Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama and the Economic Rescue Plan

By Dan Balz
MIAMI -- Barack Obama offered a qualified endorsement early Friday of the efforts by the Bush administration, the Federal Reserve and Congress to deal with the ongoing crisis in the financial markets.

Hours before a scheduled meeting with his economic advisers, Obama's campaign issued a statement detailing the principles by which he will judge the actions underway in Washington.

"I support the effort of Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke to work in a bipartisan spirit with the congressional leadership to find a systemic solution to our deepening crisis," he said, "and I will closely examine the specifics of their effort and the opportunities for swift action."

Obama had intended to issue his own plan on Friday, but in light of the fast-moving activities by federal officials, campaign advisers cautioned that he will hold off for now until administration officials announce their latest response to the crisis. Obama said he had asked his advisers to delay issuing details of his own plan.

"It is critical at this point that the markets and the public have confidence that their work will be unimpeded by partisan wrangling, and that leaders in both parties work in concert to solve the problem at hand," he said.

Obama's statement stressed that, while he supports what federal officials are doing to confront the meltdown in the financial industry, he believes broader steps may be needed to deal with the impact on families, rather than just big financial institutions.

"For too long, this Administration has been willing to hit the fast forward button in helping distressed Wall Street firms while pressing pause when it comes to saving jobs or keeping families in their homes," he said in the statement.

He also cautioned that any federal solution should not result in the further enrichment of CEOs and top managers of the affected firms. "Any taxpayer-funded support must have as its focus protecting our nation's long-term interest in a stable financial market and a growing economy rather than rewarding particular companies or the imprudent decisions of borrowers or lenders," he said.

He urged that the solutions contemplated by Washington officials be seen as temporary with the clear intent of restoring private-sector control and, when possible, allowing taxpayers to benefit from any profits earned by the bailouts.

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 19, 2008; 9:39 AM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Economic Counterattack
Next: McCain Offers Few Details on Economic Plan

Comments

The Atlantic
September 18, 2008
An economist explains why he thinks McCain's economic policies make more sense
by Steven Landsburg

(Steven E. Landsburg (born 1954) is an American professor of economics at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. From 1989 to 1995, he taught at Colorado State University.)


Betting on John McCain

My whole life I've been mystified by the concept of the "undecided voter." I've never had any problem choosing my candidates and didn't see how anyone else could either. But this year, I've been genuinely on the fence, partly because I haven't been paying close attention, and partly because there seemed ample reason to dislike all of the options.
But over the past few days, as McCain and Obama have ratcheted up their rhetoric over each others' "disastrous" economic policies, I decided to do a little research. Along the way, I had a few surprises about John McCain's voting record, some but not all of them pleasant. Now I don't think I'm undecided anymore.
Here are some of the things that made my decision easy, and some that made it hard:
1. Free trade and immigration are my top issues, and McCain wins on both.
These are my top issues for several reasons. First, trade is the engine of prosperity not just for the United States but also for the poorest of the world's poor. Nothing matters more than that. Second, the instinct to care about the national origin of your trading partner (or employer, or employee, or landlord, or tenant) is an ugly one, and the instinct to care about the national origin of other people's trading partners—and on that basis to interfere forcibly with other people's voluntary transactions—is even uglier.
Finally, protectionism, like creationism, requires an extraordinary level of willful ignorance. The consensus for free trade among economists is approximately as solid as the consensus for evolution among biologists, and it is a consensus supported by a solid body of both theory and observation. To ignore that consensus betrays a degree of anti-intellectualism that frightens me.
McCain is quite good on this issue, not just in terms of rhetoric (which I've known for a while) but in terms of voting record (which I've just recently researched). Obama, by contrast, promises to be our first explicitly protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. Some intervening presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and to a lesser extent Bush II) have been weak in their commitments to free trade, but none between Hoover and Obama has so explicitly rejected it.
2. McCain is not Bush. This came as a surprise to me. I'd been assuming, in my ill-read, uneducated way, that McCain had been complicit in most of the great travesties of the Bush administration and the execrable Republican Senate. I've learned that's largely untrue. He voted (to my great surprise!) against the prescription drug entitlement, against the Farm Security Bill, against milk subsidies, against Amtrak subsidies, and against highway subsidies.
Obama, by contrast, is in many ways a continuation of Bush. Like Bush (only far more so ), Obama is fine with tariffs and subsidies. Like Bush, he wants to send jackbooted thugs into every meatpacking plant in America to rid the American workplace of anyone who happens to have been born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. Like Bush, he wants a more progressive tax code. (It is one of the great myths of 21st century that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code less progressive; the opposite is true. If you are in the bottom 38% of taxpayers, you now pay zero income tax—and therefore have an incentive to support any spending bill that comes down the pike.) Like Bush, he wants more regulation, not less.

