse.

Instead, as a result of the opposition we have a better bill, as you say.

The pro-bailout people are now saying "it is a better bill, so support it and stop opposing it."

Why? Opposing it is working.

[Two Americas]

44. by the way

I am not promoting a New Deal approach because that is what I "like" or because of personal ideology or preference.

I am convinced - and I think you are as well - that this is what is going to be required, sooner or later. The alternative is too grisly and catastrophic to consider - as you have argued so persuasively for so long and in the face of so much indifference and opposition and ignorance.

This also has nothing to do with what is practical, rather it is what is inevitable. With public support, anything is possible, and there has been more change in public sentiment over the last few days then in the previous 30 years. Anything can happen, and it is far to early to settle for anything, and it is not the right time to talk about what is practical and realistic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Why I sent letter to proper committees et al tonight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4129044&mesg_id=4129044

And will call again TOMORROW

You will realize this is a new deal aproach

[Two Americas]

53. absolutely

You are right on all of this, and your work is very much appreciated and important. I am burning up the lines. I have access and friendships, from my work, to a lot of Congressional staffers. The cinversations are intebse. This is one of the most remarkable political episodes in our history. The stakes are high, and the dangers are great.

Congressional offices are flooded with calls and email from constituents, running as much as 200-1 against the bailout. Many staffers recognize the opportunity here to move into strong opposition to Reaganomics and leverage that into electoral victories and a new revived party and provide real relief for the American people.

We must tell them that we support doing something, on the one hand - that we recognize the crisis - and that we will help them turn this into a positive rather than a negative on the other. No politician can buck the sort of public sentiment as there is against the bailout. Yet no responsible leader can let the financial system collapse. That battle is going on in our circles, the speakers and writers and political junkies and bloggers and activists.

The word on the street, among the workers in the farm communities and packing plants - the phrase on everyone's lips - is "we need another New Deal." The people will now support this. If we blabber mouths and smarty pants folks will get behind that we can go a long way to shifting the discussion among the chattering class about this. That is where the logjam is now. We make more noise than the everyday people can make. We need to echo what they are saying, be their voice...

"No bailout for the fat cats, we need another New Deal."

That satisfies all needs. It will encourage and strengthen our leaders, it will be supported by the people, it will reassure people, it will restore confidence, it will give us direction, it will succeed politically, and most importantly it is the best approach to resolving the crisis and facing this dire emergency.

Neither a bailout, nor rejection of the bailout will achieve any of that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. I have also said that people ned to take to the streets

here is the essay posted both here and DKOS

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/29/13419/5338/897/614382

Here it mostly got crickets

There... doing a tad better but not by much

People are not ready to leave the four walls and have the rubber meet the road

[Two Americas]

63. I hear you

Americans have always been slow to respond to crisis, but determined and relentless and unified once they finally do get going.

Just keep pushing.

[OneGrassRoot]

71. Thank you TA and Nadin. :) n/t

[Lil Missy]

22. Simple. Because he's right.

:)

[Tallison]

25. DING, DING - We have a winner!!!!

:hi:

[Lil Missy]

34. ......

:hi:

[scheming daemons]

28. I was asking the irrational folks, not you.

;-)

[Lil Missy]

37. Oops! Sorry!

I didn't mean to screw up your OP with common sense.

I'm really trying to work on that. :P

[Two Americas]

54. the consolation prize

Being right is the consolation prize in politics. The Republicans go for results, we settle for being right.

Adlai Stevenson was right. So was George McGovern. Dukakis and Mondale were too. Gore and Kerry were right.

Kennedy and Johnson and Clinton went for results, not for being right.

[magellan]

26. You're operating under the assumption that Obama knows any more about this

...than anyone else. He's a civil rights/constitutional lawyer, not an economist. He's working with the same information the rest in Congress have and is going along with the majority -- reluctantly -- because he's deferring to the leadership. As so many Dems are.

I'm sure he'd prefer to put off the meltdown as long as possible so he can handle it properly from the Oval Office. But NO ONE is willing to say how long this bailout will put off the coming reckoning. It could be mere weeks. Heck, Treasury doesn't even know how much is needed. They pulled the $700 billion figure out of thin air. They've already spent over a trillion and the problem persists.

