A Couple of Questions

 

"Everything is Broken" - Bob Dylan

(As suggested the other day by Paula -- it seems perfect on a day when the market continues to slide deep into the toilet.)

Yesterday's New York Times featured a polemic by Drew Westin vigorously attacking Obama for having failed to present a cogent progressive narrative to the American people, leaving him (and us) to flounder in the wake of the American right, an implacable enemy that is never wanting for simple tales to sell to credulous voters.   I have to admit that after last week's brutal financial news, I found myself nodding along a bit -- well, maybe even more than a bit.  In discussing the piece today though with a friend of mine whose opinion I quite value in these matters, he was quite contemptuous of Westin's piece and thought it both inaccurate and unrealistic -- he pointed out this piece at xpostfactoid, which takes Westin to task pretty effectively. 

Sullivan concurs and joins in the upbraiding of Westin and finds the attacks on Obama unpersuasive, although, to his credit, he cites at length to a reader's comment that is fairly sympathetic to Westin's critique. 

In the meantime, Krugman issued yet another cri de coeur in favor of government action on joblessness on Friday, something that both Sullivan and Jonathan Chait find to be slightly absurd -- at least in Chait's case, not because they disagree with Krugman on policy grounds, but because politically there is no way that it is going to happen.  In other words, for Obama to grab the bully pulpit and proclaim the need for a large federal jobs program would be to engage in a purely rhetorical and political act, one which Chait presumes would be unpopular with the public writ large.  (I"d like to think the President could explain such a program in a way that would be well received by the public, but that may be my own delusion.) 

I feel like I have occupied all of this ground myself over the last two years.  I have argued both for political realism that acknowledges that legislation is only going to be as progressive as that 60th vote in the Senate, while also feeling the need for consistent and persuasive rhetoric and educational efforts by the President to push the country to the left on policy matters.  At the same time, I find the attacks on Obama from some on the left to be astonishingly puerile -- see Scott Lemieux and Yglesias take down this wankfest for an example of what I am talking about -- the kind of thing where people argue that Obama and Bill Kristol have the same political views.    

I think Obama wanted to avoid battling for more stimulus money because 1) it would be admitting that the economy really wasn't getting better (admitting to himself as much as anyone else); and 2) it would be a futile effort from the point of view of actually getting it done.  (Maybe Obama could have gotten an additional hundred billion or two for the original stimulus bill back in January of 2009 under optimal conditions -- it does not seem like that would have been nearly enough to have alleviated our current unemployment problems.)  Obama is not the kind of guy who likes to endure purely symbolic defeats.  But, it seems to me, that sometimes political leaders need to push for things that will fail simply to let people know which side they are on.

What do you think?  Has there been a failure of narrative and rhetoric on the Preisdent's part?  Has it meaningfully impaired his policy effectiveness?  And did it make sense to push for a larger stimulus bill than could obtain 60 votes in the Senate back in 2009?  Does it make sense to push for a jobs program now that would be dead on arrival in this Congress?        

Comments

[Joe S]

I think it would be nice if Obama pushed harder for Keynsian solutions (even if only as an opening bid). I don't think it hurts to tell people where you stand. OBama stated that the debt ceiling deal was not his preferred solution. I think that would be a good tack to take on further stimulus (investment).

However, the problem has been and still is the fact that conservative Democrats are consistently nominated and elected, even in liberal states. There's no margin for a politician to move left. On the other hand, there's no penalty and quite a bit of political value in moving right. Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln had no problem dispatching opponents from the Left (either in a primary on in the general). Moreover, they seem to get some street cred for moving right. Until we can change that dynamic, complaining about a president who would hav e signed a lot more liberal legislation is pointless.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

There was a narrative failure, but it wasn't Obama's failure to establish one -- which is a part of the problem as well -- but our need to establish one that caused us to create a false one.

We needed Obama to be certain things, and therefore we convinced ourselves he was those things. (And the 'we' definitely includes 'me' and there are tons of posts i wish i could pretend i had never written.) We needed our 'first black president' to be MLK-like. We were facing a Republican depression and needed him as well to be FDR. And, because of the problems with recalcitrant Republicans and with members of his own party, we needed him to have the skill, ruthlessness, and force of the domestic LBJ.

We convionced ourselves that was who we were electing. We were wrong. He was, and is, none of the above.

(To change the metaphor temporarily, we needed the first black president to be Jackie Robinson -- who would have been great in any era and with any color, and who won and deserved Rookie of the year. Instead, we got Glenn Burke, the forgotten first -- and so far only -- openly gay baseball player. And Burke was just one of a long string of Dodger fourth outhfielders, very fast, very good defensively, and capable of batting .230 on a good year. He claimed, perhaps rightly, that discrimination cut his career short, but a lack of power or ability to hit the curve ball was at least as important.)

Obama is not only not FDR, in many ways he is truly Herbert Hoover -- who was really quite progressive within the confines of certain economic 'orthodoxies' that were assumed at the time. Sadly, despite FDR, those orthodoxies have resurfaced, and have been at least rhetorically embraced by Herbert Hoover Obama.

That is, in fact, prehaps too generous. Perhaps he is merely a weakling, avoiding a fight at any opportunity, having his lunch money ready to give to the bullies so he can get to class -- hell, even in an envelope with their name on it. (Maybe those 'fluke elections' he won were more of a tip-off than we realized. The only time he really had a fight on his hand, when his opponent failed to self-destruct, it was the Congressional primary he gained 35% in.)

Unfortunately, two things are coming, and we are in trouble. We have the 2012 election, where -- at present -- we are likely to have the choice of HHO or of a clinically insane Republican. Up to a few weeks ago i felt this was our protection. We might not like Obama, but he'd certainly beat a Bachmann or a perry or a Santorum or a Cain.

I'm not even sure of that any more, because the Great Depression 2.1 that i have been predicting is now rushing towards us, and we'll be in the middle ot it probably before the anniversary of GD 1. And panicy people -- particularly those who start out uninterested in politics and have none of the background we assume in voters, and who depend on unreliable sources of information -- grab the first visible 'saviour' around, and reject the person they blame for putting them in the mess they see -- and a lot of the people I am talking about couldn't even identify the names Boehner and McConnell, but they know who is president.

