The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Barack Obama

Obama and McCain Call for Increase in Deposit Insurance


Barack Obama and John McCain at last week's presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. (Scott Olson/ Getty Images)

Updated 11:33 a.m.
By Shailagh Murray and Michael Shear
In a moment of unintentional unity, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain today both proposed raising the cap on federally insured bank deposits to $250,000 from $100,000 in an effort to broaden support among Republicans for the financial rescue package that failed on a close vote in the House yesterday.

"We are unlikely to succeed if we start from scratch or reopen negotiations about the core elements of the agreement," the Democratic presidential nominee said in a statement this morning. "But in order to pass this plan, we must do more."

The insurance increase would particularly benefit small businesses, a core GOP constituency. "While that guarantee is more than adequate for most families, it is insufficient for many small businesses that maintain bank accounts to meet their payroll, buy their supplies, and invest in expanding and creating jobs. The current insurance limit of $100,000 was set 28 years ago and has not been adjusted for inflation," Obama noted.

McCain also called for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. limit to be raised, saying at an economic roundtable in Des Moines, Iowa, that "we cannot allow a crisis in our financial system to become a crisis in confidence."

Although Obama is campaigning in Reno, Nev., he said he would contact "leaders and members of Congress later today to offer this idea and urge them to act without delay to pass a rescue plan."

Obama called President Bush this morning, said senior strategist Robert Gibbs. "They spoke about the need to push for a package that Congress can agree on," Gibbs recounted in a statement. "Senator Obama specifically brought up his proposal to increase the amount of money that is federally insured in order to more fully protect small businesses and families concerned about their savings, believing that such a proposal can broaden the coalition supporting the package."

McCain called Bush this morning, as well, urging him to take the action immediately. He said he also urged the president to tap the Treasury Department's $250 billion Exchange Stabilization Fund to help shore up institutions and exercise new authority to buy up $1 trillion in mortgages.

"I encouraged him to use this fund as creatively as possible," McCain said of the stabilization fund.

McCain reiterated his belief that there will be "dire consequences of inaction." But he changed a campaign plan for him to come back to Washington, D.C., Tuesday afternoon, choosing instead to head to Kansas City, Mo.

"At this moment I think I need to talk to America and hear what their solutions are," he told employees at EFCO, a manufacturer of concrete construction systems. "We are going to have to get the support of all Americans."

In the immediate aftermath of yesterday's vote, the increase in the FDIC limits was one of two ideas that leading House Republicans were floating privately to attract a few more votes on their side of the aisle, along with a controversial accounting rules change by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

House GOP aides accused Obama of lifting the increase idea from Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), who offered it as a bill, along with other House Republican negotiators who had pressed to include the increase in the final legislation. But Democrats nixed the idea.

"Why is Senator Obama embracing a proposal his colleagues rejected?" said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner. "Why did Senate Democrats reject the proposal initially? Have they all changed their minds, or is Senator Obama breaking with his colleagues?"

Posted at 9:13 AM ET on Sep 30, 2008  | Category:  Barack Obama
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Courts Allow Same-Day Vote Window to Go Forward in Ohio | Next: Obama Notes 'Remarkable' Resemblance of Palin and Fey


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



THE WALL STREET BAILOUT IS A TRAP:

YOU DID THE RIGHT THING people by stopping this 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street with your money. It's a trap set by the Bush McCain administration years ago to spring on you, and the World just before the November elections. It will cripple our economy for years to come by taking away money from important social programs like health care reform, education, and social security.

What ever congress does to try and fix our stunning economic catastrophe needs to be done very carefully. Congress needs to take their time, and be sure of what they are doing. Whatever is done needs to be sharply focused at helping, and protecting the best interest of the ordinary Americans. In particular the vast American middle class. 700 billion dollars is a lot of the peoples money to spend to bail out a bunch of corrupt Bush loan sharks.

When have you ever known any government plan, or project to only cost what the government said it would. Remember the war in Iraq. Bush and his so-called advisers said it would only cost you about 80 billion dollars. But we now know that the war in Iraq will cost you, and your children, and your grand children over a trillion dollars, and still counting.

So if 80 billion can end up costing you over a trillion dollars. How much could 700 billion end up costing you. Any math wizards out there. I come up with 9 trillion...:-(

My fellow human beings, just as I warned you ahead of this catastrophic economic meltdown, I must now warn you that what is ahead has the potential to be even more catastrophic than what we are going through now. The worlds geopolitical landscape has been booby trapped by the Bush McCain administration and their republican allies in congress. These booby traps are poised to spring at any time.

Fortunately the Worlds Nations have been blessed with many excellent leaders (except the US) who have been careful, wise, strong, and self-restrained in dealing with the provocations, and antagonism's of the Bush, McCain administration.

Barack Obama and the democrats are your best hope now. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best you can, and vote for them like your life, and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. Because it does. You will not survive 4 more years of Bush McCain.

JACK SMITH - WORKING CLASS...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | September 30, 2008 8:07 PM


"Have you heard of student draft deferments? Biden was busy earning his Juris Doctorate, or graduate degree in law..."

Biden was 25 and eligible for the draft, when he graduated from law school and lost his deferment.

"As a result of a physical exam on April 5, 1968, Joe Biden was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager."

- David Wade, Biden campaign spokesman

Biden's memoir, "Promises to Keep," doesn't mention asthma. It does tell of his work as a lifeguard and his time playing high school football.

http://www.courant.com/topic/ny-usbide015825262sep01,0,1715218.story

Posted by: WylieD | September 30, 2008 7:50 PM


Keep it simple: No limit on accounts insured by the FDIC.

The insurance is a service to the depositor and the cost should be born by him, which would meqn a miniscule decrease in the interest rate the deposit earns.

This would greatly increase depositors' confidence in banks, greatly decrease the likelihood of runs on banks, and greatly simplify things for businesses and retirees (who tend to be the ones with $100K+ accounts).

Should have been this way all along.


Posted by: WylieD | September 30, 2008 7:24 PM

Back on topic, the chairman of the FDIC is reportedly seeking a temporary increase as well:

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE48T7F920080930?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 5:54 PM

Texan2007

The experience factor is a dead horse. John McCain's experience isn't proving to be what people want. It's not impressing any one at the moment.

Posted by: elbuzz07 | September 30, 2008 4:22 PM

OBAMA: DEMAND NEW BILL THAT PUTS HOMEOWNERS FIRST

McCAIN: DEMAND NEW BILL THAT PUTS HOMEOWNERS FIRST

CONGRESS: DRAFT NEW BILL THAT PUTS
HOMEOWNERS FIRST

• "Work-outs" for strapped homeowners as well as for those who were forced out of their houses by unscrupulous lending practices

Today's market rebound, while short of covering yesterday's losses, proves the markets can survive without welfare for the rich.