Just because Obama's a presidential candidate doesn't mean he knows everything. And I'd point out again that his support for this bailout is RELUCTANT. Which says to me he knows enough to understand it isn't the cure-all some want to think it is.

Call his support of the bailout "being hopeful".

[scheming daemons]

29. He has 300 economic advisors... some of the best minds around...advising him...

[NoSheep]

30. What exactly is it you're looking for here? Your posts end with this...

An elipsis. That's a clear sign you're trying to elicit a particular response. Why would you be doing that?

[NoSheep]

32. I'll take my answer in the morning.

[scheming daemons]

36. Just the way I type.... I use multiple periods.... no plan involved.....

[LaydeeBug]

76. you do know that his top economic advisors are from Right wing University of Chicago, right?

you know that the university of chicago *is* a right wing haven, right? It seems that you are confused....

[magellan]

31. And his reluctance? n/t

[Tallison]

38. Its political unpopularity? nt

[Two Americas]

59. of course

He is a very smart politician. He should be cautious. Nothing wrong with that.

We should be backing him up - not in his caution, not by advocating the safe move, but rather in supporting him taking a bold new approach, getting ahead of public opinion and gaining control over the issue. That means moving toward the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party, and he can do that if we can find the courage to speak out for that and give him cover and support.

[Two Americas]

68. well...

If he has the good ones, they would be telling him to reject this bailout.

[L. Coyote]

33. What is he for exactly is a better question. Object "it" is rather vague!!

No bill in the Senate, no support for the Bush version, what do we have?

[Tallison]

40. Up until the moment the legislation failed, 'it' would be that very legislation

he said he'd vote for once it passed the House.

[Eric J in MN]

41. Obama is big on compromise.

Bush proposed a bill and Chris Dodd changed it, making it a compromise.

However, I disagree with the basic idea of what Bush proposed. I don't want the government buying trash from Wall Street.

[readmoreoften]

42. And the 300 economists who warned against it? He has "the best" economists?

No, he doesn't. He has acceptable, status quo economists who won't become red flags during an election campaign. Barack Obama is doing what's going to get Barack Obama elected. And that's exactly what he should be doing on this issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. You do realize that those people are Chicago Boys?

That should have sent red flags up the pole

[Eric J in MN]

47. A guy who was CEO of Goldman Sachs two years ago....

...asking for $700 billion which he can give some of to Goldman Sachs should also raise red flags.

Henry Paulson is to Goldman Sachs as Dick Cheney is to Halliburton.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. And chicago boys are a great danger

free clue... during the great depression people working on the new deal put country before ideology

They were not popular either early on

[Art_from_Ark]

51. Here's another free clue

Paulsen originally wanted the money to "bail out" his buds on Wall Street-- no strings attached, no oversight, no review (except his! Ha Ha!). $700 billion to dump into the slop trough. That should sound warning bells right there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. and why do you think they went from three pages, truly two and a half

to 130 pages with plenty of oversight?

Read the bill?

[Art_from_Ark]

55. 130 pages

with plenty of oversight?
Just who is doing the overseeing?

There was supposed to be "oversight" with Iraq funds, but billions there are unaccounted for.

There's supposed to be "oversight" with Pentagon money, but they still can't account for a trillion or more.

Hell, there hasn't been any "oversight" in the last 7 1/2 years! But there has been a lot of dipping into the public cookie jar, turning a trillion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar deficit practically overnight. Why should I believe that this time, it WILL be different?

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. The US House and Senate relevant committees

and we are at one moment in US history where SOMETHING will give...

The question is HOW.

Now you have not read the bill I am sure...

I have, and have been doing quite a bit of policy letters to congress

I advise you do the same

[Art_from_Ark]

65. The House and the Senate have kowtowed nearly every time

They have not shown a backbone to do anything to stop this nonsense, even with a Democratic majority.