3. But there's a lot about economics that McCain just doesn't get. This shows up most significantly in his energy policies. Every economist knows that the best way to discourage carbon emissions (or anything else for that matter) is to tax them. But McCain rejects a carbon tax in favor of one slightly inferior policy (cap and trade) and one grossly inferior policy (direct regulation, such as the CAFE standards for fuel efficiency).
In a world of perfect capital markets and perfect information, a cap-and-trade system (provided the government auctions off the permits rather than giving them away) is exactly equivalent to a carbon tax – same effect on everything down to and including the prices of consumer goods. In the real world we live in, it's inferior for two reasons: First, small firms might find it difficult=2 0to raise the necessary capital to buy a permit; this gives an inappropriate advantage to big firms over small ones. Second, I believe it will be harder (for technical reasons I won't go into here) to calculate the efficient number of cap-and-trade permits than to calculate the efficient per-ton carbon tax. Aside from that, the two policies are equivalent in every way. McCain presumably doesn't get this, or he wouldn't have such a strong preference for cap-and-trade.
Worse, he endorses the CAFE standards, which are just a terrible way to control carbon emissions. While a carbon tax gets incentives right at every decision point, fuel efficiency standards give people no incentive, for example, to bike to work instead of drive (in fact, they flip the incentive in the wrong direction). Worse yet, they concentrate brainpower on improving fuel efficiency when there might be far more effective ways to control carbon emissions; with a tax, all innovations are rewarded.
In his support of CAFE standards over carbon taxes, McCain betrays a serious failure to understand how incentives work. The same problem shows up when he thinks you can simply mandate campaign finance limits, as if people who are competing for control of a $15 trillion economy won't be creative enough to find some way to spend hundreds of millions in the effort, no matter how you write your laws.
4. McCain gets health care right. The reason poor Americans get too little health care is that rich Am ericans get too much. The reason rich Americans get too much is that they're overinsured, and therefore run to the doctor for minor problems. The reason they're overinsured is that employer-provided health benefits aren't taxed, so employers overprovide them.
It has been clear for decades that the single most effective way to control health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health care. According to one careful study by my colleague Charles Phelps (admittedly several years old, but I'm not sure anything relevant has changed), this single reform could reduce health care costs by 40% with essentially no effect on health care outcomes.
Essential as this reform may be, I'd always assumed it was a political non-starter. I was therefore astonished to learn that it's the essence of McCain's health care reform. (At the same time, he would give each individual $2500, and each family $5000, to use for health care.)
I am astonished that I hadn't heard about this, and particularly astonished that Barack Obama hasn't thrust it in my face with a negative spin. Possibly he has and I just wasn't paying attention. In any case, this is just what the doctor ordered, and I am delighted that McCain has put it on the table.
Obama, by contrast, wants poor people to get more medical care without addressing the problem of overuse by rich people. Where is that extra medical care going to come from? If the answer is "nowhere," then a primary effect of the Obama plan must be to raise prices, making doctors and hospitals the big beneficiaries.
Of course, there are other things that matter. Foreign and defense policy might matter more than anything, and if I were sure that one or the other candidate were far wiser about these issues, that might be enough to win my vote. But I have no expertise on these matters and no particular reason to trust my own judgment.
I'm sure I'm right about trade and pretty sure I'm right about taxes and health care, but that's because I've thought long and hard about these issues for decades. It seems to me that we ought to be humble about the things we haven't thought hard about, and for me that includes foreign policy. The best I can do is bet that whoever's getting most of the other stuff right is getting this right too.
The bottom line is that I support John McCain. With trepidation.

Posted by: Scott | September 20, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Want it? , asian squirting pussy, [url="http://www.threadless.com/profile/804705/b1f3g0"]asian squirting pussy[/url], http://www.threadless.com/profile/804705/b1f3g0 asian squirting pussy,

Posted by: Broxx | September 20, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

PALIN BACKED RON PAUL? http://www.veeppeek.com

YESTERDAY MORE CAME OUT ABOUT SARAH PALINS ALLEDGED AFFIAR. http://www.hotpres.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Are americans worse off today than 10 years ago? I think every one knows the answer to this question .Americans know how to vote in November to redress this issue.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Go Go Anonymous, Go! Give the lie-spewing ding dongs (aka Republicans, aka the intellectually challenged, aka the morally corrupt, aka cowards genetically predisposed to overactive startle responses--fright) their due! No need to post when I can just watch you put the narrow-minded coneheads in their place with such ease and panache.

