Yeah, We're Screwed

I talked about the current financial crisis in a non-political way a couple posts back.

Perhaps I should revise the post to make the outlook much more black. Take any economic issues we're facing and multiply them by two or more and you still might not be close to how bad Obama is getting ready to make it if this is his path. Looks like he's going full steam toward Europeanization out of the gate given rumored appointments. Many of these people, including him, have no clue, or realistic concern about what it takes to make a business work.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other government agencies that affect consumers, are likely to look very different under President Obama than they do under President Bush.

With the priority on economic posts, no consumer agency heads have yet been announced, though that hasn't stopped Washington from engaging in its favorite pastime, speculating on who's up and who's down.

At EPA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to have the inside track to head the agency. The Washington Post quotes sources familiar with the process as saying Kennedy is a strong candidate, through several other prominent environmentalists are also in the running.

Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, currently chairs a water quality group and serves as an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

If it turns out not to be Kennedy, the sources tell the Post that former Sierra Club president and environmental activist Lisa Renstrom is under consideration, as is California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty and Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles also reportedly have a shot at landing the post.

Comments

[jharp]

"you still might not be close to how bad Obama is getting ready to make it"

Or put more accurately. You still might not be close to how bad a situation George Bush and the republicans have put us into.

How's everyone feel about the trillion dollars we just pissed away on the Iraq goodwill mission?

We'll be fine. A sound energy policy, health care reform, and middle class tax cuts will get us on the right path.

Oh, and saving 12 billion a month by getting the hell out of Iraq will help too.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Please don't let it be Kennedy. He is the biggest whinner I have ever listened to.
He will really screw things up. I don't know about the others in the running.
We are all in for a wild ride for the next 4 years.

[jharp]

AP

WASHINGTON – The nation's jobless ranks zoomed past 10 million last month, the most in a quarter-century, as piles of pink slips shut factory gates and office doors to 240,000 more Americans with the holidays nearing. Politicians and economists agreed on a painful bottom line: It's only going to get worse.

The unemployment rate soared to a 14-year high of 6.5 percent, the government said Friday, up from 6.1 percent just a month earlier. And there was more grim news from U.S. automakers: Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp., American giants struggling to survive, each reported big losses and figured to be announcing even more job cuts before long."

Obama's fault I'm sure. We have moved past Clinton's fault by now I assume.

The faster everyone realizes supply side, trickle down, reaganomics is a failure the faster we can get past this disaster of republican policy.

[Wil]

jharp

What sound energy policy ?? The Democrats have none . Health Reform , it a joke because the only reforms that we are going to have are an addition of more bureaucrats and a mountain of regulations that has nothing to do with health care , but has everything to do with control and the proposed middle class tax cuts that nobody knows where it will start because from the promised greater than 250,000 dollars went to as low as 120,000 dollars depending who does the telling .

The Iraq war is expensive , but so much so are the financial black holes of Education , Welfare and of course , the massive bailouts made by the government to AIG , Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , the Big Three and others as well .

[Ralph]

The Senate questions with these nominees could be awesome. They won't be. The spectre of McCarthy would raise it's head.

When we fail to stand up for truth we are doomed to live the lie.

[MarkJ]

jharp,

What kind of weed are you smoking? Whatever it is, get off of it because it's fried your brain.

You, like Dear Leader, are assuming that history is going to take a holiday cruise on the S.S. Obama for the next four years. Sorry pal, but Putin, I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket, Chavez, the Chinese, and every other tin-horn regime are now getting in their submarines with the full intention of blowing the "Love Boat" out of the water.

Let me explain this to you one more time (although your Obamafied brain has turned to mush): It's going to take only one major crisis or natural disaster to totally f*** up Obama's "Great Leap Forward." The smart money says Israel is going to take off the gloves and hit Iran, sooner rather than later, to stop or delay Iran's nuclear program. Guess what that's likely going to lead to? Putin wants to be president of Russia again--and even now he's "pulling his pirogi" while looking at maps of the old Soviet Empire and pictures of Stalin. I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket may wake up one morning next year and tell himself, "Oh well, today's a nice day to pull the 13th Imam out of the well." Chavez? The Venezuelan economy is rapidly entering a death spiral, so "El Minimo Lider" may decide to start a "patriotic war" with Colombia to keep his supporters occupied. Try this on for size: a major earthquake either in California or in Middle America...or both. The possibilities are endless and all too plausible.

