the whole bailout thing is so ridiculous i can't even think about it!
(both bailouts)yeah!
the country is changing too much
i shouldn't have voted for change
I don't like it
blog thatyeahyeah, things would have stayed just the way they are with McCain
i will
what a wonderful idyll that would have beeni have a queue of things to blog right now
i know
9:20 AMthere's no way to vote against change
we get change whether we like it or not
we would have gone right back to pre-FDR levels of government at the push of a button thanks
to the ultra-conservative McCainhe was too liberal for me
so i had to vote for obama
that's true!!
I mean, it's not like he would have had to work with any liberals in Congresswhat? he loves to do that
it's his thing
i knowhe'd do it whether he had to or not
२२ नोव्हेंबर, २००८
"I shouldn't have voted for change... I don't like it..."
IMing at 9:19 AM:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४२ टिप्पण्या:
Whoa! Could it be?
Jeez, I thought Arianna Huffington "only text[s] three people - my two teenage children and Barack Obama"?
Maybe Obama has dumped his Blackberry already?
It's an Althouse trick.
(Note there is not catchy line under her blogname.)
There is no idea given who is IMing whom or which, or whatever the case may be.
Besides it's nuts -- weren't they talking bailout before the election?
That was so long ago I can't remember a thing. It's so Obama all the time all day long I can't remember anything different.
Besides, what's not to like? Bailout the car guys (I thought that's what bankruptcy protection was for -- whatever chapter it is), bailout the banks (Citigroup anyone? Is Chase next?) Bailout the whole of America -- banks, big businesses, mortgages, AIG types, pensions, and everyone else (except those mysterious "rich" people making more than what -- $150,000 selling shoe laces on the corner).
No problemo -- the mint will just keep printing money.
That's what they do in Zimbawe, right?
It's also what happens when you let the foxes and wolves have the farm.
Ah, i didn't vote for the man. but, even though it may not appear that way, last time i checked, Obama is not in office yet.
For what is worth Microsoft spellcheck still not recognizing him as the one.
Bit late for buyer's remorse. There's no new information that's come to light since election day to change the calculus.
Is Lem belittling the Office of the President-elect?
"Bit late for buyer's remorse."
Reread the dialogue.
When have I ever said I wish I'd voted for McCain?
Althouse is trying to trick the little people again, perhaps in the service of some larger point.
It's an economist's Christmas. So many lab experiments!
Like Scientific American on the end of the world, ``The most interesting scientific event of the decade.''
The old Scientific American, before it went lefty.
Cool. It's Asian theme day.
IMing, the Dalai Lama, Mao Zedong.
Is Lem belittling the Office of the President-elect?
I think it's safe until Jan 20 ;)
At the moment the Fed is not printing money. It's transferring risk from banks to itself, and the money just goes in a circle back and forth carrying risk and depositing it in the Fed.
The money supply if anything is collapsing as banks deleverage so as to get enough capital to support the risk they're still carrying. That's why the Fed is taking up risk that the banking system can't itself support.
1. Fed sells some bonds, getting some initial money out of the economy from a random place.
2. Fed lends the banks money, and the banks give the Fed some risky collateral.
3. The banks deposit the money back in the Fed. Now the Fed owns the risk and the banks own the money.
4. Go to step 2 and repeat.
Sooner or later the bank will be safe enough for somebody else to be confident lending it some money, which is the endpoint of the socalled bailout.
That it gets talked into bailing out this or that industry is Democrat opportunism. There's money, let's take it over.
The counterproductive item in the Fed plan at the moment is that when they take over a bank, the shareholders get wiped out, which makes owning bank shares risky. Citicorp at the moment is in a shareholder ``bank run'' and may fail for that reason alone. Wiping out the owners might not be a good idea, though it was thought to be one initially.
Another economist experiment produces a result.
"Change" was never more than a slogan, and anyone who thinks bailouts wouldn't have happened under McCain is deluded. We're sailing into a storm, that's for sure, but that would have been true regardless of the election results.
In any event the president doesn't have a whole lot of domestic power in our system - the real potential for change that occurred this election was the shift in Senate seats. Even if the Democrats don't end up with a filibuster-proof majority, they'll be able to peel off a liberal Republican (like Snowe) if the really want something passed.
Freeman Hunt, is that really your picture? Ooooh, pretty...
Well it may not be classified as "buyer's remorse" and its still early but its damn sure not the kind of "Change We Can Believe In".
Really? Everyone is upset with Obama? Why?
I have no buyer's remorse whatsoever. The team he's putting together might have a tinge of Clintonism, but for the most part it represents what was good about Clinton. There aren't any Mack McClartys so far. Instead, you've got a lot of business-friendly, non-kumbaya-afflicted centrists. Even his worst pick, Eric Holder, is pretty hawkish where it counts (and a few places where it shouldn't, like the war on drugs.)