This is why I have been saying -- and failing to explain -- that we need to primary Obama. But not from the Left -- you are all right that thios would be suicidal -- and a bad blow to the egos of those who see a vast 'liberal silent majority' out there.

I know it won't happen, but what I want to see is a party or challenger who realizes that the voting populace still sees Obama as a Liberal at best and an 'extreme Leftist' at worst, and can position itself so it can simultaneously run to the right against the Liberal Obama of fantasy and to the left of the Obama of reality, who can make the case for Keynesianism while sounding like classic Eisenhower Republicans, who may not be able to move the country to the left but who can avoid the abyss that is the only other choice if Obama loses -- and so far he has shown no ability to make himself popular and electable among anybody.

Such a party would -- despite Sir C. -- have an immense appeal. It would pick up moderate and even liberal democrats, it would pick up the entirety of sane Republicans, it would isolate the tea partiers and theocrats in an irrelevant Republican Party -- and shield the rest of the country from them.

Is it anyone's p9olitical wet dream? Hell no. Would i support such a party? probably not, with my votes, unless they came up with a really attractive candidate --a certain Secretary of State would be ideal and how i regret my rejection of her during the campaign. With all her faults we'd be a lot better had she won.

But without such an intermediate choice, the voters will be picking between Obama and madness. And I am not sure which would be less unpopular.

[Paula B]

One of the GOP's biggest benefactors was killed in a car crash today. http://on.msnbc.com/qLLksT

Just wrote a big, long comment, then lost it in a DSL blip, I guess. Will try to reconstruct, but the essence is this: personally, I don't want to waste a single second wishing Obama had done something differently two years ago, or wondering when he made a wrong turn. According to last week's WashPost analysis of Cantor and friends, the recent debt ceiling debacle was set in motion at least three years ago, so who knows what could or might have happened if Obama had done anything differently at any point since his inauguration? He's got today and tomorrow, and if he misses his opportunity, we have to hope other Democrats step forward with the message we voted for. That included opportunities for all, so I don't think the call for jobs is anything new, just more urgent.
Echoing Becky, it would be a tragedy -- as well as a an act of unimaginable stupidity -- to alienate and pauperize an entire generation of educated young people. Think of what's going on in the more enlightened parts of the Arab world. Friedman may be a jerk, but, as I recall, he predicted the Arab spring in a chapter of The World Is Flat, based on what he saw as the failure of Mubarak and others to respond to pent up anger and frustration among millions of unemployed and underemployed youth.

[Joe S]

Prup, not to be difficult here, but maybe you should consider whether Barack Obama's economic thinking isn't the entire problem. Rather, Barack Obama's economic thinking is that of the mainstream of the Democratic Party. To the extent the Administration is acting like Herbert Hoover, it's being done because the Administration has the support of at least half the party. That means we're not dealing with a rogue actor (like Joe Lieberman, even though a primary challenge didn't work even there) but rather with the consensus of the Democratic Party. Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers and Gene Spirling have all served in multiple Democratic administrations. Let's face it- many of our wonks until recently have thought just like Barack Obama.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I think you are wrong on the primarying issue and missing the very salient fact that Obama, whatever his flaws, remains a relatively popular figure. His numbers are better than anyone could reasonably expect given the overall economy.

And I think he has better than even odds to be re-elected despite the abysmal numbers.

I also think it is hard to describe him as an electoral fluke. He came out ahead in the grueling 2008 primary process for a reason.

[Davis X. Machina]

If Obama had gotten a stimulus 20% larger than he did, and the magnitude of the economic contraction turns out to have been 2x as big as originally thought -- as it has -- would we even have noticed?

[Joe S]

The people who held the 20% of extra jobs created would have noticed.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: (and DXM) if we were just having a 'contraction' or even a 'recession' I might agree with you. But this one don't have a floor. When i have been describing it as Great depression 2.1 I have meant precisely that -- except that we have lost many of the safety valves that kept that from being much worse. ('valves' not 'net.' We no longer have farms to 'go back to' and lessen the pressure. How many people know how to cook -- as a necessity, not a hobby? -- You can't 'stretch' prepared foods and tv dinners and all those 'organics only' types are going to have to rearrange their thinking. Entertainment was cheap and mostly not advertising supported. "Things" were uncomplicated enough people could go door-to-door repairing them and make a living. And, simply 'necessities' were defined much more simply -- cars didn't qualify, and even phones were rare enough to provide the famous LIBERTY Magazine poll picking Landon over Roosevelt because they just asked phone subscribers. Want to see how people deal with cell phones, with ipods and pads and puds, want to guess how many ISPs are still going to be around, or how much they'll charge -- and all those Google ads? Hell, people back then could make their own clothes -- know anybody who can do that as a necessity, not as an expensive hobby?)

Obama may still be 'relatively popular' now, but give this mess a couple of more months to develop -- a 'demand driven depression' just keeps growing -- and will he still be?

And even if the money were available for a new Stimulus -- which would work, if it were about four times the original -- any idea how to get the House to appropriate it?

He's going to be the new Hoover -- deservedly so -- only without an FDR out there to take over.

Will someone please comvince me I am crazy in yet another area? PLEASE!

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One interesting sidebar to this. For thirty years the middle and upper-lower classes have been bombarded by propaganda about how 'wonderful' welfare recipients have it, propaganda that is *ahem* somewhat exaggerated. I wouldn't be surprised if a good proportion of the lower middle and upper lower are convinced that welfare recipients actually live better than they do. I wonder what sort of reaction will occur when they discover that they can't get the 'wonderfulness' and that even to get bare minimum sustenance requires waits that will make them remember the worst DMV they've ever dealt with as a model of speed.

It might lead to greater solidarity -- and I would hope it would. But there are sure to be the radio talkers at least hinting that Obama had reduced benefits now they were going to white people too.