You still don't f***ing get it, do you? Obama may not be interested in crises, but crises is sure as f*** interested in him. State the following, rinse, and repeat: THERE WILL BE NO IRAQ DIVIDEND, THERE WILL BE NO IRAQ DIVIDEND....

[jharp]

Posted by: Wil | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 12:13 AM

Wil,

You wanna ask something specific? Go for it.

Before you do go to barackobama.com and read up. It's public information.

Otherwise I will treat your post as nonsense. Only because it was.

[jharp]

Posted by: MarkJ | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 12:16 AM

"Putin, I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket, Chavez, the Chinese, and every other tin-horn regime are now getting in their submarines with the full intention of blowing the "Love Boat" out of the water."

And you're accusing me of smoking the weed?

Put the crack pipe down. You're hallucinating.

Get a grip fella. We aren't in this alone anymore. Our election of Obama has gained us support.

"The Venezuelan economy is rapidly entering a death spiral"

I believe you meant the U.S. economy.

The George Bush republican nightmare is soon to be over. Don't fret. The adults are soon to be in charge.

And I guess "stay the course" in Iraq is now off the table?

[keith]

Posted by: MarkJ | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 12:16 AM

"Putin, I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket, Chavez, the Chinese, and every other tin-horn regime are now getting in their submarines with the full intention of blowing the "Love Boat" out of the water."

And you're accusing me of smoking the weed?

Put the crack pipe down. You're hallucinating.

Get a grip fella. We aren't in this alone anymore. Our election of Obama has gained us support.

"The Venezuelan economy is rapidly entering a death spiral"

I believe you meant the U.S. economy.

The George Bush republican nightmare is soon to be over. Don't fret. The adults are soon to be in charge.

And I guess "stay the course" in Iraq is now off the table?

Posted by: jharp

You really are on weed jharpie.

[tally]

Ever since I subscribed to Outsider Magazine, that assclown, Robert F. Kennedy Jr has been sending me the most far sided bull shit I have ever seen. He's a nut case.

[ET]

--Oh, and saving 12 billion a month by getting the hell out of Iraq will help too.

The above is a classic liberal lie propagated by the likes of "jharp the failure."

First, obama has been wrong about Iraq from day one. Look at a map. Our footprint there is a hugely strategic spot on the global chessboard. There is now an emerging democracy there and we have defeated an international enemy by drawing them into a manageable theater. Buh-bye al Queda.

The democrats politicized our difficulties in Iraq, putting their careers above the good of the nation. Pelosi's congress will be remembered by history as the worst ever.

Oh, and...riddle me this, jharp. How do we save $12 billion per month by leaving Iraq when uncle barry's plan is to redeploy the surge troops to Afghanistan. Is Afghanistan free? Will that battle somehow be less expensive?

hmmmn...perhaps the idea of a "peace dividend" was a myth all along...

[Moultrie]

The loonies have decided the BarackObama.com is the new US Constitution, they actually believe that is the truth...potheads and dumbaxx unite.

[torabora]

Minimum four years of "uh".

I'm ill.

[LizB]

The Ah-bama cultists are like little children, following The Pied Piper of Hyde Park.....all the way to Euro-utopia, socialist bliss.

For the first time in my adult life, I'm embarassed to be an American (since we have a Saul Alinksy social agitator with zero experience in the White House, who was put there by Oprah and Soros).

[Todd]

"For the first time in my adult life, I'm embarassed to be an American"

Where the hell have you been the last 8 years, LizB?

[Todd]

"How's everyone feel about the trillion dollars we just pissed away on the Iraq goodwill mission?"

I'd be feeling a lot better about that trillion dollars jharp if it were only going to be a trillion dollars. But George W. Bush's war will cost closer to $3 trillion when you factor in long term veteran care, interest on the debt built up for the war, and ancillary costs to the US economy.

George W. Bush's decision to go into a war of choice in Iraq will be the gift that keeps on giving for decades to come.

This article authored by Nobel Prize winner for Economics, Joseph Stiglitz, explains why:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/stiglitz200804

[Todd]

"First, obama has been wrong about Iraq from day one. Look at a map. Our footprint there is a hugely strategic spot on the global chessboard. There is now an emerging democracy there and we have defeated an international enemy by drawing them into a manageable theater. Buh-bye al Queda."
Posted by: ET | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 03:36 AM
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 says you're absolutely incorrect. The National Intelligence Estimate is consensus product by the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community.

http://www.slate.com/id/2170564/

"The National Intelligence Estimate that was released today—titled "The Terrorist Threat to the Homeland"—amounts to a devastating critique of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, Iran, and the terrorist threat itself.