Andrew Sullivan is having more buyers' remorse than I am. That right there is a good sign.
I think Obama's plan is to be the spokesperson for a lot of difficult policy decisions for which there is little short-term upside but critical long-term effects. Much like Reagan in '81-'82 and unlike Clinton, Obama will be willing to risk his high approval ratings for the sake of needed solutions. He won't everything right, and he isn't good enough to win 'em all. But his error rate will be less than McCain's would have been.
Freeman Hunt, is that really your picture?
No, it's my husband's.
It's an economist's Christmas. So many lab experiments!
Heh.
I wonder if there will be anywhere left to do an experiment on that little tried system known as capitalism.
I didn't vote Obama (I felt the pull largely on an age or generational basis, but simply couldn't afford him and/or his policies.)
I mostly like his picks so far.
I would think then that the majority of the primary season Obamamites WOULD be experiencing heavy buyer's remorse (if I'm happy), but they don't seem to be.
I wonder if there will be anywhere left to do an experiment on that little tried system known as capitalism.
Maybe in the Mideast, maybe in some Asian countries. But in the west? Forget about it.
We've reached the end of history, and as soon as all the right people are in charge, "change" will stop being a slogan and turn into a blasphemy.
The Obama / FDR comparisons are not based on any kind of reality whatsoever...
The claim that FDR "saved us" from the Great Depression is simple ignorance or outright deception. Roosevelt inherited the economic problems largely created by Hoover and made them much worse.
The historical case is of obvious relevance to us today.
http://tinyurl.com/4xb8ak
Most historians and political scientists... recognize that it was not FDR's leadership, accomplishments, and certainly not his temperament which brought the Great Depression to an end.
World War II brought the Great Depression to an end.
http://tinyurl.com/5pupw6
We just put in office the last guy likely to get us out of this rut.
Oh, IM'ing...I thought, who's I Ming?
So far I like Obama's appointments, but his 2.5 million infrastructure jobs thing worries me. That means 2.4 million bureaucrats with "partners" like Acorn and La Raza, and a few real project here and there.
I think the real thing we'll see, as PatCA points out, is progress in making the Democrats invulnerable to the whims of democracy.
Both parties do this very well, but the Dems better than the Reps.
After all, it really doesn't matter what shape the country is in if you're in charge.
Andrew Sullivan is having more buyers' remorse than I am. That right there is a good sign.
You're clearly not reading Sullivan closely enough. He thinks the Obama choices so far are solid, with the exception of Brennan (who has not been selected officially yet).
So far, the solid conventionality of his cabinet picks - with the sole exception of torture apologist Jim Brennan - seems exactly what I'd expect from a serious man intent on serious government."
Name one campaign promise that it looks like Obama is going to follow... I mean one with which he has come out with an unequivocated commitment.
Seems to me he is committed to none and walking back all. If he walks them back far enough, they recede from the minds of voters, and it's as if they were never promised at all.
The new campaign mantra "I just never got around to it."
Now how is that for change you can BELIEVE in?
This whole election is insane. The campaign was insane. The result is insane. Someone put psychotropic drugs in the national water supply.
It's estrogen in the voter pool.
And the need for audience.
We have elected our third consecutive light-weight for President. The parties and the voters have gambled once too often. As, unfortunately, the times are serious. I don't forsee any progress under Obama but I do expect high drama. The good news I see is Hillary and Gates are going to curb the stupid ideas of Biden and give our allies some assurance that adults DO oversee US foreign policy. Obama's role is to look good and focus on economy.
Stephanie said...Name one campaign promise that it looks like Obama is going to follow... I mean one with which he has come out with an unequivocated commitment.
I can name two. Hope and Change.
Many people had hope that a black male could win the highest honor in America and hoped that his success would give them the thrill of black victory.
One promise fulfilled. Did you see the faces at the post election rally?
Change. Old White men who look like the old White men on the money - out of the White House. Republicans out.
Second promise fulfilled.
Now will he change America's "brand"? Change the world's perceptions of America?
Some say he already has.
The other stuff - economy, health care, defense, global environment change, lion and lamb spooning in the moonlight, parting the Red Sea. That was all the promises a guy makes just to get a woman to spread her legs.
Hey, it worked. Single women went for the Big O in a big way.
Now go complain to your girlfriends about what a jerk he is.
You're clearly not reading Sullivan closely enough.
You're not paying me enough.
Maybe I'm having psychic visions. I suspect we'll see much more continuity with Bush policies on several areas where Andrew was quite Bush-deranged.
I think Obama's first security briefing was an "oh wow" moment for our new president.
That's just what we call "pillow talk", baby!
Yes, blake, the machine will be whirring away in the background. Obama is very smart; his real work will be building a permanent, dependent electorate.