[Paula B]

Prup---They've gone to white people for years (generations, in fact). As I understand it, whites have outnumbered blacks for all social services and benefits, including food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. (I should check this out before I post, but I've done so in the past (during Clinton years/early W) for stories I've written, and recall it was the case at the time.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I know it is true, I wasn't talking about facts but perception -- remember that i was putting the idea in the mouths of the Limbaughs and Michael Savages of the world.

[kathy a.]

prup, this whole hoo-ha has been making me really anxious. the grand taking of hostages -- with the intent of default on the part of the most virulent ones -- has actually caused considerable harm.

i think what actually happened is a good illustration of why obama could not just wave a wand or speak a little more eloquently and just make things better -- the worst of them [a] don't care what happens to the country, and [b] think there's nothing better than ammunition with which to blast a president who doesn't look or sound enough like them, who has the gall to try negoitating in good faith. if someone thinks god is telling them what to do politically, if someone thinks that obama is not an actual US citizen, if someone thinks the earth is flat and that birth control is evil -- that is a person who will not be persuaded by better presidential efforts.

that said, i agree that he and we need to be explaining again and again why things have fallen apart, and what will help the country as a whole, not just the financially lucky or god-blessed few.

i do not agree with primarying obama -- there is no way i will give any comfort to those whom i see as wanting to destroy the government and the people it serves. i am pretty damned angry and appalled.

i also do not think your floorless apocalypse is imminent, thankfully, although there's no question there are rough times ahead. and don't think the comparison to the state of things during the great depression (& dust bowl) is very fair. as a matter of fact, many people have done the equivalent of going back to the farm -- relying on family & friends, cooking and stretching the food, shopping goodwill stores, etc. because they can't find work, or enough work. but to find work, a phone and some internet access absolutely is a necessity now. appropriate attire is a dealbreaker for employers. transit is a necessity.

i don't know what to do with the house except to help their own constituents slap them, and to support efforts to replace them. they're over there doing a victory cheer, and that kind of stupid needs to be called out. by the people mostly. the president didn't select them, and he can't turn stupid into something else.

[Phil Perspective]

Paula:
What do you think is going on in the UK now? It started because police got heavy-handed but has morphed into something else.

[low-tech cyclist]

A few thoughts about the political terrain, in 2008 and now:

1. Obama's our guy, in 2008 and now. You folks know I've got more than my share of problems with his leadership (and with the rather large exception of health care reform, I mostly agree with Westin's critique), but it wouldn't have come out any better if Hillary had gotten nominated in 2008, nor would it help to primary him now.

2. In 2012, no effort to primary him or challenge him from any center/left place is going to make his re-election any easier, and is more likely to imperil it. That's just the way these things work. And we may well wake up on November 7, 2012, to the awareness that President Obama is - or would have been - all that stands between us and the barbarians for the next four years.

3. And back in 2008, you have to remember what depth and reach Hillary-hate had while she was still a political force. My mother-in-law, a mostly Dem swing voter over the years, would not have voted for her in a million years. Hillary would have won had she been nominated, but it would have been closer - and we'd have lost close Senate races in Minnesota, Alaska, Oregon, and quite possibly North Carolina.

4. And Hillary's getting absolutely nothing through the Senate with only 55-56 votes in the Dem caucus. Snowe, Collins, and Specter aren't enough; she's got to win a GOP vote or two beyond what Obama ever managed to win. Voinovich? Hatch? Where is her vote #60 going to come from? Nah, she'd have been in worse shape than Obama. We'd have gotten no stimulus of any sort, and the economy would still be in free-fall.

[beckya57]

Well said, l t-c. Sorry Jim, but IMHO primarying Obama would be sheer madness. The GOP would absolutely love it if we did this--their chances of winning would go up astronomically.

My big issue with Obama, and this won't surprise anyone who's read my other posts, is that I assumed the post-partisan schtick was an act--and a rather successful one--to get legislation through Congress in the face of unprecedented GOP obstruction. I figured that Obama and his people saw what was pretty obvious to me, that they had no hope of getting the GOP on board for anything, but that if they didn't talk bipartisan nicey-nice they'd lose some of the Blue Dog Dems in the Senate, and they'd get nothing. And I think that would have been an accurate assessment. I figured once they lost Congressional control they'd start pushing harder--on rhetoric and also on using the executive powers available to them.

I've been aghast to discover that the Obama team actually BELIEVED the post-partisan schtick, and, even worse, they STILL seem to believe it. This has been a fundamental and totally unforced error of enormous magnitude, which has led to Obama virtually groveling before the GOP, which has made him look foolish and weak, rather than adult. We're very fortunate that the GOP was too insane to take him up on some of his mind-bogglingly generous offers. The only explanations I can think of assume more understanding of their psychology than I possess, and would therefore just be speculative. I keep waiting for evidence that they've learned their lesson, but I have yet to see any.

[kathy a.]

well said, ltc.

[Sir Charles]

Too late to respond to everyone, but I want to echo both l-t c's assessment of things and note that I shared becky's thoughts on the whole post-partisan thing -- surely it had to be a schtick.

Sadly, no -- to coin a phrase.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

kathy: more comments needed than I have time for. Let's try to work in a few.

First, primarying Obama, hoping for a new party is not rewarding the destroyers but isolating them, restoring the condition of a two-party system that has its disagreements, but in which both parties are sane, reality-based, and at least in general agreement with the NewDeal/Keynesian/Civil Libertarian structure that ruled the country for 35 years. Certainly the new second party will take positions we dislike, will do somethings that will hurt some of us, etc. but they will not destroy the country to fulfill their ideology, they will not be threatening theocracy or Randian madness, they will not be rolling back the social issues victories we have won, and might even be stronger for them than the Democratic Party has been in recent years. (Business sees no benefit in forced pregnancy or discrimination -- unless that discrimination is so built into the society thet it is too big a risk for them to fight it -- and has led the parade when it comes to giving rights to gay employees and their partners.)

There are too many other things in your comment -- where and how is the 'floor' to be built -- I agree it will exist, but after what cost -- including our system of givernment -- is paid. And your 'many people' translates to 'a number of friends and people I've heard about'. Try doing it in an apartment -- if you can afford one.

(Remember, i'm not talking about poverty from my reading, from studying, from conversation. I've twice lived for extensive times in a men's shelter, I never once earned half of what is today's minimum wage, I did survive by begging -- I called it 'borrowing' but they knew better -- from friends, by skipping out on rent, by never taking days off no matter how sick i was and walking from 30th St to the WTC so i could pocket the carfare I was given. I've always been a good cook, so that part was easy -- if I could slip an electric frying pan into a room where cpooking was not permitted. And you'd be surprised how far goodwill pants can travel -- and I remember finding a shirt on the street that fit me and was wearable after about two hours straioght of washing -- and I wore it.

I know what welfare office are like -- and what they pay. (I even got a room at what was then the maximum they would pay -- $38 a week and this was in 1978 when bearable SROs started at $85 -- and remember the fifteen watt bulbs in the bathroom so you wouldn't be too grossed out by the dead needles, and the time I had a (borrowed) record player stolen -- along with a spare pair of pants, and how the thief left the record on the machine behind to show his feeling about my taste in music.)

And my experiences were in the most generous state in the Union -- I believe -- at a time when policies were much, much less strict and red tape much less difficukt to get around -- and when employees had time to care about their clients and not just about their jobs.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I was first among the Hillary haters in 2008. But i was wrong then, and can admit it.

And again, sorry to shout, but I want Obama primaried or challenged from the sane Right, not from the Left. I don't want the choice to be between Hoover Obama and the madness of the Republican candidates. Because people will see the Obama weakness and failures -- and because they aren't usually people who read even mainstream political news -- won't realize that the problems were entirely Republ;ican-caused. At the same time, they won't really realize how crazy the opponents are -- because if they did they'd already be on our side.

[Paula B]

Sir C, becky, ltc---I agree with all of you on primarying, in spite of what I said earlier about other Democrats carrying the message. I meant ADDITIONAL, not instead of, like when we had a Ted Kennedy and others to wave the flag.

Phil P----re: London. Exactly!

Prup---Sorry to hear what you've gone through over the years, and can't even imagine how much strength it must have taken to get out of those situations. Maybe your background has a lot to do with why you're so valuable to these conversations. Don't leave, please. Concerning your joint pain, my own experience with inflammatory arthritis has given me some insights on low-tech pain control. I'd be happy to share what I've learned. You can contact me through my blog.

Sir C--Thanks for choosing Bobby Z's opus for today. Considering today's news, Everything's Broken is perfectly awful, if you know what I mean.

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

I'll address this exclusively to Prup though I would like to also include comments pertinent to good observations by several others.

In certain respects I share your angst about the frustrations of the current administration. But I can't agree that it deserves questioning by some splitting of the majority in favor of a completely insane minority.

You conveniently omit the enormous obstacles that have been erected against this administration accomplishing anything at all. To begin with, unlike the Bush reign of terror, this administration inherited an economy in free fall. The last episode of treasonous duplicity we have been shown by the republicans is only a testament to how extreme they are in their efforts to humiliate the first non lilly white presdient in history.

I am sorry to say so, but I repudiate your perspective, because given the situation we now have, regardless of what person might represent the non-insane side of politics, they would be faced with similar levels of revilement and obstruction.

Moreover, you do not address the obvious fact that the narrative, the story that most americans absorb uncritically, is extremely biased in favor of the right wing.

So no, the worst thing we could do would be to split the democratic electorate. Nader anyone?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Much more later, but I have to explain yet again, this time to KN. I am NOT suggesting "splitting of the majority in favor of a completely insane minority." What i am saying is that I want to give the sane -- but low or medium info -- voter (particularly one who has been influenced by the fact that "the story that most americans absorb uncritically, is extremely biased in favor of the right wing") a better choice. Because if I am right that there will be GD 2.1, or even a major recession, the choice they now have is between

Barack Obama, who many of them blame for the recession, and the others see has no clue how to get us out of it, or is unable to pass the legislation he thinks, rightly we need;

or

an insane Republican who is still talking the Reagan talking points -- but which the voter has neither the knowledge nor the willingness to do the investigation to see how insane that Republican is.

Because if that is the choice, i am not at all sure the Republican would lose.

[joel hanes]

Prup :

I share your frustration and disappointment with the President and the course his Presidency has taken.

But in 2012, it's either Obama, or the barbarians at the gate.

A serious Democratic primary challenger, any Democratic Presidential candidate other than Barack Obama, or a (God forbid) third-party spoiler from the left, will IMHO virtually guarantee that Perry or Romney would take the Presidency, and even Bachman would have a chance.

Aim for 2016. There's time enough before that election for some of the old white middle-class folks who've been voting against their own interests since Reagan to die off, time enough for the Republicans to do further damage to their brand and for the TeaParty craziness to subside (as it has already begun to subside).

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Joel: If you think we have time, that we won't be in the midst of the depression long bfore 2012 hits, I hope you're right -- but I doubt it. And yet again, any third-party candidate I am suggesting would get votes mostly from sane Republicans -- and maybe from Democrats totally exasperated with obama. I'm trying to cut down the Republican vote that would go, by default, to one of the crazies. (Maybe if I say this often enough it will finally be understood.)

I've said often ewnough that i think the 'demographic argument' is very dangerous, that there are even more young 'white middle-class folks' coming along to replace the ones that die off -- and these are more likely to be religious and far too many of them will be home schooled, because the first generation of those is starting to hit adulthood.

And, btw, do you really consider yourself capable of deciding what those 'old white middle-class folks' interests actually are. (I'm not saying i agree withb them, just describing them.) Many of them may put other factors over economics -- as almost everybody who writes here does. (Sir Charles, I'm sure, could earn three times as much on the other side, but he is 'working against his own interests' by your definition.)

Many of the people you speak of put other interests, rightly or wrongly, over their economic ones. Religion matters to many of them, so does 'patriotism' and their view of the country they love -- as warped as it may be. Family, neighborhood, status, or simple inheritance might be more important than 'which party can put more money in my pocket.'

(Sure, if they are sophisticated and knowledgeable, they know the Democrats are the best for almost all of these -- but hell, if they were sophisticated and knowledgable, they are much more likely to be Democrats already and not 'voting against their own interests -- as they see them.")

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And, finally, i have a challenge for everyone here who lives in the US. (And if you actually do parts of the experiment -- not carrying through, but doing the investigating -- instead of doing it as a 'thought experiment' I think you'll really learn something -- and more importantly, unlearn a few things.)

Okay, starting next month you have become poor. Not poverty-stricken, not welfare-recipients. You've lost your house and need to find some place to live, your savings are down to $2000 -- which is really high for a poor person -- and you have found jobs. And let's be generous. Minimum wage would gross about $1350 a month, let's say you get jobs that let each adult net that much. Okay, that's your total resources, no family or friends to touch.

First, find a place to live. I mean actually go out and look at some apartments, even talk as if you are considering renting them. See how cheaply you can find a place with the room you need -- and don't forget to check for roach droppings, holes in the ceiling, or plumbing that doesn't work. And get a feel for the neighborhood, and not just what it's like during the day, but during the night. If you need schools, check what public ones are available -- forget private schools unless your kids win scholarships.

Add in utilities, phone, gas, electric, heat, and internet service. (Better get a good deal on phone services, it matters, and remember you have to figure out what a good deal is for you.)

Okay, next is food. Walk around the neighborhood you've 'chosen' and see what you can buy and how much it will cost. Check it against what you can afford.

Transportation is next. (Your car? Didn't you sell that? or were you able to figure out a way to work in insurance, gas, routine maintenance, etc. into your budget -- and don't forget that deductible if you get into an accident.) Figure your jobs aren't walkable to, but are only one transit trip away. Find out the bargains you might get, but forget Transit-Chek, your employer ain't getting involved with shit like that.

Clothes and appearance. How much gets spent on that. Including laundry -- no washing machine in this apartment, but maybe in the basement, with a coin slot. And 'cosmetics and toiletries' including tooth paste, haircuts, shaving equipment, whatever is essential for you.

Medical care? Well, you don't get insurance, but your jobs put you out of Medicaid range. So how are you going to handle that for the family? Private insurance -- got room for that? Or finding a doctor that takes cash. There's always the emergency room, and they won't sue you to collect the money they charge -- emergency rooms aren't free, they cost about $100 a visit -- but if you ever hope to get out of poverty, you'll have black marks all over your credit. And of course you'll be surprised to find out how little they will do for you -- and how long you'll be sitting there waiting to be seen -- especially if you have no insurance. They'll 'patch you up' -- anything else requires a clinic, and they can and will refuse service or sue you. And don't forget the cost of those prescriptions -- no more $1.10 co-pays without insurance. And the over-the-counter stuff you get, vitamins, aspirin, etc -- and forget 'favorite brands' it's generics for you in most cases -- and check a few pharmacies to see prices -- you'll be surprised that the chains are actually much more expensive than the small family pharmacies.

Finally -- did I forget anything? -- entertainment, which includes books, music (live and recorded) movies, plays, museums, hobbies, sports -- either playing or watching -- cards, drinking or other recreational substances and anything on that cell phone -- if you keep one -- that is not involved in simply making calls. (And if you are religious, anything tht goes into the collection plate since i don't have a beter category for it.)

Don't actually 'live the life' but I challenge you to research it as if you were going to. Watch your balance sheet, see the trade-offs you have to make, and then ask yourself if you think the same about poor people as you used to.

(Then realize that you are a member of the 'working poor' and imagine what its like for the guy on unemployment that is running out, or who don't have the skills to do your new job even if they could get hired. Then realize that all of this is without the complications of a true recession or depression.)

Let me know if you'll try it, and what your particular balance sheet looks like -- veryones will be different.

[low-tech cyclist]

Going all the way back to the 2009 stimulus bill, one thing Obama could have done differently, right off the bat, was to ask for all $800 billion to be spending, rather than have a big chunk of it be tax cuts whose effect was much weaker.

Given that the biggest chunk of the spending side of the bill was aid to states and localities that basically filled in for the budget cuts they were making (a negation of an anti-stimulus, rather than true stimulus), one can make the argument that replacing the tax-cut portion of the bill with spending would have nearly doubled its effectiveness - and 2010 might've actually been a "recovery summer," which would have made all the difference in the world last fall.

Sure, it probably wouldn't have passed in that form. But then you start your negotiating with $900B in spending (IIRC, Sen. Collins lopped $100B off the bill in the name of meaningless moderation to get us down to the ultimate $800B), and if tax cuts are the price of a few GOP votes, then they can be added on top of, rather than in place of, the actual stimulus spending. I don't think it would have killed things for Obama to hold that line - that we could have tax cuts too, if the GOP insisted, but not instead of real spending.

[Paula B]

In spite of all that's gone on and is going on, I love this country, except when I read stories like this:
http://nyti.ms/rkIGAh

What happened to common decency and common sense? Is this craziness the legacy of W's crackdown on illegals? This is right up there with our recent practice of asking Iraqis to risk their lives helping us as spies or translators during the war, then denying them and their families protection by way of entrance to the US, as undesirables.

[Paula B]

from today's NYT editorial:
"Defeatists may say that it is impossible to consider [jobs] programs ... at a time when Republicans will find a way to kill any worthy idea from the White House, especially those that might require some short-term spending. But the shackles forged by Republican lawmakers can only be broken with THE POWER OF GOOD IDEAS."