House Republicans saved the day by refusing to go along. Obama and the Dems stand to lose politically for their willingness to buy into a flawed plan.

McCain will adopt their view of the House GOPers, and emerge the victor -- UNLESS Obama, Pelosi and Reid cease their appeasement and come up with their own bill, one that offers meaningful "work-outs" and grants a primary equity position for taxpayers in any bad debt buy-outs.

If Congress is going to socialize risk, then it must engage in democratic socialism and let the public share in the upside. Otherwise, lawmakers are endorsing NATIONAL socialism -- and we all know what THAT can mean.

Congressional Democrats must stand up to Wall Street's extortion demands by mandating a "work-out" system to help homeowners stay in their houses, thus guaranteeing the solvency of mortgage instruments held by financial institutions.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain sold out the people. Obama's ads convey the right message: Put the homeowners first. But the bill did not do that. Instead, it was a welfare program for Wall Street fat cats and their corporations, with one man, the Treasury secretary, in charge of doling out the goodies. The "oversight" provisions contained in the defeated bill were largely window-dressing.

One must wonder whether there are some who'd secretly like to see the economy go down the skids -- setting the stage for widespread economic travail that could lead to social unrest and an opening for a repressive political regime.

Remember: The Nazis rose to power amid economic chaos, fueled by convenient events such as the Reichstag fire.

To thwart those who would seek to exploit economic tumult to achieve their peculiar brand of "social engineering," both Obama and McCain would be wise to insist on a bill that saves the economy by restoring the underlying value of mortgage-backed securities instead of simply handing out money to those who were complicit in creating the crisis.

And the bill also should come to the rescue of all those who lost their houses to a corrupt system within the past few years.

BUT DID THE GOV'T ITSELF HELP SPAWN THE MELTDOWN
BY "TARGETING" CITIZENS FOR RUIN VIA "EASY CREDIT"?

See http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener re: "Government Targeting of U.S. Citizens: A Root Cause of Financial Crisis?"

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 30, 2008 4:19 PM

Obama does not have experience to be calling for anything.
America..OHIO, MICHIGAN, FLORIDA. PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, COLORODO AND NEW MEXICO..

DO NOT PUT THIS EMPTY SUIT IN OFFICE!
Just because he has Democrat beside his name does NOT make him qualified.
If in doubt, take a real look at his background. This is the most wonderful country in the world, please vote NO Obama.

Posted by: Texan2007 | September 30, 2008 4:15 PM

Until we as a Nation( not to include Senators, Congressmen and Federal regulatory officials) hold our leaders physically accountable. We neither are free nor live in a Democracy. The leaders of our country lie to us and steal from us. If we did the same we would be jailed. Its time to send Congress and the SEC and most White House occupants to jail. Otherwise this is just window dressing and more of the same Oligarchy. Americans are stupid and believe god or some politician that talks to god will take care of them. My solution is send the ones that can't pass an IQ test back to Europe and let them be peasants again, they're dead weight here. And they can take the Roman Church with them. God and conservative "values" have destroyed this nation economically and socially. Can't trust god because hes dead, can't trust the government because they are parasites. What a world, Huh?

Posted by: badcrosbys1 | September 30, 2008 3:59 PM

"I Spent Years as a POW with John McCain, and His Finger Should Not Be Near the Red Button"
By Phillip Butler, Military.com. Posted August 21, 2008.

"Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he markets himself to be."

Posted by: Luke2 | September 30, 2008 3:49 PM

Britain has nationalized its banks. The U.S. has nationalized Wall Street and will do the same for U.S. Oil when it hits $6.50 a gallon in two years. Oil is too crucial for speculators' private greed. The United States greed based society is over. We will copy Britain or Germany’s mixed economy system based heavily on the People government oversight. Speculators and gamblers cannot be trusted with the American economy. Wrong is wrong and wolves cannot be hired to protect cash cows. Today you can gamble in Las Vegas with your credit card (money that you don’t have); Wall Street high leverage speculation is the same thing.

Three weeks ago, some Americans stupidly said that we don’t need to consider World Opinion during the 2008 presidential election. It is now clear that America and The World are closely connected and that we need to consider how the World perceives our decisions. The World does not like John McCain and will not cooperate with McCain.

No one wants another Cold War, except McCain. Palin’s childish perceptions are not worth mentioning, especially with the World watching and laughing at McCain’s choices. Russia does not want another Expensive Cold War, but it will play ball if McCain kicks off. While Bush and McCain are building military bases in Poland, Russia is speaking with Latin American Oil Nations about refining and cutting out U.S. Oil Companies. Next Russia will build military bases in Latin American in response to U.S. bases in Eastern Europe. McCain and Wall Street weapons manufacturers are the only ones who want to profit from a new Cold War. In reality, no one benefits from a new Cold War. The American People, Russian People and World People will be injured by a new Cold War. Expect European demands to be rid of all U.S. bases in Europe. The American People, Russian People and World People want peace and cooperation from the United States led by Barack Obama.

The World loves Barack Obama and has signed a letter of intent to cooperate with America under Barack’s leadership. Throughout the World young presidents are emerging and none of them want to return to the bad days of the Cold War (bomb shelters, high interest rates, disproportionate military spending, nuclear buildup, general fear). Nobody wants the return of the Cold War, except McCain and Wall Street weapons manufacturers. The American People are nationalizing Wall Street to prevent weapons manufacturers from dictating unfavorable terms to our economy. Again the American middle class must see pass their ignorance and the emperor with no clothes (Bush, McCain, Palin, Guiliani). Americans must vote for it’s best interest, which includes a favorable World Opinion. America And The World Will Vote Obama to avert financial and military catastrophes.

Let’s not forget that China, Saudi Arabia and India together hold over $1 Trillion in American currency. Do you think that China, Saudi Arabia and India have votes in the 2008 American election? The CEOs of American companies and Wall Street Banks heavily invested with funds from China, Saudi Arabia and India know that foreign governments will be exercising their strong votes in our election. You can thank McCain deregulations and GOP Republican American job outsourcing for dissipating Our American votes.

Obama has 8 years experience as a State Senator, 4 years in the US Senate, taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, etc. Obama’s very high intellectual capacity allows him to analyze situations and make sound decisions. How can you even compare Palin’s GED from Moose Community College credentials to these?

Posted by: dwashington1 | September 30, 2008 3:32 PM

Obama needs to jump on the America non bail out agenda. Why bail out? The sky did not fall today?

today on wall street:
. stock are up
. Gasoline is down
. My grocery bill is down too

The way we like Americans....