Its main point is that the threat—after having greatly receded over the past five years—is back in full force. Al-Qaida has "protected or regenerated key elements" of its ability to attack the United States. It has a "safe haven" in Pakistan. Its "top leadership" and "operational lieutenants" are intact. It is cooperating more with "regional terrorist groups."

As a result, the report concludes, "the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years" and is, even now, "in a heightened threat environment."

[Todd]

"Oh, and...riddle me this, jharp. How do we save $12 billion per month by leaving Iraq when uncle barry's plan is to redeploy the surge troops to Afghanistan. Is Afghanistan free? Will that battle somehow be less expensive?"
Posted by: ET | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 03:36 AM
---------------------------

Obama has not pledged to redeploy the entire 140,000 troops stationed presently in Iraq to Afghanistan. If 25,000 are redeployed, the cost should be 18% of what is being spent now in Iraq. So, yes, that battle will be less expensive.

[Todd]

"Take any economic issues we're facing and multiply them by two or more and you still might not be close to how bad Obama is getting ready to make it if this is his path. Looks like he's going full steam toward Europeanization out of the gate given rumored appointments. Many of these people, including him, have no clue, or realistic concern about what it takes to make a business work."
----------------------------
Barack Obama is receiving advise from many economic advisors including Warren Buffett and Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google - 2 guys who know a thing or two about business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3397612/Barack-Obama-meeting-new-economic-team-to-discuss-financial-crisis.html

[Spartan112]

Minimum four years of "uh".

I'm ill.

Posted by: torabora | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 06:35 AM

I'll take that over the past 8 years of "duh"

[Budahmon]

Actually Todd that is absolutely brilliant of you to be a linear thinker. So like a leftist......

" If 25,000 are redeployed, the cost should be 18% of what is being spent now in Iraq. So, yes, that battle will be less expensive."

You have much higher logistics cost since you are transporting people, fuel, food and arms to an internal west asian country. Your transportation route through Pakistan must be protected and there is only one route. Your transportation routes in Afghanistan itself are few and would require protection. Thus, an additional 25K troops in the theatre would be much higher than a simple redirect of 18% of the Iraqi budget.

As to your comment on Warren Buffet and Eric Schmidt...I think they know what is good for them and their business...I mean they are both Dems that made their wealth via Reagan freeing up investor capital in the 80's, but they both refuse to recognize that basic fact.

[Todd]

"You have much higher logistics cost since you are transporting people, fuel, food and arms to an internal west asian country. Your transportation route through Pakistan must be protected and there is only one route. Your transportation routes in Afghanistan itself are few and would require protection. Thus, an additional 25K troops in the theatre would be much higher than a simple redirect of 18% of the Iraqi budget."

So, how much do you see it costing?

"As to your comment on Warren Buffet and Eric Schmidt...I think they know what is good for them and their business...I mean they are both Dems that made their wealth via Reagan freeing up investor capital in the 80's, but they both refuse to recognize that basic fact."

You miss the point. They know about running a business and I was using that to rebut the comment that Obama has never run a business so he has no idea what he's doing. Taking advice from people who have run businesses is smart and appropriate, and Obama deserves credit for formulating policy with the input of successful business-people.

[Fred Beloit]

No wonder the market is in a tailspin. No Kennedy of any generation, as far as I recall, has made a mark in a legitimate, bottom-line business. It's all law and politics, politics and environment and law, law and illegal scotch, and politics. Etc., etc.

[Budahmon]

Please let it be RFK.....Please!!!!!!! He's a friggin Truffer!!! We can get to ask him all sorts of questions...Like did you not once say that Bush bombed the WTO and all sorts of crazy stuff like that.....PLEEEZE! We will have so much fun with this idiot!!!! BTW...doesn't that go for all Obama's nominees? Can't we ask questions like how much money you donated to MoveOn, the Truffers, and posts they may have written on DailyKos and Huffington? Oh..I wonder how much BDS is going to bite these people in the arse? What fun this is going to be!!!! We have to look at the bright side of this equation. The next two years are going to be quite fun with Nancy and Harry and Barry and Joe.

[anon]

We're not going to save $12 billion a month in Iraq because Obama is not going to be able to pull out all or even most of the troops. So, there isn't much money there.

Health insurance is going to COST money for the taxpayer because our taxes will be paying for this bureaucratic boondogle, other than the federal jobs it will create to oversee the coming black hole it won't do anything for the economy...this idea that health care is going to somehow boost productivity is non scientific nonsense.

If those "middle class" tax cuts ever materialize, which I doubt, they also aren't going to be sufficient to create jobs or create wealth, they will do about as much as Bush sending everyone a couple a bucks on last year's taxes in the hopes that this would "stimulate the economy" out of its tailspin. The "working people" OBama talks about don't make enough money for a tax cut to create new wealth, all it will do is possibly prop up consumer spending.

There is a long shot that putting federal money into energy will create real jobs and stimulate the economy in the end, but this is a very long shot.

In reality, what you are going to see is more massive deficit spending to bail out the auto industry, bail out the banks even more, bail out the irresponsible no money down "homeowners" and all kinds of other "stimulus packages" that are going to take money OUT of the market and give back bureucracy while at the same time rescuing the most irresponsible industries and individuals.

This is not a recipe for economic success, this is simply a huge expansion of the welfare state so that everyone becomes an employee of the government one way or the other.

They used to call that socialism, now I guess we call it change you can believe in.

[Budahmon]

Todd,
It depends on how many troops you put in the theatre.... Operational cost is what cost money in a theatre. More troops more $$$. If transportation costs are greater, if force protection costs are greater, if logistics costs are greater, if force projections costs are greater just due to the expense of operations....a ballpark figure would be an increase of 30-40% per man.....
An example is force projection from a carrier. You have to fly basically 1500 mile round trip from a carrier in the Arabian Sea for a mission. That would require at least three mid air refuelings...and there is basically no place to recover an aircraft between ATO and the carrier deck. A couple of years back when we first took out the Tali...we had this kind of force projection covered by F-14s capable of doing this type of mission without refueling. Now we don't....the F-18s don't have that type of range...even with stores.

Figure out how much we are paying in Iraq per man vs Afghanistan and you would have the figure....I would estimate it is ~35% increased costs to operate per man.

[Todd]

"No wonder the market is in a tailspin. No Kennedy of any generation, as far as I recall, has made a mark in a legitimate, bottom-line business. It's all law and politics, politics and environment and law, law and illegal scotch, and politics. Etc., etc.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 09:46 AM"
---------------

So, the stock market being in a tailspin has everything to do with RFK Jr. becoming head of the EPA and nothing to do with George W. Bush's economic policies???? Nice objectivity there....

[Fred Beloit]

"In reality, what you are going to see is more massive deficit spending to bail out the auto industry, bail out the banks even more, bail out the irresponsible no money down "homeowners" and all kinds of other "stimulus packages" that are going to take money OUT of the market and give back bureucracy while at the same time rescuing the most irresponsible industries and individuals."

Well said, Anon.
A question for Turd: What were the Bush "policies" that you refer to?
"...George W. Bush's economic policies???? Nice objectivity there..."

[jharp]

"How BIG was Obama's victory?"

"As it now stands, with North Carolina upping his total to 364, he could've spotted McCain New York and California and still won with 8 to spare. Let that sink in for a minute; a suntanned big city liberal Democrat named Barack Hussein Obama has won the presidency and did not need the New York and California electoral votes to do it."

http://ristocrats.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-big.html

[Fred Beloit]

Whoever the aristocrat in the link above is, he/she ought to reconsider just a bit. Obama may not have needed the electoral votes from those two states but he certainly received a lot of help from the New York Times and LA Times.
"...Obama has won the presidency and did not need the New York and California electoral votes to do it."

[jharp]

Fred,

I think your brain is softening even further.

"...Obama has won the presidency and did not need the New York and California electoral votes to do it."

Is a fact. Pure and simple.

You want to bring in other factors? Obama couldn't have done it without George Bush or Sarah Palin either. Two of dumbest, most divisive and incompetent fools to be on the national scene in a tens of decades.

[Fred Beloit]

Hahaha. Harpo, we already know you pretty well. There is no need to further enhance your reputation. I was simply pointing out that while Obama didn't need the electoral votes of the big-city states, he got a lot of support from the big-city media. Do you deny this pure and simple fact?

[templar knight]

Yeah, jharp, and he couldn't have done it without $700,000,000 in political contributions from who knows where? You and other Democrats were against a lot of things before you were for them. The ends justify the means, eh? I'll look forward to watching you idiots boil in your own stew. Should be quite a show. LOL.

[jharp]

I meant what I posted. That's all.

"...Obama has won the presidency and did not need the New York and California electoral votes to do it."

And that is a fact. Do the math. And he had 8 electoral votes to spare.

[jharp]

And I believe Obama has just received an uh ...what is called? .. a mandate?

Isn't that what George Bush called his squeaker in 2004?

And what was W's quote? I have earned some political capital and I intend to spend it? Was that it?

A black and THE most LIBERAL Senator has just won in a landslide? And his name? Hussein Obama!

Get out there and spend that political capital, Senator Obama. And might I add spend it very liberally. And don't forget to nominate 3 very liberal Supreme Court Justices. I sure they will sail through the heavily democratic Senate.

You've earned it as all liberals have earned it.

[Todd]

"A question for Turd: What were the Bush "policies" that you refer to?"
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 10:48 AM
----------------

Just off the top of my head, Ferd:

1. Tax cuts while a war war going on leading to spiraling deficits. something John McCain voted against in May, 2003. McCain was just one of three Republicans to vote against additional Bush tax cuts because, he said, "the cost of the Iraq war was not yet known." (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/fact-check-was-mccain-once-against-bush-tax-cuts/)

2. Bush's support of deregulation of the financial industry, allowing massive overleveraging by investment banks leading to risk of systemic failure. A conscious and willful 2005 decision by George W. Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission "to allow these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1. Instead, the 2004 exemption -- given only to 5 firms -- allowed them to lever up 30 and even 40 to 1." (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html).

3. A lack of a coherent energy policy that led to crude oil prices reaching $147/barrel. No conservation policies were encouraged through tax incentives, and in fact they were discouraged when Dick Cheney said that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." George W. Bush even enacted tax breaks for Hummers and other gas-guzzling SUV's weighing in excess of 6,000 lbs. (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/car-guide-2004/tax-SUVs1.asp)

4. George W. Bush malfeasance to address spiraling budget deficits, misguidedly believing in the dogma of supply-side economics, the idea being we would eventually grow our way out of the deficits.
George W. Bush whistled by the graveyard with the deficits staying stubbornly high, an extremely dangerous threat to the economy that pragmatist Ronald Reagan took action against, having raised taxes 4 times between 1982-1984 (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html.

I'll give you more reasons if you like.

Now, Ferd, please tell me why George W. Bush is not responsible for today's economic crisis. In your rebuttal, PLEASE DOCUMENT WITH LINKS reasons why today's crisis has nothing to do with George W. Bush's economic policy.

[ET]

oh todddddd,

History will declare that bush was right to liberate Iraq and establish the only democracy in the middle east. I know that hurts your headdddd, toddddd, but it is still true.

and obama was wrong to oppose the war and then deny the success of the surge...period.

bush had the balls to persevere in the face of partisan treason on the part of obama and pelosi's minions. you ought to get on your knees and thank God for bush's courage, which has kept you safe and warm since 2001, todddddd.

[mary]

FWIW, BO should ask Paulson to stay on in his administration. Paulson has never been a solid republican anyway. He should also, if he really wants to show that he does mean unity for everyone in the country, ask Sarah Palin to be his Secretary of Energy. I'm sure he will put Hillary in charge of health care but maybe he should just put McCain/Hillary in charge of health care. This is of course if he really wants to get things done.

I'm not sure he has it in him. But being bi partisan in his appointments, getting the right people for the job as opposed to getting the PC people, might just bring the country together.

Everyone in this country wants health care available to anyone who wants it. What we don't want is socialized medicine. CNBC has a gal who is CEO of a health provider who was very concerned about both health care proposals. Maybe for once the president needs to have commissions that are bi partisan and actually do the job without BS.

[ThomasD]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Obama's energy policy will result in lower energy costs for the American consumer.

Brownouts and rolling blackouts having a way of decreasing consumption and all that.

[jharp]

Bi partisan my ass.

American's have chosen liberal democrats by landslide margins to govern and govern they will.

I suppose you think Obama should select conservative Supreme Court Justices too?

Elections have consequences, mary. Sit back and watch as the liberal agenda digs us out of the disasters of the Bush administration.

[SteveMG]

Among other initiatives, Senator Obama was the sponsor of the Global Poverty Act which requires that the US spend an additiona $100-150 billion each year on international aid. That's over the current spending levels.

Even if we reduce our presence in Iraq by 1/3 or even 1/2, the Obama Administration will exceed any savings there with this policy.

And we don't even need to address the issue of the costs of Obama's call for changing the "battlefield from Iraq to Pakistan."

Yeah, he's going to save us a lot of money. Sure.