Posted by: Go Go Anonymous | September 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Christine | September 19, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Fast forward 8 months into the future of the new Obama administration. After another terrorist attack, a reporter asks the President how he is going to respond, and he simply replies, "Present."

Obama...not ready to lead, and barely able to follow.

Posted by: Paula | September 19, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I love how Obama NOW states "it is critical at this point that the markets and the public have confidence that their work will be unimpeded by partisan wrangling, and that leaders in both parties work in concert to solve the problem at hand." Great speech, except that we need a leader who would have recognized that this was going to be a problem long before this meltdown. Not someone who has it pushed in his face and THEN decides that he will be bipartisan. Obama is just like the rest of the run of the mill politicians, say anything to get elected. We need a leader who doesn't do the politically correct thing but rather thinks of America first. Wasn't that what John McCain knew 2 WHOLE YEARS ago when he tried to get legislation passed about Fannie and Freddie. But was blocked by the Democratic congress, including our now Suddenly bipartisan Obama. The Democrats couldn't and wouldn't let this measure pass because it would have helped the Republicans. Basically they said screw america, we're not given the republicans any brownie points. Fast forward to now, if these regulations had been in place maybe we wouldn't be where we economically are.
Just like the need for oil independence, the Democrats refused to do anything, but low and behold when it became politically correct to vote FOR oil drilling they rushed back to Congress to pass the bill. I don't want someone who does what is PC, I want a real leader who can see what is good for America and is bipartisan even when it is not politically correct. Give me John McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

In the documentary film Obama The Hype, the thrust was to discuss the reality behind the credibility of an economic plan laid out by Obama.
If there is a viable plan, then it's practicle application certainly was exposed in the content of the film.

Why isn't the Obama crowd thrilled?
It is only relavent to fence sitters and the undecided.

Posted by: dotty | September 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the right choice for president because he is smart. He's smarter than McCain. For eight years we've had a president who's "just like you." It's been a disaster.

Posted by: Hilary Smith | September 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

It's sad to watch a man like John McCain allow his reputation to be destroyed by those wackos running his campaign.

Posted by: Hilary Smith | September 19, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"I was referring to his Babs party in Beverly Hills. Texas was in crisis and he could have bailed and kept some dignity the party would have went on without him. They would have still raised the money and I might have respected him more for putting his country first. No the acceptance speech Galla was just more evidence of wasteful spending."

I am assuming that the times Bush canceled vacations and golf, but did nothing to help, it made you feel that Bush was patriotic.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"I was referring to his Babs party in Beverly Hills. Texas was in crisis and he could have bailed and kept some dignity the party would have went on without him. They would have still raised the money and I might have respected him more for putting his country first. No the acceptance speech Galla was just more evidence of wasteful spending.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:12 PM"

--------
Uhh, the storm was over and FEMA was in full force, what did McCain do that was so special, rescue some puppies?

Re your "wasteful spending" comment: Obama has run a very disciplined and well-organized campaign. His "gala" as you put it was no different than other recent candidates and frankly, he deserved it.

McCain's campaign was virtually bankrupt last spring from wasteful spending to the point where he bargained a loan from the bank in return for public (TAXPAYER) funds.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Editor:

This forum would be much more constructive if you limited duplicate postings and set a maximum length for comments.


Posted by: DS | September 19, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The unsubstantiated claim that Obama violated the Logan Act originated at the NY Post, a neoconservative newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch. No valid news organization has run this story. Google it and you find the original NY Post article and a bunch of neoconservative references and links to it.

Read about Rupert Murdoch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

Posted by: Andrew | September 19, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"McCain did the right thing and suspended his acceptance of the party's nomination during a crisis in American, BO went forth with his...."

McCain did the only thing he could do, and BO went through with his because there was no American crisis at the time of his convention.

are you in some kind of time-warp?
========================================
I was referring to his Babs party in Beverly Hills. Texas was in crisis and he could have bailed and kept some dignity the party would have went on without him. They would have still raised the money and I might have respected him more for putting his country first. No the acceptance speech Galla was just more evidence of wasteful spending.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Obama went behind the back of our President, tried to delay the war! (for his own benefit)."
-----

Hahahaha, OMG, this war has dragged on for 6 years with no end in sight, all we have achieved is "a fragile and easily reversible peace" according to Generals on the ground.