Posted by: billisnice | September 30, 2008 3:32 PM

Obama is just letting this happen around him and he is using it to win the election. i do not believe for one minute that his goal is to create a bipartisan bill.

http://www.boppoll.com
I am adding 200 bops to Obama. Asking ten friends to do the same. Pass it on. Say yes to the bailout!

McCain '08

Posted by: acarponzo | September 30, 2008 3:26 PM

"Why is Senator Obama embracing a proposal his colleagues rejected?" said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner. "Why did Senate Democrats reject the proposal initially? Have they all changed their minds, or is Senator Obama breaking with his colleagues?"

Oh, Democrats specifically rejected increasing FDIC limits? In what vote did that occur. Does Boehner have a clue what he's talking about? Or is that not even important to Republicuns anymore?

Posted by: jp1954 | September 30, 2008 3:18 PM

Amazing. At a time when the FDIC is challenged to perform it's present obligations, our candidates propose to submit it to more obligations. This is precisely the poor fiscal decisions that brought us to the present crisis. What ever happened to basic math?

Posted by: reenie10 | September 30, 2008 3:09 PM

Look, people, I think that either candidate (once elected) will need to reach out and find agreement with other sides. That's not my point about the debate. With all the concessions Obama gave, combined with his answers based on vast inexperience with the foreign policy portion, McCain won the debate according to ANY objective, formal scoring method.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse
=======================================
The way the questions were presented, the answers that McCain may have given were acceptable way for him to approach the situation. The counter points to his arguments as presented by Obama are what made him the victor.

You can, but it would not be wise to argue that we need to get out of Iraq. You can however argue about the way that we get out of Iraq. By not conceding that his way may not be the only way John McCain defeated himself. In the debate the voters are not looking to see who had the most yes or no answers, they are looking at how each candidate approach the situation. There are no simply answers to the problems that we are facing. This is what was sold to us in 2000. We accepted that there are simple approaches of do or don't; that is a fallacy. The presidency requires a thinking person's approach. John McCain does not display that he is that person.

A president has no power without congress as we are witnessing right now. If your president can not reach out and encourage his own people to follow his lead how is going to do so with other countries?

Posted by: justonevoice | September 30, 2008 3:08 PM

"Admiral Richard C. Holbrooke that compares the leadership styles of the two candidates. As a former military person, his insights are fairly dead on."

It's Ambassador Holbrooke he served his time in Viet-Nam, but as a civilian provincial director: Here's the article

"Friday's unique free-form debate format offered the best insights so far into the vast differences, values and style of Barack Obama and John McCain, and how they would approach the challenges that only a president can decide. It was the stunning contrast in personal behavior, not their answers, that was most revealing.

Given the time spent on the economic crisis, Jim Lehrer had time for only five "lead" questions on national security--on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and homeland security. Other major issues will have to await later debates. But there was enough time for many intense and revealing exchanges. With a command of both the facts and the underlying issues, and a reassuring manner, Obama convincingly passed the key test of the debate--is he qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? But the real insights came in the revelations about the way each man thinks under pressure, and the way they interacted.

First, note a recurring pattern: With the exception of Iraq, where the disagreement began with Obama's opening sentence, Obama usually began by laying out broad themes, often mentioning instances of agreement with McCain--frequently using phrases like "John is absolutely right"--before going on to stress their differences. This is unusual, and part of what makes Obama a unique leader; I do not recall any previous major party candidate in a debate volunteering so many instances of common ground with his opponent. McCain's response struck me as odd and even ungracious; he has often proclaimed he would work across the partisan divide, but he undermined his own claim by completely ignoring Obama and his comments. Instead, he attacked Obama repeatedly, using phrases such as "Senator Obama just doesn't understand. . ." at least ten times.

The manner in which each man approached problems was strikingly different. McCain understandably emphasized his own personal experiences, but almost never made clear what he thought was the larger purpose of policy. Each problem was treated on its own, and McCain's proposed policies were invariably confrontational. John McCain's world focuses almost entirely on threats. Obama usually agreed with McCain on the nature of these threats, but his proposals for action were more insightful, sophisticated, and comprehensive, and, unlike McCain's, included the use of diplomatic and economic and moral power.

These striking differences were not simply debate tactics; they highlighted differences between the two men that are in their DNA. One is the product of the brawling traditions of the United States Navy, and survival under unimaginable conditions in a Hanoi prison. John McCain has prevailed in life not by seeking common ground (ironically, the most notable exception was his historic voyages of forgiveness to Vietnam). What has kept him energized (and alive) is his enormously combative style, which he proudly calls "maverick," and his quick, sometimes pre-emptive attacks on opponents. It is not a criticism to say that he is a gambler; he said so himself in his memoirs and in the debate.

Although Barack Obama articulates his positions in a calm, methodical, and understated way, he is clearly just as tough as McCain, or he would never have come this far in life, against unbelievable odds. But he thinks about how to solve problems in a manner much more conducive to successful governance than McCain. While he made clear he is ready to use military force if necessary, his life and career embodies the search for common ground between peoples of different backgrounds, different races, different points of view. During the debate he often emphasized the non-military aspects of American power--including diplomacy backed by American muscle, the restoration of respect for the nation, and the direct link between America's economic strength and its national security.

Astonishingly, McCain had virtually nothing to say on any of these issues--yet these are the tools that must be precisely balanced and deployed with skill if the nation is to regain its leadership position in the world.

This difference was reinforced by the much-noted failure of McCain to look in Obama's direction or address him directly during the debate, and by the grim looks that left many viewers with the impression McCain was just plain angry.

The overall effect was exactly the opposite of what McCain hoped to achieve: Obama showed that he could handle the frontal assaults of an aggressive and seasoned senator-war hero in the very area McCain was perceived to be strongest. Obama offered the larger vision for the nation--and a reassuring sense he would approach issues with the seriousness they required. The gambling, brawling style of John McCain has its attractive side to Americans, but it is not what we need in the White House in these troubled times."


Posted by: Luke2 | September 30, 2008 3:05 PM

"Does anyone think Dan Rather is working on exposing Joe Biden "dangerous medical condition" that got him his 6th and final deferral from Vietnam? Weird how the libs went after Cheney's deferrals and Bush's national guard, but we don't hear about Biden's 5 draft deferrals. He found a doctor who said he had "dangerous asthma" and couldn't serve his country. When asked recently how his asthma was, Biden said he never has had asthma."


Have you heard of student draft deferments? Biden was busy earning his Juris Doctorate, or graduate degree in law...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | September 30, 2008 2:57 PM

Everyone arguing about Obama giving McCain credit for being correct needs to read the article on today's Huffington Post by retired Admiral Richard C. Holbrooke that compares the leadership styles of the two candidates. As a former military person, his insights are fairly dead on.