Sounds like a good start for Obama's new narrative. Take it and run.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Paula: This would be a horrible story anyhow, but the fact that it involves Albanians males it even worse. Certain cultural practices remain in cultures even if they are technically outlawed, and one of them seems to be the "Albanian blood feud." To quote the sadly forgotten John Gunther in INSIDE EUROPE:

[speaking of King Zog, the first King of a free Albania] "In Zog's homeland, remote and barbarous, law is informally administered by what is known as the blood feud. If you kill a man, his relatives kill you, and so on for a couple of generations. There are supposed to be about six hundred blood feuds out against King Zog."

I doubt if this idea has vanished from the culture in the 75 years since Gunther wrote.

(If you are wondering if this has anything to do with Albania being the only Muslim country in Europe, I've seen no evidence of any connection, and know of no other Muslim country with this practice.)

And btw, if you click on the next story on the site, it too is worth discussing at some point, because it deals with the suit against Education Managment Corp, the largest for-profit college group, and details an incredible level of fraud throughout the entire company. Not here. perhaps, but this deserves treating in an upcoming open thread -- or perhaos as a post. The story is here.

[Joshua]

Jim, I am curious: What do you envision the platform of this centrist-party challenger to be? I understand the electoral logic you want to employ--you want someone to draw off disgruntled conservative Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans so that they don't feel they automatically have to vote Republican. But I can't envision the shape of that candidacy at all if Obama, who has essentially championed moderate Republican ideas, is to remain to this person's left. Perhaps you're envisioning a content-free protest candidacy like Ross Perot's that siphons votes from the Republican. Or maybe you're imagining someone secretly to Obama's left but running as if he were a centrist? The only person I can imagine fitting that bill is Mike Bloomberg, and he would almost certainly take more votes from Obama than from the Republican.

I shouldn't put words in your mouth too much. What do you think this third-party centrist's pitch to the American people should be?

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I don't think we are heading into Great Depression Two --but I do think we could be continuing and possibly worsening what has already been a disastrous downturn for a very significant part of the populace. There is no way to minimize what the lowest quintile in the population is going through and how austerity will be a very bad thing for them.

Nonetheless, I think Obama remains the best bet that we have -- by a longshot -- and that, whatever his flaws, he is informed by a basic decency that is thoroughly lacking. I do not see any viable alternative.

I also don't want you to overstate the nature of my particular sacrifice for the cause. I get to do something I enjoy and believe in deeply and although I do not make what my management counterparts make, I really do extremely well by any reasonable measure.

Put it this way, the repeal of the Bush tax cuts will actually hurt me -- I don't care a bit of course, but it will cost me a bit of money. And again, I feel incredibly fortunate (and a bit guilty) to be in such a position, especially at a time when my clients' memberships are suffering pretty horribly.

[Sir Charles]

Argh -- cut off a sentence -- it should read "a basic decency that is thoroughly lacking in his opponents."

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

l-tc: and back to the Obama bungling. (I broke to get the morning paper, the NY NEWS. This is not the conservative force it once was and might, on some days be more progressive than the NYT -- though we get it for the sports. But the subheading to the PANIC! lead is "Obama Talks, Index Tanks" just if you are wondering if the coming depression will be placed at the feet of the Republicans that were the main cause iof it.)

You are right that Obama should have held the line on spending for a stimulus. But that would have required a belief in Keynesianism that we all assumed (Democrats are supposed to be Keynesians) but that I've seen no evidence of. And it would have required his use of the bully pulpit, something else we had expected from him given his reputation for speech-making. (We never expected that his main characteristic was a flight from conflict and criticism -- he was criticized as being 'all talk no action' during the campaign, and has made his Presidency -- despite his occasional addresses -- 'all action no talk' "just to show them.")

It would have taken something as simple as the following, delivered early in his Presidency or even during the transition:

In 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected during a Depression even worse than the one that threatens us now. He instructed his subordinates to 'try something. If that doesn't work, try something else. Just get the problem solved.'

One thing they tried were the ideas of a then controversial economist named John Maynard Keynes, ideas that worked. Policies that so slowed the Depression that it began to turn around. Policies that became so obviously useful that forty years later a Republican President could say "We are all Keynesians now."

And, may I point out, policies that were so effective that -- unlike after every other war in US history -- there was no 'post-war recession' after either World War Two or the Korean War.

Keynes made one of those simple, obvious in hindsight discoveries that can change the world. It was just that, in a recession or a depression, companies will not increase production of their products, or hire more workers to make more goods, because there aren't enough customers out there to buy the increased supply.

If the government puts more money in people's hands -- average people who will actually spend the increased money on needed goods and services, not people who will stick it into their savings accounts or investments -- companies can afford to hire new worklers to meet the increased demand, which will further increase the money in circulation so that you can eventually remove the original stimulus.

Sometimes the simple best way to get that money out is to give it to people -- in the long run this can cause inflation, but with interest rates currently at __% this is not a worry for today. But overall the best way is to hire those same people to work on things that already need doing. Our infrastructure is in a bad way, so hire people to fix it. Our government offices are frequently understaffed to the point where inefiiciency is a necessary result. Hire more people to make sure the services people deserve from their government actually reaches them.

(And when you do so, you can also use those additional employees to work on cutting back on the fraud that does exist -- because whatever the system, someone will figure out a way of 'gaming' it. That's just human nature.)

Our colleagues across the aisle suggest that a better route would be tax cuts -- the precise remedy the Republicans offered during the time of Hoover. And they suggest a balanced budget -- something which even FDR accepted, and criticized Hoover for not producing -- until he learned better.

But we had eight years of tax cuts, and those eight years produced -- for other reasons as well, but primarily because of those tax cuts -- the slowest growing economy we've ever seen, and led us to where we are now.

Again, to quote FDR, "If that doesn't work, try siomething else." We're going to. I will introduce a package of bills designed to simultaneously rebuild our dangerous bridges and roads, our crumbling schools, and so many other problems, and also put people to work, get them earning money they can spend on products that we can once again begin to make right here in the US, and turn this economy back on the path it was for so many years.

The path it should be on today.

Now would that have been SO difficult? And if Obama had chosen the higher ground, chosen to force the Republicans to attack a position that was, in fact, impregnable, we might not be quaking in fear over the possibility of President Michelle Bachman. Or Rick Perry or Rick Santorum or Herman Cain.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Joshua: Actually, you came close to my idea. Since the majority of the country actually believes that Obama is a 'man of the left' and since -- sorry guys -- there is no appeal for ideas that are called 'left' in today's America, I want my 3rd party candidate to simultaneously attack the mythical Obama from the right, and the real Obama from the left, making the case for Keynesianism in terms that the average intelligent Republican or centrist -- no, those aren't oxymorons -- can recognize and accept. In short, I want a return to Eisenhower Republican as the 'Honorable opposition.' Is it an ideal position, one I'd vote for? No, I've described myself as a Social Democrat and would increase the safety net to the point where it could be a 'hammock' for those who would prefer to rest than work -- knowing that most people will make the opposite choice.

But it is not a disastrous policy, the country flourished under it -- that article that tried to tie McCarthyism with a cutback in benefiots to the lower classes needs a little remedial history -- and at worst, it would result in minor setbacks, instead of the wholesale destruction of both the New Deal and the safety net that will be the result of an Obama failure -- a failure I see no signs he has the capability of avoiding.

I don't have a candidate in mind, which is why I;'ve said 'it'll never happen.' It's my 'pony' the thing I wish for but know I will never get. But at "Cogitamus," cogito. Perhaps not well, but cogito -- I thought that ws the point.

And yes, Sir Charles, given the current situation, Obama is a hundred times better than any Republican. Hell, a ticket of the absymal Evan Bayh and Blache Lincoln would still be ten times better than any Republican.

We know this, all of us. the trouble is that we aren't representative of the electorate as a whole, most of whom don't pay any attention to politics until it makes headlines, and don't have the faintest understanding of real economics -- but think their catch phrases give them that knowledge.

And I'm sorry, but we have to start thinking the way they do, if only so we can understand hiw to reach them and bring them back to sanity, or they will imitate the apocryphal lemmings, and we will all be shoved over the cliff in their rush.

[Paula B]

>> think their catch phrases give them that knowledge. and I'm sorry, but we have to start thinking the way they do, if only so we can understand hiw to reach them and bring them back to sanity...

Prup, that's why I like "the power of good ideas" as the new "Yes we can." It means whatever you want it to mean, implies strength and positive values, and is one of those phrases nobody could argue against. Are you listening out there DNC? Now, come up with the ideas, and start pumping them, every minute of every day.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Paula: As with most of the comments here, particularly those arguing against me, I agree with them, and wish that they reflected reality. But when has the DNC come up with 'good ideas.' Unfortunately, since the election of 2008, it seems the only ideas that the Democrats have been coming up with and actually applying (outside of the social issues -- and even with forced pregnancy, my statement isn't far off) are Republican ones. And, of course, once the Democrats accept them, they become 'far-left, socialistic, job destroyers.'

We had a new idea, a government-aided rationalization of medical care and insurance that would begin to establish health care as a right and demonstrate that a healthy work force was good for teh economy. (One which might have had a chnce to become a sensible single payer system in the future.) Instead we settled on an imitation of Romneycare.

We could have had the idea of turning the depression of 08 around by using a stimulus to offset the problems caused by the Bush tax cuts we would repeal. Instead we kept the cuts and mixed the stimulus with even more of them.

We had the great idea that the financial system would be healthier if it had regulation, that the country would be healthier if dangerous drugs and foods and food preparation places were regulat6ed, and that the environment would be healthier if we stopped mountintop mining and other harmful practices. We settled for a budget so severe that the agencies that are supposed to do these things will be sure to have a budget so small they will be lucky to print up stationary and name plates, and buy desks from a local grammar school that's upgrading its own.

New ideas? Let's just go back to the old ideas of a few months ago that we jettisoned.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One quick point before I take a nap and give you all a rest. I've been predicting the depression for many months, even when I was "sure" the debt crisis would be handled. I have been saying 'look to the states, look to the way they are throwing public workers into the unemployed pool.'

I even tried to turn some attention to the state-centered blogs that showed the impact on specific states.

Today Steve Benen has a post dealing with the cumulative effects of just what I've been tal;king about that is a must-read.

Unfortunately he points out the sensible -- but currently totally impractical -- idea of public spending to keep the states able to afford their employees. This is not going to happen -- and it will only get worse, as 'state study' would show you. This fiscal year has a lot more cuts than the ones that already cost 2/3 of a million state jobs over the last year, and the last gasps of the stimulus that were keeping some jobs has disappeared. And as Ezra recently pointed out, the 'spending cuts' in the Hostage deal will be even more crushing to state jobs. I was saying that state practices were adding a million people to the unemployed rolls -- and also cutting the opportunities for others to get jobs that wuill now not be filled. That 'million' now seems to be an understatement.

Oh, and by the way, they will be fighting for jobs with an almost equal number of federal employees who will also be 'made redundant' by the Hostage settlement.

For those who say this isn't GD 2.1, who deny my 'floorless Apocalypse' -- where is the floor supposed to be, and how can we build it if no one will appropriate the money to buy the wood. (And as always, i hope you have an answer, and a convincing one. I want to be wrong on this one.)

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I think the difference is that there are a lot more people employed and a lot more mitigating institutions than were present in 1929. We have nowhere near the level of unemployment experienced in the depths of the GD, we have Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and TANF available to large segments of the population.

There are a lot more well off people continuing to buy goods and services than there were in the 1930s. We are not experiencing the kind of brutal deflation that was occurring in the 1930s.

None of this is to minimize what is happening, which is truly the most severe economic crisis that most of us have lived through. But it is just of a very different magnitude to the GD. Yglesias has an illustrative graph today.

