I wonder if Ralph could see the difference between an Obama and a Bush presser?

I know I sure saw a difference. Mr. Obama gave real answers to real out of the blue questions and he made sense. I never once saw Bush pull that off. Bush could never have handled the hardball questions that Mr. Obama responded to and remained cool and calm. I think we made a wise choice when we voted for our new president.

I can't believe that some of the democrats in congress are not in this man's corner when he's trying his best to do what's right for the country and what has to be done to try and get us out of the fix we are in.

His mind wasn't a deep bench.

and I found it compelling. It's good to be remembered how Chimpy abused the system - and PRESS LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT!!!

"On April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush held the most recent of only three primetime news conferences since coming to office in January 2001."

http://tinyurl.com/dx8onz

What I'm finding mighty entertaining tonight is watching the almost total disconnect between the Washington media folks - like Chris Matthews and others (but not KO and Rachel) - and the rest of the United States citizens.

These "pundits" don't have a clue as to how beloved Obama is out there. They're completely clueless that Obama has the backing of the citizenry while the media is busy trying to put him down.

Idiots.

He knows that Obama is about doing big things. Well, I guess all you have to have is a pulse to see that happening. But he does appear to be in Obama's corner and understands the challenges ahead and is figuring out the strategy. I think he wants Obama to succeed with a passion.

Matthews is as schizoid as they come with political figures. He can just as easily be all up in Obama's face tomorrow.

But, when he's on our President Obama's side, I like him very much. And, yes, I think Matthews wants Obama to succeed, too, if only because he's a history geek who would love to watch big (and good) history being made............

"Decide"

truly pissing me off. If they don't understand what it means to be a Democrat today, where the fuck have they been for the last eight years?

Whose asses are they kissing, do you think? I don't understand this disloyal bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032403493.html?hpid=topnews

Democrats Take Knife To Obama's Budget
Billions Targeted to Bring Deficits Down

But you're right, what's with the timing? Fuel to the fire? I don't know, but I'm not feeling the love, and I think we are on the right track with this agenda.

Maybe a preemptive shot, so Dems can say they were involved in tuning the new budget down? I don't know.

Joe Biden for VP instead of him. It reminds me of a Joe LIEberman type cry baby based turning of the coat.

Teehee.

Yeah, whatever. Just saying.

But then it's hard to see things when one's head is so far up one's ass.

Want to explain why one isn't as much of a Supply-Side inspired hand out to the elite investor class than the other?

Maybe my head is up my ass to, along with Ralph. All I see is shit.

"What's your plan?"

Edit...What's Ralph's plan?

But I know the answer. There is little difference. They are both supply-side inspired mechanisms built to ensure the bank owners will not lose their ass, and instead, the government will in their place. The underlying philosophy is that we need these people to trickle fiscal love upon the country.

Paulson actually took a more socialistic approach, suggesting the government should retain full ownership share of the assets (along with full liability), and could mitigate loss with profits from good assets. Geithner suggests the government should be liable for 85% of the assets, and only profit a fraction from them, which could, if investors bail on the bad assets, cost the people a fortune.

Both plans essentially suck because 1) they are overly obsessed at ensuring stake holders do not loose a cent, 2) they don't give a damn if the government loses a fortune making the upper class happy, and 3) they only ensure credit CAN flow, not that it WILL flow. Instead, we merely hope that the owners we treat well will feel like investing back into this economy in the middle of the worst financial crisis in years (seems counter-intuitive). Have they heard of "deficient demand"?

My approach? Do not buy the assets. Buy the companies and save a fortunate (their stock is at shit levels). Thereafter, you own the assets. Sell them off to clean the banks, then sell the bank ownership back to the private market at its new adjusted, clean price. Its not magic. Its much like the Swedish model. And guess what...you do that and the government profits. Who loses? The owners of the shitty bank. They lose for owning a shitty bank.

This wont ensure credit will flow from the newly cleaned banks, but it is another mechanism that clears their asset sheets. If you want to ensure credit flows, make the environment more attractive to investors (instead of just handing money to investors). Make investors see profit on the ground. Make them see money. You do this by taking the profits from the bank cleaning and injecting them, Keynesian style, into stimulating the economy. Not at the top (banker/investment level), but at the bottom. When you can ensure that people have jobs again and paychecks to buy things, investors will get off the sideline. Potential profits in the real word is enough incentive to get investors back in the game. You don't have to reach-around on em till the sun goes down. It wont make them spend a dime, unless they think they can get a quarter back.

Its been a long day of ranting. The Bush admin and the Obama admin have both come up with plans that coddle the investor class at our loss; they are both based on the philosophical assumption that we are nothing without the investors (Ayn Rand style). Ralph, and I, have utter disdain at such nonsense.

All I see is shit.

And what I really see, is that every day that we hand more money that we really don't even have to the fat cats who started this snowball rolling, MY dollars are diminishing into total shit. Shitty dollars won't buy much when you're all the way up shit creek with one oar in the shitty water going round in endless circles.

I don't agree with several of the people Mr. Obama has placed in high places, but I have to believe that we are in better hands than we were six months ago. At least we have a president that can change course if he sees that he has made a mistake. I don't think Judd Gregg would have been any better or any different than Geithner.

All I can really do to help myself, is what I did today...I plowed up my garden. A place where shit comes in handy sometimes, if you know your shit, about shit.

BTW...spell check says Geithner is not even a real word, so maybe he will just go away like Dumbya who also was not a real word did.

Spell check also use to have issues with Barack Obama. Props on the garden!