Comments on: 58 Days

By: Steve from Canuckistan

Steve from Canuckistan — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:50:34 +0000

…and to think Bush was jettin’ all around the county a few years ago, makin’ global warming worse, on his social security reform bamboozle. One wonders where people would be today if he’d met with any success. It’s one of those ..”what if” questions…Oh I forgot, junior has never been successful at anything in his entire life…including managing the US economy…I wonder if that sits in poppys’ craw..

By: MNPundit

MNPundit — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:44:59 +0000

One more thing, when people talk infrastructure, sure you have a number of construction companies and their assigns that will have jobs, but most people don’t work in construction, we have a majority of a service economy and people don’t do nearly as much “hand” labor so to speak, manufacturing etc. so how much do direct measures actually help?

By: moonbat

moonbat — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:17:46 +0000

Vast sums of money can move around the globe in an instant, unlike the 1930s. At this moment, dollars are pulling away from the periphery of the world economy, and back toward the core – resulting in a strengthening dollar. This ability of money to move instantly is why Paulson was forced to adopt the British plan of buying shares in the banks – if he didn’t follow suit, dollars would have left the US for safer banks overseas. And so 58 days is an eternity in the electronic age we find ourselves in.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:16:13 +0000

Today, bloggers on the Right are hysterical about the impending Obama Administration, which will combine the worst elements of Franklin Roosevelt and George McGovern.
Don’t forget Jimmy Carter. Any Democratic President is a Jimmy Carter clone until proven otherwise (according to the Right).

By: Doug Hughes

Doug Hughes — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:47:21 +0000

Conservatives have spent some effort dissing FDR & the New Deal over the years. For most folks the argument has been under the radar. Central to the economic recovery, as Obama has announced, is jobs. As FDR did, Obama is going to create labor-intensive projects, roads, schools & infrastructure.

The Repbs claim that these projects in the 30’s did not help and they extended the depression. In their reality, FDR got ‘lucky’ with WWII and that got us out of the depression. (Ask them why we are going into a depression while we are in the 6th & 7th years of 2 wars if wars are so good for the economy.)

The Republican philosophy has been VERY low prime interest rates – easy credit – and global competition to keep American wages down. Stagnant wages put a damper on inflation which is the frequent adverse side effect of a hyper-stimulated economy.

Obama is going to redirect middle-class tax breaks and gov’t sponsored job creation. Straight out of the FDR playbook. If the Republicans oppose and it passes AND if the recession subsides, then the GOP is doomed for decades. Because the perception – firmly entrenched – will be that the GOP caused the depression & the Democrats fixed it.

So expect a mainstream debate about FDR this year. The GOP is going to try to do a major rewrite of history which they will try to sell to the voter as part of their opposition to the economic plan.

By: Swami

Swami — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:29:56 +0000

The world of 1929-33 was one that lacked shock absorbers such as Social Security and deposit insurance to insulate people from economic disaster.

And what if you’re not eligible for Social Security, and are living a hand to mouth existence…like yours truly? Although, I am reassured knowing that the FDIC will cover my whole $16.00 dollars if the banks go belly up…it puts my mind at ease.

By: MNPundit

MNPundit — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:03:09 +0000

Grr, Slate I mean, not Salon. Whatever was I thinking? More substantively I guess, I wonder if we could practically move the transfer of power up and how far.

I know you can’t announce a shadow government during an election campaign because it’s illegal (you are promising people political jobs before you are in a position to give them) and while there might be unofficial agreements if Obama took over on Nov. 5 he probably wouldn’t have had the staff or time to get the people he wanted (he wants the wrong people, of course but…). Sure he might do that during the campaign, but it’s hard to ask someone to take time out of campaigning to do something that requires so much more time and effort.

I think there has to be some time between transitions though perhaps we could move it up to January 2? It’s not a huge boost, but something in me rebels against forcing it on someone too soon, or during the holidays of Thanksgiving–>New Years.

By: MNPundit

MNPundit — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:57:23 +0000

Paul Mellon? Bzzzrt! Paul Mellon was the horse breeder. Salon-boy means his father ANDREW Melllon. Paul Melon was 23 in 1930.

HA! HA!

By: Mike G

Mike G — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:08:42 +0000

deeply dysfunctional, bordering on scandalously irresponsible, in the fractious way our political elite are behaving

A proclamation from the pundit who cheerled an aggressive war with the flippant philosophy of ‘Suck. On. This.’

By: D.R. Marvel

D.R. Marvel — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:07:28 +0000

In & out…Roughly the same number of times…

Works great for me…