Posted by: ehperkins1971 | September 30, 2008 2:55 PM

"Does anyone think Dan Rather is working on exposing Joe Biden "dangerous medical condition" that got him his 6th and final deferral from Vietnam?"

Maybe, he will also investigate Karl Rove's lying claim in getting his student deferment when he was not enrolled as a full time student. He admitted that he had an "ideological problem" with the Viet-Nam conflict.

Rush Limbaugh also got declared ineligible because of a cyst on his ass.

Many Americans of all political persuasions were against our involvement in that horrible unjust nightmare in which over 2,000,000 Vietnamese and over 50,000 Americans were killed because of some insane "domino theory."

Both John McCain and myself went to that war. He was a career officer and his dad was an Admiral. It would have ended his hopes of advancement if he hadn't gone.

I served six years, and one bloody combat tour, and then resigned my commission in protest.

We all did what we felt we needed to at the time.

Many millions opposed the war. There were many different ways to show it.

McCain still believes we "could have won," if we had just stayed longer and killed another million or so Vietnamese- and maybe used some tactical nuclear weapons. The Chinese had 20,000,000 troops on the Viet-Nam border- and that is ultimately why it was not "winable" in the first place.

Just like Iraq- we shouldn't have ever been there- and we had no exit strategy.

Viet-Nam Veteran
Khe Sanh 1968

Posted by: Luke2 | September 30, 2008 2:50 PM

"With all the concessions Obama gave, combined with his answers based on vast inexperience with the foreign policy portion, McCain won the debate according to ANY objective, formal scoring method."


Just saying, "you're wrong", restating talking points, recycling already disproved lies, and refusing to even look at your opponent are hardly what I would consider debate winning "points".

McCain only comes across well to his base. Older, disgruntled, wealthy, white men. They feel they are so above everyone else that they shouldn't have to even share a stage with them. This was blatantly obvious at the debate...

All

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | September 30, 2008 2:49 PM

Look, people, I think that either candidate (once elected) will need to reach out and find agreement with other sides. That's not my point about the debate. With all the concessions Obama gave, combined with his answers based on vast inexperience with the foreign policy portion, McCain won the debate according to ANY objective, formal scoring method.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 2:33 PM

Does anyone think Dan Rather is working on exposing Joe Biden "dangerous medical condition" that got him his 6th and final deferral from Vietnam? Weird how the libs went after Cheney's deferrals and Bush's national guard, but we don't hear about Biden's 5 draft deferrals. He found a doctor who said he had "dangerous asthma" and couldn't serve his country. When asked recently how his asthma was, Biden said he never has had asthma.

Where, oh, where are the investigative journalists?

Posted by: Cornell1984 | September 30, 2008 2:13 PM

know obama came and said that first trust me and i did not even see it. and i can garantee you that he did IT FIRST because mcsame have always been following the real leadership that barack have shown all alone. a real leader someone that want lie to american people. and a real change that the american people can believe in.... john mcsame said that his suspening of his campaigne was not political it was for the american people and soon as he stepped up to mic yesterday would you know it he said i went to washington to do this and to do that and what all he got done for the american people (and just then the news broke that the deal did not go throw) because im not like obama i refuse to call it in and come to find out he did just that while he was in washington they had him sitting in a chair on the phone on the news (what happend john mcsame? your lies just got exposed while he was telling the lie god is good! don't tell me it ain't sooner than later) and the people that he was on the phone with did not do the american people know good any how he really thought that, that was going to work he just come out and tell the american people lies and we are going to take it as i misspoke are a gaft that s*** done ran out. and he have tried everything he could to come up against obama it always backfire cause you can't just lie and do whatever to whoever that you won't to. this is that old politics that them folks are use to in washington you can't think that you are going to get away with it no, it comes back sooner than later these days. that is why the devil got hjohn mcsame looking like a fool in front of the whole country. john mcsame is not even one of the ones how will make the decions on the bail out plan or anything at all this man is playing the republican party and then can't even see that because a lot of them don't even like him any way accept for bush he like him (mcsame) because he did some fund raising for him in secret why would people won't some one in the white house is going to lie to them, is it worth it? it is not worth it to me because i am tied of president lying to me and i am going to do everything i can to make sure that never happens again my whole neigborhood ,family, freinds, and loved one is voting for barack obama for president.....VOTE OBAMA'08 VOTE Obama'08 WE JUST CAN
T AFFORD FOUR MORE YEARS OF SAME..ALL I CAN SAY IS SARAH PALIN! THE CHOOSE IS CLEAR!!

Posted by: obama1 | September 30, 2008 2:06 PM

"Even when Dan Rather got caught libelling Bush with forged documents prior to the 2004 election the brainless crowd kept silent."

Yes, the documents were forged, but most certainly be Karl Rove, in an attempt to discredit Dan Rather.

The fact is that everything in the charges against Bush was true. He was basically awol from his Texas Guard unit, and he had been shown political favoritism for being able to get into a non deployed unit not going to Viet-Nam.

The corporate media- which is not "liberal" be any means used this as a smokescreen to get the voters to look the other way.

The basic facts of the case still stand. Bush was a worthless no account who became President by fraud and deception.

Now John McCain has hired the same people to try and reenact that terrible crime. He has lost any integrity that he ever had. Steve Schmidt guides his every lying move.

Not this time.

Posted by: Luke2 | September 30, 2008 1:53 PM

I think it's wonderful that Obama has embraced an idea that Republicans can embrace. That's LEADERSHIP. Besides, Obama runs his party -they don't run him, like some candidates I could name......

Posted by: joneshn | September 30, 2008 1:46 PM

John McCain, the alpha male grandpa who insists on thumping his chest in belligerence like an old chimp in the zoo.

He is a pathetic person. His angry and irrational temperament should instantly disqualify him from being anywhere near the nuclear trigger.

During the debate John McCain would not even look at his opponent. Do we expect him to negotiate with our allies or adversaries when they don’t always agree with him? To me, he comes across as hostile, impatient, sarcastic and lacking any respect for others- including himself.

Dangerous traits in a statesman. His eyes are getting more glazed and crazy looking every day.

I’ll take the clueless, good hearted Sarah any day over this angry, disdainful curmudgeon.

Posted by: Luke2 | September 30, 2008 1:44 PM

dragonfly777, did you count how many times Obama said "John is absolutely right" during the debate? On points, McCain definitely won. Of course, Obama supporters are just furious that McCain wouldn't look at him. We need to get someone besides Jim Leher in four years.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse
================================
Are we so far gone as a nation that we can not realize that someone on the opposite team can be right about a situation?