[Blacque Jacques Shellacque]

"Sit back and watch as the liberal agenda digs us out of the disasters of the Bush administration."

And digs its own, even worse, pit. Yep, we'll be watching all right...

[mary]

He is going to have a brief "honeymoon" period. Since his supporters insisted on "getting in my face" I simply stopped discussing politics. That doesn't mean, however, that I have forgotten the way I was treated. Never before in an election has there been so much hatred and animosity that came from the winning side. If they want the country to work and work together they are going to have to do some things which show those who, despite the abuse, turned from the "cool candidate to vote for" and voted McCain/Palin. If they don't I feel they will continue the division and he will never fulfill his promise to unite us all.

[Budahmon]

But Jharp...liberal agendas gave us this economy....The S&L Scandal..that was Dems, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac....that was Dems.

Todd gets carried away about an energy policy or lack thereof... I have no doubt that limiting oil development in the US whether offshore drilling or tar sands or oil shale added a little bit of $$$ to that $147 barrel of oil. The fact that China and India are now becoming large consumers of petro products also plays into that cost. Thus how in the world is it Bush's fault that oil skyrocketed? Oh he was President...but what did Congress do?????

By the way Todd and Harpo....Who was in charge of congress the last two years? Oh yeah...the same people who did nothing in order to seize political power who you claim are now going to make everything rosy...

Please tell me one thing this Congress as done to keep this economic maelstorm from hitting and hurting all of us..... other than extending unemployment benefits..... I think I'll be waiting a while.

[jharp]

Bi partisan my ass.

American's have chosen liberal democrats by landslide margins to govern and govern they will.

I suppose you think Obama should select conservative Supreme Court Justices too?

Elections have consequences, mary. Sit back and watch as the liberal agenda digs us out of the disasters of the Bush administration.

[mary]

See, I think that the economy is truly a mess. The new president has to have people in there this week. If he's not keeping the existing group, which if you have half a brain is the right thing to do, then he has to have people join them and ease their way into the mess. BO can easily justify keeping Paulson in there along with Neal Kaskari just by saying that Paulson was only recently appointed and fully understands the situation better than anyone else. I think, whoever transitions to the job will never understand it like Paulson. Paulson has seen it from both sides. He seems to be the type who goes for expediency so let's hope his expedient side wins and he leaves them in to finish the job they started.

[jharp]

"keeping the existing group, which if you have half a brain is the right thing to do"

Are you smoking dope, mary?

Keep the existing group? The ones that got us into this mess?

Good God, I've heard it all!

[jharp]

"By the way Todd and Harpo....Who was in charge of congress the last two years?"

The Senate was 49-49-2 and you are an idiot and don't even understand junior high school civics.

"liberal agendas gave us this economy....The S&L Scandal..that was Dems, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac....that was Dems."

Wrong, S & L scandal was Reagan and Fannie and Freddie had little do with our current crises.

You ever take an economics class?

Watch and learn as the liberals get us out of this mess. The most liberal Senator in the U.S. according to the wingnuts.

[ratman]

Todd, good to see some specifics instead of the usual Bush-Hitler mantra

1: Tax-cuts actually increased the amount of tax revenue the government took it since the economy grew. Even the first Kennedy figured that one out.

2: The "deregulation" of the financial industry did not cause the problem; it was the dems in the Clinton administration that blackmailed banks to loan to unqualified minorities that cause the crisis. It was "obvious racism" that more loans went to qualified people (most of whom were not black). That is why they call the financial crisis the “sub-prime crisis”.

3: Coherent energy policy? Ever try drilling for more oil? The dems blocked drilling, refinery building, hydro projects, nuke projects anything that would actually keep the cost of energy down. Why even the vaunted Kennedy BLOCKED windmills in the Atlantic because he could barely see them from his mansion. Fucking Democrats, so we send trillions to our enemies.

4: Spending beyond our means is always a problem. The feds take in records amount of money (FROM US!) and still spend more. Pres Bush, Republican and Democrats can all take the blame for that in pretty much equal measure.

[ThomasD]

Wrong, S & L scandal was Reagan and Fannie and Freddie had little do with our current crises.

Keep talking, you are our best hope for the future!

So tell me, besides McCain (who was absolved by the Congressional investigation) name the other members of the Keating Five. Bonus points for their party affiliation (all the same, by chance.)

As to Fan/Fred, I guess it depends on the meaning of 'little.' Kind of like a small lump of uranium had little to do with a certain event in Hiroshima.