Meet the new Change, same as the old Change.

[JW Frogen]

What I find interesting is what a conventional politician Obama is turning out to be, from picking an old school Clinton cabinet (which he ran against in the Primaries) to picking Bush's Sec of Defense Gates, a signal Obama will finish a surge he opposed but now admits "worked beyond our wildest dreams."

Or take his stimulus proposal, with invests heavily in tried and true infrastructure projects like roads and rail rather than innovative investments in alternative energy or an actual restructuring of transport routes and increase availability of public transport.

Then there is the old school auto bail out (stopped by the Republicans in the Senate, though Bush may make it happen anyway) which just throws money at a failing industry, one that was failing before the financial crises, without requiring that industry to radically reform, which would mean taking on the Unions and decreasing the bloated entitlements US auto workers get while simultaneously demanding the CEOs of these companies present a new, innovative plan to produce products the rest of the world wants to buy.

At least bankruptcy, while painful, would allow these companies to restructure, get rid of the huge pension liabilities, and perhaps become viable long term.

This is "change you can believe in", because we have seen it all before.

[mantra.]

Then there is the old school auto bail out (stopped by the Republicans in the Senate, though Bush may make it happen anyway) which just throws money at a failing industry, one that was failing before the financial crises, without requiring that industry to radically reform, which would mean taking on the Unions and decreasing the bloated entitlements US auto workers get while simultaneously demanding the CEOs of these companies present a new, innovative plan to produce products the rest of the world wants to buy.

At least bankruptcy, while painful, would allow these companies to restructure, get rid of the huge pension liabilities, and perhaps become viable long term.

Well it seems those same Republicans have changed their minds once again and decided to bail out the car industry in the last 24 hours. What a pity because it means we will be dragged into it again - does $6 billion justify 2,000 unprofitable jobs? But as far as pension liabilities are concerned - get rid of them by letting the industry go broke? Pretty unethical and no consideration for the workers. But then how many US citizens have lost all their pensions under the Bush administration through Enron & others and even the administration itself only kept going using it's own pension fund. The future looks pretty bleak for the Americans no matter who's in power.

[JW Frogen]

I know Bush wants to bail out the car industry (he is not a conventional, fiscal Republican, which has split his party) but I have not read the Republicans in the Senate are going to give way.

Enron was a long time comming and has to do as much with the Clinton Administration, which in some ways was far more economically conservative than the Bush administration, for instance, it was Clinton that de-regulated the financial industry, and promoted the loans of Freedie May and Fannie Mac (Jesus, sounds like Song of the South, Zipeedee do da) and Bush actually wanted to re-regulate that economic sector, he was stopped by the Democrats.

America is in for a year of pain, but she has suffered far worse, the unemployment levels are no where near other financial crises, and her ability to re-invent herself will see her pull out of this one too.

[White Indigene]

.
.
"There's not enough adult supervision"


Obama on corruption in the US economic and financial systems.

The best thing I've heard any politician say in decades.

Out with the Bigotry; and in with ....?

[JW Frogen]

And complete fraud.

The Clinton Administration deregulated the markets that collapsed, Bush, late in his Presidency sought to re-regulate them and the Democrats stopped him.

Senator Obama neither supported President Bush’s attempt to re-regulate nor raised objections with his own party for allowing those markets to run riot.

[mantra.]

It's easy to blame Clinton in hindsight - but Bush ran with this de-regulation. If he or Greenspan or whoever was running the show had any idea of how an economy should be run safely they would have put the brakes on years ago. But like Howard, Bush just looked at the superficial prosperity that this de-regulation brought and allowed it to run amok, then turned around and blamed his pre-decessor.

If Clinton's policies were so horrendous - why the hell didn't Bush do something about it when the warning signals were coming hard and fast years ago? They were totally ignored. Bush allowed the poor to become poorer, huge companies to come crashing down leaving investors and pension funds, not to mention homeowners destitute. He was hopeless and if the Democrats had served another term and seen where this deregulation was headed, action may have been taken and the reins pulled - but we'll never know. Instead Bush just cut interest rates to the elite, encouraging more indulgence, allowed the poor to suffer even more and have whatever security they had to be stolen by these institutions.

At least Clinton had ultruistic motives, although they may not have been viable in the long term, but Bush was the one running the country for nearly a decade.

IMHO financial gurus are a myth. Not one of them really have a clue what they're doing economically, but they've gambled and lost and as usual the little people have to foot the bill.

Bush, late in his Presidency sought to re-regulate them and the Democrats stopped him.

Yes - late in his presidency - maybe - if in fact this is true. Even if it was - by then the horse had bolted.

[Jovial Monk]

$25bn bail out of car industry just announced.

No way Bush was going out as Prez who destroyed US car industry.

[mantra.]

This was pretty well confirmed unofficially a week ago, but Ford has come out and said they didn't ask for the money - they just want it as some sort of extended credit in case they do need it.

It's a joke and so typical of the Republicans to continually try to resurrect the elite corporations, even though they're dead. We will also have to continue our $6 billion obligation because of this. Just throwing good money after bad - nothing has changed - nothing has been learned through this economic crisis.

[White Indigene]

I wonder if the inventor of Planned Redundancay factored in their own demise?

When Henry sent out his engineers to the rubbish tips of the US, looking to find the least worn parts in what was then the worlds finest vehicles, perhaps he had no idea that the world would embark on a global copy-cat manifestation for the marginal (perhaps) increase in sales that redundancy produces. I know for a fact, that many many of us would prefer to buy something that lasts. And if over time it gets to be so old and ugly, yet still functional, well then it can be moved on and replaced by something more modern.

Instead, we have China. They make shit that lasts about a weeek, or twenty uses depending on the item, and then it gets hurled, and you get another one. If anything, China is an even more greater contributor to bad economics, emmissions (all sorts), overproduction, undervalue, and so on per-capita than the rest of the world, and perhaps combined.

Yet we here in Auslund especially, get belted by the Sinophiles who blame the West and us for bad capitalism leading to climate change. Now that is a mega- fraud we are forced to swallow by the willows in the current government.

Perhaps it is time to review Henry Fords' redundant plans, and make anew, more viable production leading to lasting products. Better for the environment, and perhaps better for the cyclic market economy. That is what the new US administration might best serve the people by focusing upon. We have the technology.

A market which i have another theory on, based in 7 year cycles.

[JW Frogen]

It's easy to blame Clinton in hindsight - but Bush ran with this de-regulation. If he or Greenspan or whoever was running the show had any idea of how an economy should be run safely they would have put the brakes on years ago. But like Howard, Bush just looked at the superficial prosperity that this de-regulation brought and allowed it to run amok, then turned around and blamed his pre-decessor..

The fact of the matter is it was the Clinton Administration, which deregulated this industry, indeed promoted Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to make loans at much lower margins of income than was the previous industry standard.

As soon as the warning signs did start coming in that many of this loans were unsustainable Bush did try to re-regulate the industry, and the Democrats stopped him.

Obama did not give a peep for re-regulation.

That fact Bush did not play with this issue during the Presidential election, where he could have both hammered the Democrats and Obama but instead preferred to get a bi-partisan bail out package is also to his credit.