McCain said somethings that Obama could agree with and Obama chose to give him credit for the things that he agreed with. If a person didn't watch the debate but read your post they would believe that all he said was John is right. That is not the case. In every instance he said John is right however, or but and then expounded upon his own opinion. That is the way adults communicate.

What did not help your candidate was his overall refusal to "play well with others."

Posted by: justonevoice | September 30, 2008 1:43 PM

Amb. Richard C. Holbrooke

"Friday's unique free-form debate format offered the best insights so far into the vast differences, values and style of Barack Obama and John McCain, and how they would approach the challenges that only a president can decide. It was the stunning contrast in personal behavior, not their answers, that was most revealing.

Given the time spent on the economic crisis, Jim Lehrer had time for only five "lead" questions on national security--on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and homeland security. Other major issues will have to await later debates. But there was enough time for many intense and revealing exchanges. With a command of both the facts and the underlying issues, and a reassuring manner, Obama convincingly passed the key test of the debate--is he qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? But the real insights came in the revelations about the way each man thinks under pressure, and the way they interacted.

First, note a recurring pattern: With the exception of Iraq, where the disagreement began with Obama's opening sentence, Obama usually began by laying out broad themes, often mentioning instances of agreement with McCain--frequently using phrases like "John is absolutely right"--before going on to stress their differences. This is unusual, and part of what makes Obama a unique leader; I do not recall any previous major party candidate in a debate volunteering so many instances of common ground with his opponent. McCain's response struck me as odd and even ungracious; he has often proclaimed he would work across the partisan divide, but he undermined his own claim by completely ignoring Obama and his comments. Instead, he attacked Obama repeatedly, using phrases such as "Senator Obama just doesn't understand. . ." at least ten times.

The manner in which each man approached problems was strikingly different. McCain understandably emphasized his own personal experiences, but almost never made clear what he thought was the larger purpose of policy. Each problem was treated on its own, and McCain's proposed policies were invariably confrontational. John McCain's world focuses almost entirely on threats. Obama usually agreed with McCain on the nature of these threats, but his proposals for action were more insightful, sophisticated, and comprehensive, and, unlike McCain's, included the use of diplomatic and economic and moral power.

These striking differences were not simply debate tactics; they highlighted differences between the two men that are in their DNA. One is the product of the brawling traditions of the United States Navy, and survival under unimaginable conditions in a Hanoi prison. John McCain has prevailed in life not by seeking common ground (ironically, the most notable exception was his historic voyages of forgiveness to Vietnam). What has kept him energized (and alive) is his enormously combative style, which he proudly calls "maverick," and his quick, sometimes pre-emptive attacks on opponents. It is not a criticism to say that he is a gambler; he said so himself in his memoirs and in the debate.

Although Barack Obama articulates his positions in a calm, methodical, and understated way, he is clearly just as tough as McCain, or he would never have come this far in life, against unbelievable odds. But he thinks about how to solve problems in a manner much more conducive to successful governance than McCain. While he made clear he is ready to use military force if necessary, his life and career embodies the search for common ground between peoples of different backgrounds, different races, different points of view. During the debate he often emphasized the non-military aspects of American power--including diplomacy backed by American muscle, the restoration of respect for the nation, and the direct link between America's economic strength and its national security.

Astonishingly, McCain had virtually nothing to say on any of these issues--yet these are the tools that must be precisely balanced and deployed with skill if the nation is to regain its leadership position in the world.

This difference was reinforced by the much-noted failure of McCain to look in Obama's direction or address him directly during the debate, and by the grim looks that left many viewers with the impression McCain was just plain angry.

The overall effect was exactly the opposite of what McCain hoped to achieve: Obama showed that he could handle the frontal assaults of an aggressive and seasoned senator-war hero in the very area McCain was perceived to be strongest. Obama offered the larger vision for the nation--and a reassuring sense he would approach issues with the seriousness they required. The gambling, brawling style of John McCain has its attractive side to Americans, but it is not what we need in the White House in these troubled times."

Posted by: Luke2 | September 30, 2008 1:38 PM

When I watch CBS,NBC and ABC the alleged "news reporters" and "hosts" are all liberal Democrats like Couric, Williams, Olbermann, Matthews, Stephanopolis, yet there are simple-minded people who think these networks are unbiased. Even when Dan Rather got caught libelling Bush with forged documents prior to the 2004 election the brainless crowd kept silent. On the other hand, when I watch FOX I see liberals such as Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel etc. as well as conservatives, but FOX is called "biased" because it has the nerve to challenge fragile liberal belief systems with other points of view (thereby giving the strident little cretins headaches lest they actually have to "think"). Liberals cannot tolerate the existence of any outlets that express historical facts or opinions that challenge their belief system. This is true here, and it was true in their beloved Soviet Union and in Communist China. Liberals, like other slime-based life forms, cannot survive in the harsh light of day.

Posted by: MARKM2 | September 30, 2008 1:37 PM

"Viral Needed!

The Ben Stein Proposal

On Larry King Monday, ( 2008.09.29 ), Ben Stein proposed that instead of rewarding the banks, who caused this situation in the first place, that Congress should simply give the money to us. ( $700B / 300M Americans = about $2,333.33 ea. ). Americans could use these funds to help pay off those bad loans, which means that some of the "bad paper" would now become "good paper", thus benefiting some of the banks."


Just what we need, another loan. You do realize that our tax burden constantly rises due to the INTEREST on our national debt. What kind of interest rate do you think our government will have to pay for this loan? We are already in debt over our heads. This would merely be another short term crutch, like the home equity boom and economic stimulus package. Postponing the inevitable and probably exacerbating it...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | September 30, 2008 1:37 PM

This is a non-issue. Of course the FDIC limits have to be revised for inflation. That's obvious.

How about either one of the establishment candidates tries to do something about the actual cause of inflation instead, you know, like abolishing the Federal Reserve and its inflationary policies?

Now that would be a real policy, and one I could vote for.

Posted by: alanlockett | September 30, 2008 1:34 PM

Ben Stein's proposal makes no sense. We have a $10 trillion deficit. So, we are going to take $700 billion in additional taxes from the American people, and then give it back to everyone equally? Or are we doing to borrow $700 billion from foreign investors, and then hand that over to American people equally? Isn't this the wealth redistribution that conservatives like Stein are so against?

And how exactly is $2300 per family going to save local banks? Or help people get small business loans? Or a mortgage?

It is clear that the Republican conservative philosophy has no real answer to any problem other than "let the market fix it." But they know that the market can't fix this situation without causing HUGE problems for most Americans. So they scramble around to try to find these solutions without being willing to admit that maybe the problem is that the free market isn't really as flawless and efficient as they've wanted to believe.