But this time the House has at least taken an old but wise saying into account:

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. The mood is interesting

like I have never heard it before

And I have called, emailed et al since 2000

[Hannah Bell]

69. 'nother clue. junius morgan & fdr: shared a grandpa.

through blood ties & marriage, they linked:

bank of new york
chemical bank
morgan & co.

...& others.

[girl gone mad]

56. Most of them are not Chicago boys.

And not all of the Chicago boys are Friedmanites.

Why not debate the merits of their statement rather than just attack the messenger?

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Because I checked their profiles

and a good percentage are Friedmanites

But that is ok

Have YOU proposed some policy over at your local Congress?

Oh wait, you will not be affected.... either way

[girl gone mad]

62. Why do you have to throw in insults?

I have told my congressional leaders the proposal that I support.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Insults, no... reality, MOST people scream

that is all

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Because he'd never have gotten the nomination if his economics

strayed too far from conventional wisdom as defined by the financial establishment.

The media simply ignore anyone whose economics aren't bog standard.

[Two Americas]

61. better angels

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it.

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.





I think we need to listen now to the "whispering angels."

[eridani]

70. Same reason he caved on FISA

I think he should dare them to strip the provisions allowing the Sec. Treas. to disobey any consequences. Not necessary for any bailout plan. If the supporters of the plan won't do this, they are essentially saying there is no crisis.

[conspirator]

72. D. HE IS STILL A DEMOCRAT. BUT HE IS A CORPORATE CANDIDATE NEVERTHELESS

Dennis and Edwards were the only non corporate candidates.

[LaydeeBug]

74. He was trying to expedite the process so that he can get back to gettin'.

He was wrong, imo, just like he was dead wrong on FISA.

Why? Do I have to sign a loyalty oath, or swear that if he does it, it is good?

[LynnTheDem]

75. LOVE the strawman options! Why did Dennis Kucinich vote NO?

A. Does he not want to win?

B. Is he secretly a Republican?

C. Does he want to save Bush's legacy?


:rofl:

[Two Americas]

102. it is a riot, isn't it?

The post starts with "an honest question..."

Why did the chicken cross the road?

A. It is a Republican

B. The sky is falling

C. To get away from the fox that Bush put in charge of the hen house

D. To escape terrorists

E. To make a run on the bank

F. It lost its nest egg on Wall Street

[Geek_Girl]

77. These are trying economic times for everyone

and he wants to lessen the bumpy ride as much as possible. But IMHO our country will go through this bumpy ride with or without the bailout plan.

I rather see the 700 billion go to large government works projects to shore up the economy than to Wall street. There are so many better things we could do with that money that would stimulate the economy.

He needs to start thinking like FDR!

[jonnyblitz]

78. Obama is only showing his TRUE colors that is why. not ALL of us

are fooled or surprised or deluded about where he stands. :D :hi:

[Subdivisions]

79. How much MONEY DO YOU HAVE AT STAKE?

I asked you this more than once yesterday while you were running around here with your hair on fire.

I'll ask one more time: HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE RIDING ON A BAILOUT BILL BEING PASSED?

And don't tell me it's none of my business. Your lobbying for this bailout makes your stake relevant to addressing you any further on this issue.

Ed.: spelling

[Tallison]

82. I've invested about $20,000 in IRAs and 401ks

but portfolios are not the issue. It's about credit liquidity and hence inventory, overhead, and payrolls. Small business will be the first to feel this, not Fat Cats, who will survive in some semblence of luxury regardless of the bill's passage.

Folks here need to educate themselves about the specific issue of credit liquidity and how average people's quality of life depends on them. For the working class, credit liquidity is about keeping groceries on the table.

[PVnRT]

85. And another DU poster who assumes

that anyone not agreeing with them is a Wall Street fat cat.

[donco6]

91. Bingo.

He's been on that jag for two days.

[randr]

80. He acted the same way the typical democrat has acted throughout the whole Bush administration

When * says bark or the sky will fall they all bark.
I am a rabid Obama supporter but this is how I call it.

[Marie26]

81. Because he's funded by the banking ind & advised by Warren Buffet. nt

[Dr Fate]

83. Believe it or not-even successful politicians make poor choices every now & then.

I know, I know, hard to believe. ;)

[alarimer]

84. He listens to his corporate masters.

Obviously they matter more than we do. Like the completely corporate sponsored DNC.

[KG]

94. +1

[BlooInBloo]

100. Can you name one of those masters, please?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Politics as usual.

He's playing for the middle. Kinda for it, kinda not.

[brazos121200]

87. Let's face it, we're going to get some kind of bailout plan, and

Obama knows it. He's afraid that things will get out of hand if something is not done, as many here do. He supported the bailout plan because he believes it would hold back the coming economic collapse until after he is in office, and he believes he can then prevent or lessen it.

I think Democrats should try to hold on to the 700 billion until after the election, or more precisely, until after January 20th, and then, with enlarged majorities in both houses and Obama in the White House, they can design an economic package which will really do some good, and without W's man Henry Paulson controlling the money. Once the 700 billion is spent, it is gone.

[ddeclue]

88. You are mischaracterizin what he is FOR...

He is for helping middle class people struggling with economic difficulties.

He is for reregulating these out of control businesses and corporate execs.

The bailout just offers leverage over these businesses to accomplish this task. He's got them over a barrel.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. A.

Why? Did you support the FISA legislation?

[LatteLibertine]

96. There

are a lot of good alternative plans out there that do not include rewarding the folks that created this mess. That won't address the real problem. They will just steal most of it and come back for more. It simply should not be an option.

Senator Obama needs to get together with Dennis Kucinich and others to look at alternatives.

[Individualist]

97. He's a "centrist"

[SnoopDog]

98. That is a valid question....

...where one could only speculate...

But the best guess I have is as another poster said - Obama is a corporatist as is 99 percent of our 'leaders'. And he will not rock the boat. Just like Clinton...

And just for fun, your 'honest question' sure is hard to understand with one of your posts (as I copied for reference).

.....
scheming daemons (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-29-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. I was asking the irrational folks, not you.
.....

[BlooInBloo]

99. Because he's MEAN and he's STUPID!!! DUers are SOOOOO much smarter than he is!!!

:rofl:

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

101. I'm inclined to believe that...

...Senator Obama would not want to rush into signing something as crappy as the bill Candidate Obama supported. :)

[mhatrw]

103. Why do you think he's for offshore drilling and domestic spying?

Why do you thinks he's for a $700 billion defense budget and against single payer health care?

[Dover]

104. WHY is Kucinich and others AGAINST it?

Are they just not as smart as Obama?

[scarletwoman]

106. Oh, that's easy. He's firmly ensconced in the Establishment.

Here's what I posted in a different thread:

Obama will be obliged to work for the Owners, just as any U.S. president must, of necessity. It's how the System is set up, and he has never been about seriously challenging the status quo -- just look at his foreign policy positions, he has absolutely no intention of challenging the paradigm of American Imperialism -- he just wants to make it work better.

Obviously, any person in the position of "Leader of the Free World", must, by definition, be considered a member of the Ruling Class.

However, I do believe that in regard to domestic issues he will act in the time-honored tradition of Noblesse Oblige. I do not disparage that. The Ruling Class throughout history, has now and again thrown up genuinely good-hearted people who sincerely strive to improve the lot of the peasants, like FDR, for example.

Obama is NOT a populist, or even necessarily a progressive, but he's a decent man who will probably do some good things that will mitigate some of the suffering of the American masses, even as he ensures that the Empire will continue.

I'm a realist, I'll settle for mitigation -- no problem. Especially if it gives the People some breathing room to organize themselves to challenge the System more effectively. Real change HAS to come from the bottom up, not the top down.

I hope that answers your question. If not, I'll be glad to elaborate further.

sw

[Imagevision]

107. Obama will simply undo the problems created by the Bushco administration and

unfortunately it will take a weebit more then 8 years to get the US. somewhere near to be on a 'right track' again.
Bush was strictly a big biz president and the rich & famous made out big-time and it'll be the Dem's job to ensure the milk & butter keep getting delivered.

[neverforget]

108. He's going to inherit an economic shit sandwich regardless of this

bill passing or not. This bill may hide the symptoms of the deeper problem for awhile but it will be back.