Obama has repeatedly given plans to end the war which both GW, McCain and Maliki have adopted and you are trusting a source owned by FOX mogul Murdoch?, the NY Post?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi and her buddy Reid said it themselves, we now have control and we can fix this mess. That was 2 years ago and all they have done is try for 2 years to get their poster boy elected. Will he be Present when Putin starts drilling in the Arctic Circle and Canada is knocking on our door for help. He will be hiding under the desk.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Logan Act, http://www.answers.com/topic/logan-act

There is a petition that you can sign and send to your Congressman about Obama’s violation of the Logan Act. Please sign this and send it to your Congressman.

http://www.rallycongress.com/americansentinel/1223/a-call-for-hearings-into-senator-barack-obamas-violation-of-the-logan-act/

I do not have a lot of time today. So I need your help our there to post this message often and on different threads. (I do not know how to cut & paste or I would save it). Please, we need as many signatures as we can get and get the message out. Obama went behind the back of our President, tried to delay the war! (for his own benefit). This is not the kind of person we need in the White House making decisions for the brave men and women of the US military. That is unforgiveable!!! Thanks! I know I can count on all of you!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"They did this. The democratic run senate and congress did this.

Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:59 PM"

Give me a fricken break, a one vote majority (Lieberman). The deregulation happened years before this, it is a REPUBLICAN plank.

The current Senate/Congress has been in office for 1 1/2 years during which GW has used the power of the VETO 6 times, up until that point he had NEVER used the VETO.

Republicans marched lock-step with him for 6 1/2 years, that is what has created this mess.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"McCain did the right thing and suspended his acceptance of the party's nomination during a crisis in American, BO went forth with his...."

McCain did the only thing he could do, and BO went through with his because there was no American crisis at the time of his convention.

are you in some kind of time-warp?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Scott's post about Obama trying to delay the Iraq war was an article published in the NY Post, which is owned - along with Fox News - by Rupert Murdoch:

[from Wikipedia]
Murdoch's publications worldwide adopt hawkish views with regards to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favor of the war.[18] Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute. News Corp-owned Fox News is often criticized for a strong conservative and anti-liberal bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

Posted by: Andrew | September 19, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

You have to hand it to Bush. That was a bold move and one counter to the traditional Republican "no government interference" philosophy. I hope his approval ratings go up as a result. I think he earned it.

Obama should get back to Washington and work on solving the problem. I think his supporters (I am one) would like to see him doing his job right now instead of trying to use the greatest financial crisis of our generation as a campaign issue. Let McCain go there. We would rather he stay away from Washington right now anyway.

Posted by: Politicus | September 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

McCain did the right thing and suspended his acceptance of the party's nomination during a crisis in American, BO went forth with his. He could have very easily said, hey guys thanks for holding this for me, continue on but I can't attend the country needs me FIRST. He still could have raised his money and I would have respected that. On another note, Where was MO during the 9/11 memorial. Not even a press release to show respect. Bet she didn't miss the party.Maybe BO wasn't behind this economic disaster, my opinions is different, but the dems have been running things for 2 years. They did this. The democratic run senate and congress did this.

Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton, took from peter to pay paul. He dismantled our military cut spending there and left us open to the 9/11 attack. He left bad policy that had to be cleaned up."

----------------
When Clinton left office we still had the strongest military (highest spending) on the planet earth.

GW was directly warned about the Al Qaeda threat on 42 separate occasion, and even had a intelligence briefing, the title of the report was: Bin Laden determined to strike within the United States (using airplanes as weapons) Condi Rice, didn't even know who they were.

GW had over 9 months to figure it out.

I am amazed that the "party of personal responsibility" still chooses to blame others when something goes wrong for them.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"Campaign contributions, shall we go there? He is off collecting contributions at a hollywood galla while middle class America is suffering....."
Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:47 PM
-------

Yeah let's go there, are you aware that McCain held his own fundraiser in Hollywood recently?, do you think that "middle America" was doing just fine then?

It's called fundraising and McCain will also take it wherever he can get it. They are both trying to win the Presidency so they CAN help people.

At least Obama wasn't the one behind this economic philosophy that caused this disaster, McCain squarely is.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, and the job market looks so good under the current plan. Perhaps you could explain to me why the tax code in the Clinton administration worked just fine for everyone. Both individuals and corporations prospered. The problem now is that the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots" is wider than ever. There is no trickle down effect, it didn't work for Reagan and it's not working now.

But you know what?, giving tax breaks to corporations for NOT shipping jobs overseas will.

Educate yourself with some history.
======================================

Clinton, took from peter to pay paul. He dismantled our military cut spending there and left us open to the 9/11 attack. He left bad policy that had to be cleaned up. Now this "canidate" who along with Pelosi stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton and is using most of her ideas to try and get himself elected. He has never put forth anything of his own. He doesn't own any legislation. HE IS present and accounted for. Lets give him the keys to our country.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"I don't see BO offering to pay back or contribute any of the money he made with those mortgage giants Fannie & Freddie

Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:32 PM"

-----
You are talking about campaign contributions, not scandals like the the Keating 5, or de-regulation which started this whole mess. A campaign contribution is not "made" money for personal use. Better put would be "received"

The campaign contributions Obama (and McCain) have received are not even spit in a bucket compared to the financial disaster McCain and his good buddies (Phil "stop whining" Graham) have created.

Oh and BTW: According to his VP pick it's now "Palin/McCain '08"
===========================================
Campaign contributions, shall we go there? He is off collecting contributions at a hollywood galla while middle class America is suffering, but he can relate to the "average joe" he is dirty. He has questionable associates, Ayers, Rezko just to name a couple. His plan for America creates more government agencies, more opportunity to "screw up" and for him to pass the buck. He never takes responsibility for any of his actions. He even LIED on his application to the Bar Association about having other known alias. He has several. There is a question as to his eligibility to even be running for public office and legal action pending. www.obamacrimes.com is very much real and alive. He will sell us out. What about the "Global Poverty Tax" him and biden support? He wants America to pay a global tax to help other countries with their poor. This law would also allow the UN to have say in how that money is distributed within the world economy. This man is dangerous.
One more thing, I don't care if you put the ticket backwards, upwards, sideways or byways, IT IS the best ticket this country has to stay a democracy, free of terrorist attacks and become energy independent. NO MORE NO WAY NO OBAMA

Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"In these times, we need a strong leader not a question mark."

Is that why McCain has been vomiting all over himself this past week with his multiple simultaneous opposing positions on this mess?

He's not leading, he's reacting to what he thinks is public opinion, and recklessly at that.

He's no leader.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Under the BO and Biden tax plan there will be no jobs and no one will have money to pay taxes."
----------

Yeah, and the job market looks so good under the current plan. Perhaps you could explain to me why the tax code in the Clinton administration worked just fine for everyone. Both individuals and corporations prospered. The problem now is that the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots" is wider than ever. There is no trickle down effect, it didn't work for Reagan and it's not working now.

But you know what?, giving tax breaks to corporations for NOT shipping jobs overseas will.

Educate yourself with some history.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The truth about Obama is starting to come out. He recieved lots of campain money from Freddy and Fannie.

Obama is a slick lawyer...not ready to lead us. McCain has lots of experience...ready to lead. I don't agree with McCain all of the time but I do know he will do what's right for this country and he will act.

In these times, we need a strong leader not a question mark.

Posted by: kcpost | September 19, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

ABOUT THOSE REALLY REALLY LONG COMMENT POSTS...

Hardly anyone reads them! Why not just post the lead-in paragraph and then a link to the rest. I know some of you don't want to expose the source of your info, but hey, give us a break.

Posted by: Andrew | September 19, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, if Biden and Obama are such patriot's they won't mind selling their big houses to live in a nice modest home..."

----------

Both Obama and Biden PAY THEIR TAXES and will pay more under their tax plan while the middle class reap the benefits you ding-dong
=========================================
Under the BO and Biden tax plan there will be no jobs and no one will have money to pay taxes. Educate yourself. To Share the wealth you have to have wealth in this country. The rich keep jobs here in America, they open businesses and corporations. If the tax structure dips into their dividends they are going to pack up and take their jobs to India, Mexico, Ireland, Iran and other countries who will let them set up shop, pay low taxes and give their citizens jobs. You are crazey to think that corporate America will stay here if it dips into their profits. It is Business 101 anyone who took basic ecomomics knows how the structure works.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"I don't see BO offering to pay back or contribute any of the money he made with those mortgage giants Fannie & Freddie

Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:32 PM"

-----
You are talking about campaign contributions, not scandals like the the Keating 5, or de-regulation which started this whole mess. A campaign contribution is not "made" money for personal use. Better put would be "received"

The campaign contributions Obama (and McCain) have received are not even spit in a bucket compared to the financial disaster McCain and his good buddies (Phil "stop whining" Graham) have created.

Oh and BTW: According to his VP pick it's now "Palin/McCain '08"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Go here to learn about Amir Taheri, a neonconservative. Talk show host Taylor Marsh has questioned Taheri's journalistic integrity, alleging that Taheri's writings contain misrepresentations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri

Posted by: Andrew | September 19, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

This is really serious folks... NO joking here. He has betrayed America and our Soldiers, your sons,daughter, husbands and wife... Write to the Senate and Congress.
Obama tried to get the war in Iraq delayed until after the elections. When Obama made his trip to Germany, Paris, & Iraq, he asked Gen. Patroeus to delay the war. This is a violation of the Logan Act. See definition below.

Logan Act, http://www.answers.com/topic/logan-act

There is a petition that you can sign and send to your Congressman about Obama’s violation of the Logan Act. Please sign this and send it to your Congressman.

http://www.rallycongress.com/americansentinel/1223/a-call-for-hearings-into-senator-barack-obamas-violation-of-the-logan-act/

I do not have a lot of time today. So I need your help our there to post this message often and on different threads. (I do not know how to cut & paste or I would save it). Please, we need as many signatures as we can get and get the message out. Obama went behind the back of our President, tried to delay the war! (for his own benefit). This is not the kind of person we need in the White House making decisions for the brave men and women of the US military. That is unforgiveable!!! Thanks! I know I can count on all of you!!!!

Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"Well, if Biden and Obama are such patriot's they won't mind selling their big houses to live in a nice modest home..."

----------

Both Obama and Biden PAY THEIR TAXES and will pay more under their tax plan while the middle class reap the benefits you ding-dong

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Looks like McCain's career is coming full-circle, from the bailout of the Keating Five (a big economic disaster) to the multiple bailouts we see over the past couple of weeks because of his claimed mantle of deregulation.

He's at both ends of this equation.

Posted by: Full Circle | September 19, 2008 12:26 PM
==========================================
I don't see BO offering to pay back or contribute any of the money he made with those mortgage giants Fannie & Freddie

Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Quote of the day; A christian woman called into a radio station and said (regarding the current administration and the Republican party)

"These are the people Jesus warned us about"

Posted by: Quote of the day | September 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

REPOST FOR : Comment by owtfblogspot
September 19th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Obama tried to get the war in Iraq delayed until after the elections. When Obama made his trip to Germany, Paris, & Iraq, he asked Gen. Patroeus to delay the war. This is a violation of the Logan Act. See definition below.

Logan Act, http://www.answers.com/topic/logan-act

There is a petition that you can sign and send to your Congressman about Obama’s violation of the Logan Act. Please sign this and send it to your Congressman.

http://www.rallycongress.com/americansentinel/1223/a-call-for-hearings-into-senator-barack-obamas-violation-of-the-logan-act/

I do not have a lot of time today. So I need your help our there to post this message often and on different threads. (I do not know how to cut & paste or I would save it). Please, we need as many signatures as we can get and get the message out. Obama went behind the back of our President, tried to delay the war! (for his own benefit). This is not the kind of person we need in the White House making decisions for the brave men and women of the US military. That is unforgiveable!!! Thanks! I know I can count on all of you!!!!

Posted by: McCainandPalin08 | September 19, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

OH YEAH?
WELL....WHERE'S OBAMA'S FLAG PIN?

HA, GOTCHA THERE I DID..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

OH YEAH?
WELL....WHERE'S OBAMA'S FLAG PIN?

HA, GOTCHA THERE I DID..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Looks like McCain's career is coming full-circle, from the bailout of the Keating Five (a big economic disaster) to the multiple bailouts we see over the past couple of weeks because of his claimed mantle of deregulation.

He's at both ends of this equation.

Posted by: Full Circle | September 19, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Report confirms Obama negotiated with Iraqi Foreign Minister Update: Taheri receiving death threats from Obama supporters
Sep 17, 2008 - Amir Taheri's September 15th has been, for all intents and purposes, confirmed over the past 24 hours. Obama did indeed conduct illegal foreign policy negotiations with Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari. As we wrote on the 15th, this amounts to a truly audacious betrayal of the American people and our military, and deserves a full investigation by the American government, and scrutinization by the media. This from the American Spectator:
The Obama campaign spent more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report that quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that Barack Obama during his July visit to Baghdad demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.

The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
There you have it, corroborating witnesses were present. On top of this the report goes on to say that the Obama campaign is not even bothering to really deny the charges, simply spin it in the hopes that his media devotees will simply sweep it under the rug like every other scandal.

America really needs some reporters with the testicular fortitude to start an investigation. Is the media so in the tank for Obama that they would go out of there way to ignore what might be one of the biggest breaches of trust of a presidential candidate in American history?

Chris Mathews (in)famously complained to Pat Buchanan that media access to Governor Sarah Palin was necessary for the American people to make an informed decision about her. Is this very same media, which demanded Palin postulate in front of them for the good of the people, going to allow this bombshell to go unscrutinized, withholding what could be crucial information necessary to making an informed decision in November? If so, their hypocrisy is not only deep, but dangerous.

Update: Amir Taheri is receiving death threats from Obama supporters. In his follow up opinion piece in today's NY Post, Taheri writes:
While I am encouraged by the senator's evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a "cease and desist" plea to the battalions of his sympathizers - who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.

Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Under President Bush and Republican stewardship our economy has reached the brink of disaster. Now the taxpayers will be put on the spot for bailing out the financial system. If you think the Republican approach has been good for the economy, take a look at the value of your retirement package.

If you want more of the same disastrous policies vote for McCain -- he's 90% in agreement with Bush.

Posted by: simple truth | September 19, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Well, if Biden and Obama are such patriot's they won't mind selling their big houses to live in a nice modest home and send their children to public school. Then the government can take both of their hard earned excess cash and redistribute it to who the government think needs it. I mean these upright men of character, virtue and fortuitous won't mind because they are so patriotic and should set the example for the rest of us. right?

They both won't mind taxes on their capital gains, 401K, senator's retirement funds. They should be most happy to share with the rest of us their good fortune through hard work. Shouldn't they? Why wouldn't they do this for the people they say they love and understand? If I have to do it, shouldn't they as professed saviors of America? What is stopping them from starting right now to show us how it is suppose to be done?

This is a serious matter. This is exactly Obama has in mind for the country but not himself. I think Obama and Biden should put up or shut up! Show me the way you proposed great leaders!

Posted by: dragonfly777 | September 19, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

So face it all you Democrat Obamabot Fools
your boy Messiah Barack Hussein Obama and
his Court Jester Loud Mouth Joe Biden are
the two most sleazy unqualified totally
corrupt cheap two bit Democrat political
hacks that the 9% Approval Rating Democrat
Congress and pathetic Democratic Party have
ever rule for President and Vice President
in US History! So as usual the dimwits have
snatched defeat out of the jaws of success
in 2008! They will cost the Democrats all
hope of regaining the White House for the
next 16 Years and the Loss of Congress as
well. Do I need mention Mad Madame Speaker
Nutso Nancy Pelosi here as well? Iam going
to vote for McCain/Palin 2008!

Posted by: Sandy 5274 | September 19, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Obamanut is correct. He doesn't know anything unless George Soros tells him. So he should just keep his mouth shut.

Posted by: Not_A_Libscum | September 19, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

how about declaring a day of Jubilee? All debt is erased for everyone and start over from scratch.

Posted by: grace | September 19, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like to see something happen. I want to see the Bushes and Cheney, fry a bit before things settle down. There has been a bush in the whitehouse for approx. 90% of America's debt, and I don't want to see history let the Bush name skate away free. It's my hope the BUsh name will forever carry a shameful connotation because of the burden of the debt their policies have brought upon our coming generations. This is Bush debt, and it is my hope history will not be kind to the Bush name, and that goes back to Grandpa the Nazi, Jeb the S &L master theif, and Father, the 1,000 points of light guy, to our current goober Bush. Collectively this family has done more to screw up the America I once knew than anyone can even fathom yet, we will be pulling a heavy load for decades because of these crooks. This trillion dollar bailout scheme wouldn't be necessary if not for the Bush name. So... Burn, baby, burn!

Posted by: JAmes | September 19, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

PALIN BACKED RON PAUL DURING PRIMARY? http://www.veeppeek.com

MORE AND MORE KEEP COMING OUT ABOUT PALINS ALLEDGED AFFAIR. http://www.hotpres.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

How many AMericans just woke up and found that theri retirement savings have plummetted 20+% and how many have any real sense of why the Federal govt is taking the extreme measures now proposed to try to put some limits on the financial crisis. The most incredible nonsense in being voiced by some - what about moral hazard, people should begin to look at the risks - NOW all after the horse is long out of the barn. A good part of this problem is that the media, financial and general, never bothered to look very hard at what was going down and thereby minimized in the eyes of the American public until now when the screaming PANIC

Obama is doing the right thing by staying out of the technical measures being taken to address the core issue - luckily there are excellent professionals at the FED and Treasury who can run that drill very well. He is right,politically, to focus on the fallout to the average person - how we are all going to being paying for this for along time - but also on things that are going to help people who are going to suffer or are already suffering dislocation. The government should not be expected to protect us from our own stupidity, but it really should step up when it is its own stupidty ( overly wide deregulation and lack of oversight) and te stupidity and malfeasance of the people on Wall Street.
OBama needs to point out why there need to be new people in Washington (though this bailout will likely be very bipartisan) as you cant expect the people who screwed us to create a better environment for investing in the years ahead.

Posted by: nclwtk | September 19, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

FINANCIAL TERRORISM A ROOT CAUSE
OF WALL STREET MONEY MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress is being asked to rush through emergency legislation which will grant effective control of the economy to the government.

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis. But is that entirely true?

And is there a hidden agenda at work?