Posted by: ethel08 | September 30, 2008 1:33 PM

lost 2k yesterday in my retirement and god knows how much in my daughters college savings plan while McCain plays footsie with politics.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 30, 2008 1:13 PM
?????????????

JRM2-

Thank your Democrat Legislators for resisting additional regulations on Fannie and Freddie- see McCain ad on Redstate.com AND soon on your tv screen- But don't believe me...see ABC news for Bill Clinton's appearance on GM America last week.


Chris Cuomo, ABC News: "A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, 'This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this.' Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation
President Clinton: "Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

http://www.politico.com/playbook/

Posted by: thecannula | September 30, 2008 1:33 PM

For whatever reason, I suspect that Obama made the first call to the White House with respect to the increase in FDIC. The White House then informed the McCain campaign. It reminds me of the little game that was played last week to politicize the bailout bill. It seems that the White House in cohoots with the McCain camapign issued the invitation to Obama to get him to the White House. Usually, Obama has been the one leading and/or showing the way while the Repubs just follow.

Remember when the crisis first evolved? Obama called McCain first with the proposition of going jointly before the American public. McCain decided to make an announcement to pretend that he was the first to suggest a solution. McCain is a modern-day scoundrel. There should be little wonder that Obama keeps many things very close to his chest. The mimics over at Republican headquarters snatch them up as soon as they know them.

Like I say, you might as well put the real deal in the White House rather than the cheap imitation.

Obama 2008

Posted by: EarlC | September 30, 2008 1:32 PM

"If undecided voters rely on FOX as a source of "news" then they are already lost. FOX is an opinion network, with absolutely no news value."


Lovingly referred to as Faux News.

If you are looking for sensationalism, they're #1!!!

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | September 30, 2008 1:30 PM


Viral Needed!

The Ben Stein Proposal

On Larry King Monday, ( 2008.09.29 ), Ben Stein proposed that instead of rewarding the banks, who caused this situation in the first place, that Congress should simply give the money to us. ( $700B / 300M Americans = about $2,333.33 ea. ). Americans could use these funds to help pay off those bad loans, which means that some of the "bad paper" would now become "good paper", thus benefiting some of the banks.

Those banks most able to recoup from this would be the ones not overextended in the bad credit/loans in the first place. Those most overstretched would go under anyways --- as well they should. The whole issue of Golden Parachutes becomes moot.

Those of us Americans who are not in this category of having bad mortgages or credit could simply spend the money, which would boost the economy as a whole.

This is not perfect nor without faults ( like inflation ), but it puts Main Street out ahead, before those lending institutions who created this mess. In the Monday's proposal, Congress would have saddled the American Public with a $700B debt, while still enforcing those bad loans on everyday-America - and not offering much, if any, relief for them.

We need to do Ben Stein's proposal. And the clock is ticking.

Please forward this to as many people as possible. This needs to go viral. Let Congress know, that you believe that Americans should get first dibs on their own money!

Posted by: wolfi101 | September 30, 2008 1:27 PM

"The base problem is that investment risk is being masked by the government guarantee to bail out financial institutions. That causes financial institutions to take greater risk in investments which only lead to one bigger crisis after another instead of smaller downturns tempered by greater wariness of risk."

No. This is not the base problem. This is not even one of the factors.

Anyone who tries to reduce this thing down to such a simple cliche has little understanding of what is happening. There is virtually no evidence that too much government involvement or insurance had anything to do with this.

Posted by: ethel08 | September 30, 2008 1:26 PM

It is amazing that more you see more it seems that republicans have lost their core conservative values - they do not show any fiscal discipline or family values and instead of working to reduce the government the last 8 years has seen immense increase in government. Power and greed has corrupted the republicans, the party is at this point morally bankrupt. With Keating scandal, bribery, flip-flop, and unbridled desire of becoming the President, McCain is a shadow of his old self.

Posted by: Rohit66 | September 30, 2008 1:25 PM

"dragonfly777, did you count how many times Obama said "John is absolutely right" during the debate?"


So, it is better to pretend the other person doesn't know anything and make up outright lies. Be careful what you wish for.


"On points, McCain definitely won."


Such as? Spurting out talking points? Distorting the truth? Looking smug? Pretending he hasn't flipped on every issue that he has ever spoken out about?


"Of course, Obama supporters are just furious that McCain wouldn't look at him."


Not really. It was actually self-damning. McCain showed an obvious distaste and lack of respect for others. Whether that is due to him being black or liberal, I'll leave up to you to decide...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | September 30, 2008 1:24 PM

"Are they intentionally keeping us in the dark?"

No, this is not a conspiracy theory by "them" to keep "us" in the dark. The financial markets are very complicated, and quite frankly many politicians don't understand what has happened very well, and most Americans understand even less. I'm not saying this because I think everyday Americans *should* understand this stuff; I'm saying that it is in fact really complicated. Credit swaps are pretty darn complex, as are mortgage-backed securities.

It is clear how few Americans understand this crisis by the number of posts that cite the movement of the Dow alone as evidence of whether our economy is doing well. The Dow is merely the measure of some equities' performance. It does not tell us what is happening in the credit markets, and at heart, this is a credit--not an equity--issue. Yes, it will and has affected equity markets, but equities' performance is an erratic reflection of underlying economic issues.

Since it is difficult to get similar gauges on the credit markets, you might look at the number and the size of banks that have folded around the globe over the past few months. That is another indicator, and a trend that seems likely to continue as long as Congress refuses to pass any kind of rescue plan and as Americans claim that what the plan is doing is bailing out Wall Street executives. In fact, saving our credit markets will do more for the middle-class than Wall Street execs.

Posted by: ethel08 | September 30, 2008 1:23 PM

We have Obama who is useless and does nothing compared to McCain who is useless and tries to do something. They are both useless, and their plans involves more government entanglement when we actually need less. The base problem is that investment risk is being masked by the government guarantee to bail out financial institutions. That causes financial institutions to take greater risk in investments which only lead to one bigger crisis after another instead of smaller downturns tempered by greater wariness of risk. The government needs to treat insurance like the Fed treats the lending rates. It should go up and down to act as a buffer rather than a permanent crutch that only leads to greater falls when the crutch isn't enough.

Posted by: sangjmoon | September 30, 2008 1:23 PM

""During the debate John McCain would not even look at his opponent."

Usually when a person will not look at another person during a verbal confrontation, it is because they are unsure of themselves and know that the audience and their opponent undersdtand they have been posturing and lying. They feel guilty, so will not make eye contact.

John McCain does not have any solutions for our country- so he must continue to distort and lie about the other candidate- hoping to instill fear and anxiety.

This worked against John Kerry in 2004. Steve Schmidt has put his old codger up to the same tactics.

I'm betting that Americans will not be fooled a third time.

Posted by: Luke2 | September 30, 2008 1:22 PM

"During the debate John McCain would not even look at his opponent."


What did you expect? He's black and liberal, he might as well be Satan himself...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | September 30, 2008 1:14 PM

""At this moment I think I need to talk to America and hear what their solutions are."

Glad to hear that he finally is admitting that he is clueless regarding the economy. His other blusterings are getting on my nerves.

John McCain, the alpha male grandpa who insists on thumping his chest in belligerence like an old chimp in the zoo.

He is a pathetic person. His angry and irrational temperament should instantly disqualify him from being anywhere near the nuclear trigger.

During the debate John McCain would not even look at his opponent. Do we expect him to negotiate with our allies or adversaries when they don’t always agree with him? To me, he comes across as hostile, impatient, sarcastic and lacking any respect for others- including himself.

Dangerous traits in a statesman. His eyes are getting more glazed and crazy looking every day.

I’ll take the clueless, good hearted Sarah any day over this angry, disdainful curmudgeon.


Posted by: Luke2 | September 30, 2008 1:11 PM

dbw1,

McCain is pushing for the 250K cap too, it is not just the "wise one." Also, if the idea has been around so long, why hasn't anyone done anything about it?

Its about time they did, thanks Obama AND McCain. Never thought I'd say that.

Posted by: Independent4tw | September 30, 2008 12:54 PM

Dragonfly777,

Can you prove that McMad floated this idea first?

Posted by: maugustson
************************
I second that request for proof. Maybe Dragonfly777 can do that as soon as he gets MarkfromAustin's head removed from his butt.

Posted by: LABC | September 30, 2008 12:51 PM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmB93McZeI
Cut and paste this great video regarding this crisis and McCain's role! Already removed from youtube! ENJOY & SHARE

Posted by: RUBY2 | September 30, 2008 12:35 PM

Raising FDIC limit is not for you or I, but for small business owner protection.

I'M STARTING TO REALIZE THAT MOST ON ANY POSTS I'VE SEEN ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH OR EDUCATED ENOUGH TO FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT HAND, THIS INCLUDES MYSELF.

Posted by: maugustson | September 30, 2008 12:33 PM

Dragonfly777,

Can you prove that McMad floated this idea first?

Posted by: maugustson | September 30, 2008 12:31 PM

Cyros,

CNN has them but FOX's "liberal" is there for show. They are the token. America loves to use labels, liberal, conservative, right winger, left winger, etc. Can people just be human freaking beings in this country? Great day!

Posted by: ajackson3 | September 30, 2008 12:25 PM

The argument for higher limits, or indeed one hundred percent coverage is very simple and has nothing to do with favouring the rich it is that if you don't then there will be more and more destructive runs on smaller banks as large scale deposits flee to those banks that are seen as having de facto one hundred percent coverage because they are too big for the Government to let them fail. The Fed has implicitly accepted this by normally using Purchase and Assumptions where banks are taken over and all depositors are covered rather than closing down the banks.

Posted by: iansmccarthy | September 30, 2008 12:19 PM

Fox at least has shows where there are two commentators; a liberal and a conservative. How many other networks have similar type shows?

Posted by: Cryos | September 30, 2008 12:15 PM

For the poster who inform us all that FOX News is in the tank for the republicans, that is not new thus the reason any one wanting to hear objective news reporting, specifically on the election, DO NOT LISTEN to FOX News. They are a joke and really should call themselves FOX Editorial not news.

Any way, explain to me why the markets tanked yesterday and are back up today? Is raising the FDIC cap on our accounts a positive are a negative, what are the TRUE pro and cons? What about credit lending? Is it still in jeopardy as the CNN analyst explained last night? This crisis has NEVER been fully explained by the government or any economist. Are they intentionally keeping us in the dark?

Posted by: ajackson3 | September 30, 2008 12:13 PM

Again, this is for the rich people. How many middle class do you know that have 100K in their bank? With this day and age, you just hope you got enough to make ends meet much less that kind of money in the bank. Raising FDIC to 250K is for the rich folks. Again the working class is screw over.

Posted by: Aeldas | September 30, 2008 12:07 PM

Why is there a need to raise the insurance limit? Last bailout, the S&L, the Congress paid people off well over the limit. Fat cats rule both parties.

Posted by: edbyronadams | September 30, 2008 12:05 PM

What a crock....

The Post and other MSM outlets breathlessly reported this morning about the Wise One's 'idea' to increase FDIC insurance. Obama, our hero.

Of course, none of these Obama-leaning rags happened to mention:
- this idea has been around for some time, since, as Obama noted, the $100k cap hadn't been increased in 28 years.
- This idea was floated -again- earlier by some Republicans as part of a broader bailout alternative.
- and as another poster noted, the Evil Bush himself mentioned this same idea a week ago.

I guess the media is too busy to check facts, and trying really hard to find places to give Obama credit and printing reams of stories accusing the House Republicans of yesterdays defeat (which could have passed without a single Republican vote, if Pelos and Frank could demonstrate any leadership whatsoever to get their Democrat pals on board).

And the Post will continue to protest that there is no bias, and they are "just doing their jobs". Yeah. Right.

Posted by: dbw1 | September 30, 2008 12:04 PM

egc52556, for the Bush/McCain haters, it seems so.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 12:01 PM

Jeez, does it matter who said what first if everybody agrees it's a good idea? Must we be in violent agreement?

Posted by: egc52556 | September 30, 2008 11:59 AM

dragonfly777, did you count how many times Obama said "John is absolutely right" during the debate? On points, McCain definitely won. Of course, Obama supporters are just furious that McCain wouldn't look at him. We need to get someone besides Jim Leher in four years.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 11:56 AM

How will increasing the amount covered by FDIC increase support for any bailout?

It is STILL a bailout.

Posted by: NoneoftheAbove08 | September 30, 2008 11:55 AM

Why is Senator Obama embracing a proposal his colleagues rejected?" said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner. "Why did Senate Democrats reject the proposal initially? Have they all changed their minds, or is Senator Obama breaking with his colleagues?"

It is called, Working Together. It is not about political posturing, who gets credit, who gets blame. It is about listening to all people and sifting through what makes sense and is worthwhile to consider and what is not. It is putting many opinions on the table and considering whatever it takes that makes sense to get the job done. It is called responsible governing, not "politics as usual" and it is what is needed not only in times of crisis but in everyday governing. It is how the Bay of Pigs was resolved. It is how The New Deal was born. It is how Medicare, Social Security, and Civil Rights was done. None by Republicans. I think the proposal should be modified to include this and other suggestions and then, I think put it up to vote after currying all Dems to vote for it and the hell with Republicans. They have made themselves irrelevant. In January, Obama will review the outcome of this proposal and put in place a more responsible economic plan for long term, redirecting the wasteful spending habits and incompetence of 8 years of Republican Administration, which couldn't even keep a city from drowning.

Posted by: nana4 | September 30, 2008 11:54 AM

I hadn't seen a specific number like $250,000 yet, but it sounds like a good idea to me.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 11:54 AM

Does Obama have an original thought in his head?? McCain was the first to propose he FICA increase, now copycat Obama says he's for it too. Seems to me Obama is on the Bush bailout wagon. Obama is worse than Biden and that is a lot!

Posted by: dragonfly777 | September 30, 2008 11:45 AM

Bush's speech on 9/24:

"The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money.

The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000.

The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit, and this will not change.

Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update the FDIC and our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st-century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th-century laws.

Recently, we've seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.

Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability.

There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy's ability to grow.

In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised."

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 11:42 AM

CaliforniaMonkey:

You haven't been watching Katie Couric over on CBS lately.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 11:35 AM

Lead on Obama! Wouldn't be funny if Obama's statements on FDIC Insurance increases allows the bailout bill to pass while McCain's "campaign suspension debacle" was ineffective and seen as political stunt?!

Posted by: AJ2008 | September 30, 2008 11:32 AM

JakeD...when did President Bush promise increases in amounts covered by FDIC and by how much?!

Please list your reference. Just because you say it, does not make it true.

Posted by: AJ2008 | September 30, 2008 11:29 AM

MarkInAustin:

The only network you can say really is "in the tank" for Obama is MSNBC, who, by the way, at least invite conservative guests on their shows and don't cut their mics or shout them down when they don't agree.

Posted by: CaliforniaMonkey | September 30, 2008 11:28 AM

Raising the limit is kind of ridiculous, since the FDIC does not have a segregated fund. All bank premiums are paid to the Treasury, where they've been deposited into the general government fund since the Johnson Administration. When the FDIC needs money, they must borrow from the Treasury, which increases the federal deficit.

I can only assume this move is designed to bolster public confidence.

Source: Bill Isaac, former FDIC Chairman
http://www.securagroup.com/news/archives/articles/2008/AB080827.pdf

Posted by: stee1962 | September 30, 2008 11:26 AM

dicktracy2001:

If undecided voters rely on FOX as a source of "news" then they are already lost. FOX is an opinion network, with absolutely no news value.

Posted by: CaliforniaMonkey | September 30, 2008 11:26 AM

dicktracy2001:

Even if Fox News is doing that, one channel against all the others in the tank for Obama seems fair and balanced to me.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 30, 2008 11:24 AM

He is a new version of ronnie reagan,
all he needs is a cowboy hat.
Yeah!!!!
I like the new improved Republican Obama!
If Palin slips up badly on Thursday,
I might vote obamaGOP!

Posted by: USA3 | September 30, 2008 11:19 AM

At this point I do not think anyone really cares who's idea it was to increase the FDIC coverage. I lost 14,000 dollars in just one of my 401K plans in just the last week or so. I think the partisanship needs to take a back seat so something can get done.

Posted by: jwritesel | September 30, 2008 11:18 AM

I am writing this message to inform people of the injustice being perpretrated by Fox News against Barack Obama. For the past two weeks there has been nothing but negative reporting against senator Obama by the Fox News network, which is unfair to listeners and the candidate. This networks seemingly biased opinions are not of interest to us viewers. My concern is that negative reporting like this will influence voters that are undecided of which candidate best express their wishes. I depend on these news stations for fair, accurate and just reporting regardless of the outcome whether it be a debate or any other current event and if that cant be accomplished I feel that it is grounds for that station (Fox News network) to be boycotted until they learn and understand that those types of injustices will not be tolerated. If anyone else can relate to the unfair reporting of Fox News I suggest that you join us in a boycott of this news station. PASS THIS MESSAGE ALONG.

Posted by: dicktracy2001 | September 30, 2008 11:18 AM

"I doubt that Obama desires the "bailout" bill to pass.
If he did he would of had his two closest allies in Congress vote for the bill on monday."

What I think is funnier is that McCain took credit for getting the bill to pass before it was passed, then later blamed Obama for the bill's failure.

So... Take credit for something good that doesn't happen, then defer blame when something doesn't happen. How gullible does he think voters are?

Posted by: bsimon1 | September 30, 2008 11:15 AM

Jackson and Rush are part of the Black caucus. They held out because they wanted to make changes in the bankruptcy laws to help small businesses and individuals. Bush would not allow it to be included in the bail out plan. So all of the Black caucus members voted no. This is per Clyburn, who I believe is the Democratic whip.

Posted by: jwritesel | September 30, 2008 11:12 AM

I thought this was familiar... wasnt this already proposed by Bush? Oh but it was bad because Bush proposed it and ok now because Obama proposed it.
So now this is Obama's idea?

Obama needs to get the Democrats to vote for this thing... and needs to get Pelosi to STFU!

Obama also cant spend all he wants if he wins the presidency. All his promises are now bunk!

Capital gains tax? HA!
First that would kill the market, plus there's not the revenue there that used to be!

Also tax the rich? Guess what, they arent so rich anymore! (the revenue he cant get and will put the USA in even more debt).

So what is Mr. Say-anything (Obama) going to promise next!??

Posted by: jabberwolff | September 30, 2008 11:10 AM

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? -- 11 minute video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

Posted by: eureka60 | September 30, 2008 11:05 AM

President Bush already promised us FDIC would cover larger amounts.

Posted by: JakeD
************************

so when he is planning to implement? 10 years from now ?

Posted by: Jeff991 | September 30, 2008 11:04 AM

President Bush already promised us FDIC would cover larger amounts.

Posted by: JakeD
************************
when did Bush say this? Did he give a figure?

mwhoke - you might want to ask McCain why he couldn't get one member of his home state to vote for this bailout.

(Not that we should hold him up to the same high standards as Obama.)

Posted by: LABC | September 30, 2008 11:03 AM

I doubt that Obama desires the "bailout" bill to pass.
If he did he would of had his two closest allies in Congress vote for the bill on monday.
Jesse Jackson Jr. and Bobby Rush, both of Chicago's south side, voted no.
If Obama wanted the bill to pass he would of contacted them and requested they vote yes.

Posted by: mwhoke | September 30, 2008 10:50 AM

President Bush already promised us FDIC would cover larger amounts.

Posted by: JakeD | September 30, 2008 10:27 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company