Now go complain to your girlfriends about what a jerk he is.
His pillow talk didn't work for me.
And I don't have "girlfriends." Too damn many women are into the whole "touchy feely" claptrap to hold my interest in a conversation. Conversations require logic, not feelings.
The hope that a black man is gonna be prez is not a campaign promise. Promises are things that can be broken, and if you think he is suddenly gonna disown his blackness...
And change ain't "I'm not white guys who look like money"... I haven't seen many republicans in wigs in years. Or do republican white guys have some distinguishing characteristic that allows ready identification that would allow them to be differentiated from Biden, Holder, et al? I know Clinton's member is purported to veer left, but I don't remember the last cabinet meeting that was held in a nudist colony to discern if that is a perquisite for office under Obama.
To wit, you haven't noted a single campaign PROMISE that he has not already done some serious walking back and serious prevarication on. I can't think of one.
His words really do have a shelf life of less than 24 hours. Now that is the change I have seen and can believe...
Stephanie said...The hope that a black man is gonna be prez is not a campaign promise. Promises are things that can be broken, and if you think he is suddenly gonna disown his blackness...
It wasn't blackness as such it was victorious blackness taking over the highest status position in America. That's a lot of hope and he did it. That's a promise fulfilled to a lot of people.
And change ain't "I'm not white guys who look like money"... I haven't seen many republicans in wigs in years. Or do republican white guys have some distinguishing characteristic that allows ready identification that would allow them to be differentiated from Biden, Holder, et al?
Change was always THE racial code word of the election. Not even a month after the election and a black president is no big deal. That's an insane amount of change and for a lot of Americans and others world wide that's the change they hoped for and they got it.
To wit, you haven't noted a single campaign PROMISE that he has not already done some serious walking back and serious prevarication on. I can't think of one.
I didn't vote for him. My guy Romney got killed off in Florida in the primaries.
His words really do have a shelf life of less than 24 hours.
What's the surprise? We all knew the swing vote was going to be single women. We all knew he was going to wine and dine them, promise them this and that.
And we all knew the single, no man having, got bills to pay, distaff dingbats were going to pick the young Harry Belafonte/Denzel over the Little Crypt Keeper.
Seriously, who didn't know this other than Republicans who voted for McCain in the primaries?
It was a desire of alot of people.. but not a promise. That is why so much of this campaign was spent in the clouds of obfuscation. Words mean things. And unfortunately, his words, mean different things to different people (see Ann for example). Kinda hard to run against a doppelganger that can't be pinned down and effective points and counterpoints debated.
The next campaign season begins now with taking back political speech first by defining and defending what words mean and holding your ground without the boogey man argument taking hold.
Simon said...
Bit late for buyer's remorse. There's no new information that's come to light since election day to change the calculus.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/german-publishings-man-in-the-white-house/
This bothers me.
I kept up to speed on most of the pre-election gossip and near misses. (And hope I sorted them reasonably.) I didn't know about this.
Probably won't bother a lot of people -- especially the NYT and WaPo -- since short of being an ax murderer, no one cares about anything questionable with Obama.
There's something off about this Bertelsmann thing. It would be interesting to have some one who has the can do to look into this closely.
Maybe Obama needs to give the money back.
I think it's funny how many people missed the irony here.
Ann voted against McCain, a choice it's hard to argue against. She presumed he really wasn't for "change", not in the material sense. (Sure, something tangential like race, but not really policy-wise.)
If McCain had been truly conservative--i.e., resistant to change--she probably wouldn't have voted for Obama.
The one change I would like to see if the death knell of scandal politics. Let Obama govern, and let him fail or succeed based on his policies. Let's not have this Clinton and Bush baggage bullshit any more. It's trite and tiresome.
Our vacation from history is definitely over now.
Seven,
I think history's going to be taking a vacation from us, actually.
Conversations require logic, not feelings.
No.
Conversations require, to the extent that conversations "require" anything, connection[s]. What particular requirements may attach to that reality among particular individuals or within particular communities is a whole different thing.
I didn't take any formal logic courses so maybe someone can explain this part of the conversation to me:
"he was too liberal for me
so i had to vote for obama
that's true!!"
McCain was "too liberal" so the choice was for Obama?!? (Maybe this is one of those 'why settle for the lesser of two evils' things...)
Rob,
You're making the implicit assumption that "too liberal" meant that Ann wanted less "liberalism".
What she wanted (at least in part) was a clear choice. Obama was clearly "liberal" but McCain was not clearly "conservative". McCain is not clearly anything, other than McCain.
Despite the outrage here, it's not an unreasonable stance. Arguably, eight years of the big-state mild so-con GWB have left us with the political choice of "liberalism" and slightly less "liberalism".
It's better that we have a clear choice of two philosophies rather than of two men.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा