…

It's possible he doesn't know, and he and we may face the complication that his inner circle may be giving him bad advice.

I was being deliberately provocative, while also being very cynical — people in Washington live differently, view themselves differently, and would be all too happy to impose all kinds of new security measures to preserve or protect this difference in the future if they felt it needed.

No, I am not another Timothy McVeigh or KKK member in waiting.

Most of the time, yes, true. Incrementalism, or “the ratchet” or ratcheting, in other words. The Congressional Dems are too gorilla-like with their hand on the ratchet currently, though. Obama is being disgraceful if he chooses their rather than saner people's side on this.

And if you, too, were just indulging in some of your own hyperbole, then to quote the great, late, Emily Litella, 'Oh, that's very different. Never mind.”

Not merely him and the Congressional Dems, but the many whom they exploit among the public, and a number of this site, no doubt.

In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt. To the extent that people hold their wealth in the form of government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased government debt would tend to “crowd out” private investment—thus reducing the stock of private capital and the long-term potential output of the economy.

“CBO estimates that the Senate legislation would raise output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009; by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010; and by between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011. CBO estimates that the legislation would raise employment by 0.9 million to 2.5 million at the end of 2009; 1.3 million to 3.9 million at the end of 2010; and 0.6 million to 1.9 million at the end of 2011.”

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=205

Woo-wooooooooooooooooooooo

Nope, (I'm not the one who mentioned the hammer and sickle, or proceeding to ancitipate a complete federal takeover of the private sector basedon the TARP-related antics), just showing where this is leading. The USA has been more subtle than that. Expect more smiley-faced fascism to follow federal equity stakes, such as federal corporate charters or (not waiting for charters) the installation of federal officials on boards of directors (beginning with any firms with federal equity stakes in them), as well as fascistic “regulation” like air travel in the old days that was fascistic, a managed cartel with a large federal government regulatory and other kinds of presence. That points the way for the financial industry, at least (followed possibly by the energy industry, later health care).

Well, it's not just 'tax rates' but a whole slew of tax policies, some of which can help increase liquidity (I guess that was my fault for phrasing it as 'tax cuts' which would imply a simplistic cut in rates.) Here are some examples where the Chamber of Commerce agrees with some of Obama's proposals (I'm not sure how much of that has made it into the bill at this point) and gives other suggestions that they'd like to see.

That said, I don't think the particular measure you quote is that bad.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that he might try to extend to all U.S. companies a restriction that prohibits bailout banks from taking a tax deduction of more than $500,000 in pay for each executive.

So they won't get a tax deduction for pay over a half million a year. Boo hoo.

I don't disagree with him as a general principle, but the trouble is we don't have the luxury of waiting for a correction to happen and the corrections themselves aren't working (because as you said, each side just keeps on doing the same failed policies over and over again, and if there is a 'compromise' at all it's actually a blend of the worst aspects of both sides instead of actually figuring out how to blend ideas from each side in a way that could work.)

For instance, I'm not in agreement with you about tax cuts- but that doesn't mean I support all tax cuts, all the time. I think right now there certainly could be sensible and helpful types of business tax cuts that would benefit small businesses- and I can't imagine why we can't do those things without extending favors to large corporations. At the same time, even though I strongly disagreed with Obama's proposed 'tax rebates' to non-income tax payers because the semantics is very deceptive, that's actually a type of stimulus spending that I'd now support. Go ahead and cut checks to people who have such low incomes that they don't pay income tax; these people will necessarily spend the money and that's good for the businesses in their communities.

That's an example of taking ideas that run counter to ideologies on both sides, but examining whether or not those ideas would actually be helpful in the current situation. If they would, then tell both sides they have to put aside their ideological objections- and also insist that these measures be short term so that no one can accuse the other side of a long term power grab.

See, what I can't figure out yet is what he actually believes or wants for the outcome of this. Is it really a lack of fortitude keeping him from taking that approach (or perhaps doing what no sane person could really object to- telling them that the only thing he'll sign is a pure, short term relief package with a commitment to go back and begin doing the long term planning next?)

How do you explain his pep rally for the House Democrats yesterday if that's what he'd truly want to do? Why won't he put any pressure on them at all, if he expects to be taken seriously as a moderator between the two sides?

Really the only thing holding it together right now is Obama went in and yelled at all the Democrats…but then what did the Republicans do? Nothing except propose crazy alternatives that there is no chance ever that Obama would support, and then declared that was the only thing they would back and start licking their lips over political failures. So they are putting him in an insanely difficult position because going back to our thread yesterday, he might hate a lot of the Congressional Democratic platform but he supports quite a bit of it and he has no maneuvering room.

I hope he mans up and just declares Congress broken and that we won't sign anything…but of course that won't happen.

The only thing I can hope is that idiots like Frank are sooo overplaying this hand that the public will wake up to it sooner rather than later. For some reason, Frank seems to think that Americans still view Congress as the white knight riding in to save us from the evil corporations.