Consider this:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis

Posted by: scrivener | September 19, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

>>"I support the effort of Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke to work in a bipartisan spirit with the Congressional leadership to find a systemic solution to our deepening crisis," he said, "and I will closely examine the specifics of their effort and the opportunities for swift action....Any taxpayer-funded support must have as its focus protecting our nation's long-term interest in a stable financial market and a growing economy rather than rewarding particular companies or the imprudent decisions of borrowers or lenders,"/

THAT sounds like a President trying to lead his country out of a crisis.

>>"While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today, and they also enriched themselves with millions of dollars in payments," McCain said of Obama while campaigning in Iowa. "That's not change. That's what's broken in Washington, my friends." /

That sounds like a right wing hack trying to get elected President.

Can you choose wisely?

Posted by: dijetlo | September 19, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Rescue Plan? Rescue who?-
***************************

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote


Accuracy in Media Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008


A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."

The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."

It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/hed-rather-win-election-than-tell-truth.html

Friday, September 12, 2008
He'd Rather Win The Election Than Portray The Truth

John McCain ran an honorable campaign in 2000.

He was beaten due to scurrilous dishonesty.

He's learned the lesson well.

He's hired those who did this to him.

And now, they're doing it again.

McCain has said that he would rather win the war than win the election.

In fact, as we have seen time after time this week, he would apparently rather win the election than convey the truth.

This approach brought us George W. Bush--and the dissembling, the half-truths, and the omissions and distortions to come. And, so, brought us the tragic consequences that have followed for individuals and families across the nation and the world.

As Americans, we often have short memories and powerful impulses. We tend to act on the latter. This is why history can repeat itself.

Remember. Remember how driven by emotion many became last time. By impulse. Without thought. Remember the statements that were made. Remember the realities that followed. Remember.

You can feel what you feel now--anger, aggression, glee, without examination of the underlying truth--for a moment.

You will live with the consequences for years, decades to come--perhaps for the rest of your life.

Remember the thoughts and feelings that preceded these last 8 years.

Remember.

According to the non-partisan FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html), McCain has strained the truth about health care. About small business. About education. About taxes. About corporate welfare. About energy independence. About free trade.

We've seen this before.

We were distracted from the truth in just the same way before.

And we've lived the resulting damage--for the past 8 years.

This is the way we need to change the nation: By realizing what is true, rather than realizing what emotes us for the moment.

Think.

Remember.

And act accordingly for your future.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/hed-rather-win-election-than-tell-truth.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Rescue Plan? Rescue who?-
***************************

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote


Accuracy in Media Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008


A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."

The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."

It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.


Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Compare and contrast this with the knee-jerk reactions that come from the McCain camp. This election is about judgement and it is clear McCain has none. He will put getting elected before the good of the country. I am ashamed I voted for McCain over George W Bush in the 2000 primary.

Posted by: bradcpa | September 19, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Dem politician's son suspected of hacking Palin's e-mail-- read more in my blog:

http://www.mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Biggest Bailout in U.S. History?

Maybe.

o now Paulson and Bernanke are working with Congress to create a government entity to take all the bad debt off of the books of banks and financial institutions. Naturally, the stock market shot up 400 points yesterday on the news.

The reason?

The casino stays open.

It is impossible to overstate the implications of the moral hazard here.

The bottom line is this: There are no serious consequences for this kind of failure. Sure there will be layoffs (mostly of people who had nothing to do with these failures), but the men who are responsible will walk away wealthy and unscathed. The entities that they helped ruin will have learned only that they can take every risk. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Needless to say, this bailout cannot pass Congress without a series of strict regulations to protect against this kind of epic failure again. New regulations are essential for banks, investment firms, insurance companies, mortgage brokers, et al. The unfettered free market, left to its own devices, would have (and still may) destroy this country. If there was ever an indictment of GOP policies, this is it. Watching McCain flail around in response to this disaster would be comical if it wasn’t so serious and sad.

And there is still a giant red elephant in the room. Putting aside that our economy will be in tatters in 2009-2010 (consumer debt in massive default, unemployment in double digits, inflation, and so on), there is still the matter of our national debt. $10 trillion and counting without including Fannie and Freddie, loans to the Fed, loans to the FDIC, and this newly announced mother of all bailouts.

Who, the question must be asked, will bailout the ultimate institution that is too big to fail?

At what point do America’s finances become a liability? At what point is our debt downgraded? At what point does the rest of the world simply stop lending to us? At what point does America default?

America is truly too big to fail. But with irresponsible GOP governments, we’ve taken on so much debt that the possibility is real.

Again. We’ve never saved for our rainy day and now it’s pouring.

The government keeps opening a bunch of cheap umbrellas and the wind is blowing hard.

Unless the world bails us out (which they would likely do, but you never know) there is no shelter.

The biggest bailout in U.S. history is still to come.

Posted by: ES | September 19, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company