[scott]

You know people both by what they say and what they do. In either case Obama's reaction to an economic crisis that has been unprecedented since the Depression has been a day late and a dollar short. We really haven't seen any indication since '09 that Obama even wants to do anything more to help end or ameliorate the suffering. It's one thing if you actually want to do something that would work, but your enemies prevent you. You could make a political argument out of that. It's quite another if you essentially accede to the other side's argument that (1) we can't spend any more and (2) should be massively cutting back. Rhetoric matters because it tells you where someone is coming from. It tells me not that Obama is brimming with energy, ideas, and passion to help suffering people but that he either can't or won't acknowledge both the depth of the crisis and his responsibility to stand up for the people suffering from it. Yes, words aren't sufficient themselves, but that's where everything starts, with words, that can build enthusiasm, commitment and a healthy anger. From this president not only do we see a fatal lacl of action but an absence of any words indicating that he thinks drastic action is called for. That disturbs me, it disturbs Westen, and I think it disturbs a lot of people.

[Paula B]

Maybe I dreamed it, but I recall hearing Obama talk about 1/jobs, 2/expanding the economy, 3/people suffering. In fact, I heard those very words last week during the debt ceiling fiasco, over and over.

[kathy a.]

i agree with SC, that the current economic situation is not nearly as severe as the great depression/dust bowl, and that we do have safety nets in place.

it's still a hell of a bad time. and we are faced with opponents who want nothing more than to tear out the safety nets, dismantle government and its protections, and they have no shame.

an obvious solution is that we need to remove tax cuts and loopholes, particularly for the very big and rich. even the saner elected republicans agree about this, and most republican voters as well. even the republican presidents preceeding shrub, such as st. ronnie, agreed with tax increases when necessary. this is a "do the math" problem, and so far the clown car collectively is flunking.

raising needed revenue in ways that do not harm huge swaths of citizens only makes sense. and that seems achievable despite the noxious political climate -- as nauseous as the debt ceiling debacle was, the resolution left a way to get more revenue without engaging in the hideous spectacle that we recently witnessed. debt is not so much of a problem when more money is coming in; that should ease the worries of the financial overlords. more coming in will also ease the crunch on states, keep us from bleeding jobs, help with creating more jobs.

magic wand? no. but a step in the right direction, and i do have hope that it's achievable.

[kathy a.]

paula, you didn't dream it. also, he wants to let the bus tax cuts expire as to the rich, and roll back loopholes that leave the wealthiest and big corporate interests paying less than their fair share. he's been clear and consistent about all that.

what obama chose not to do was use the republican attack strategy while he tried to get the best he could during the ordeal.

[kathy a.]

* bush tax cuts.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

As far as the current severety of the crisis, we forget that the main effect of the Hostage settlements and the state spending cuts haven't hit yet. This isn't a "Black Friday" situation where the worst happens in a day and then everybody realizes the mess we are in and pitches in to fix matters. It is an example of multiple small leaks that are continuing -- at a time when we've sold all our patches. (I think there wil be one big explosion as well, as one industry or another -- or some financial scheme -- collapses. My guess -- maybe because I am looking for worse case scenarios -- is the advertising business.)

Sir Charles failed to mention the most important safety net -- Bank insurance. In 1929, if your bank went under, you lost everything, period. Now you are protected.

As for the argument that many of you are making, particularly kathy, that we'll have enough revenue if we let the tax cuts expire and close the loopholes, there's a problem with this. Yes, the Bush cuts will expire if we do nothing -- but that means they expire on everyone. I've stated i think this is a better idea than just taking them off the rich -- but I don't think it's that good politically -- especially in an election year.

Any other revenue requires leguislation, unless there is some way Obama can change the Tax Code unilaterally.

Meanwhile (Schoolhouse Rock, guys) once we have the money, the Congress has to appropriate it for the things we want to use it for -- and appropriations bills start in the House. Err, rotsa ruck, guys on that.

Plus we seem to be acting as if the Republican Obstructionism ended with the solution to the hostage crisis. I assure you there will be a lot more trouble down the road -- if only because, with the debt crisis, the Minnesota budget standoff, and the FAA, they found out that hostage taking works. Why should they stop using it?

(Oh, and while it's been a while since it has entered the onsciousness, speaking of hostage-taking, does anyone think that Obama will be able to fill any vacancy on SCOTUS with anyone during the rest of this term. And mortality can hit anyone. Imagine if we lost any of the four liberals or Kennedy. We could lose every case before the Court, hell, we could see Roe and even Lawrence gone before we could prevent it, and something tells me that Citizens United is not the only nasty surprise out there in the potential cases.)

Paula, yes, Obama said those things, but he also said a lot of things about 'we have a deficit crisis' we have to balance the budget, our problem is spending too much as well as too little revenue. Yes, we might get the tax cuts gone, but how can he propose a new stimulus once he's said that. In fact, I think that Scott has said precisely what I have been trying to say -- or a major part of it only better said and more precise. So I'll simply concur in his statement, with a slight proviso. I think Obama does want to ameliorate the suffering -- just as Hoover did. He's just too constrained by his own primitive and simplistic view of economics, one which he shares -- or feels he has to claim to share -- with Republicans.

[Paula (another one)]

"attacking Obama for having failed to present a cogent progressive narrative to the American people, leaving him (and us) to flounder in the wake of the American right, an implacable enemy that is never wanting for simple tales to sell to credulous voters"

Assuming that this is an accurate summation of Westin's piece:

The mistake is thinking that it was/is Obama's job. He is an engine of the institution of the United States government and the Democratic party, whose first orders of business is to get and keep power, not advance liberal legislation.

I'm really sorry for Drew Westin feeling sad and all, but I don't feel kindly for people projecting their naivete and lack of research skills and reading comprehension on me. I knew who I was voting for. I am disappointed, but more in the lack of real power the internet has had in corralling a cohesive progressive movement than in anything Barack Obama has done. As for him, I have been surprised by how well it's turned out, actually.

That being said, I'm not in a hurry to convince people to vote one way or another. You vote how you want. But if Barack Obama loses the general because he's weakened by a primary challenger or a progressive third party candidate, the people who openly support the challenge should be prepared to deal with whatever comes their way. Because they will be blamed.

[Paula B]

What we need is a Congress that is on the same page as Obama, no matter what the party. Since so many of his proposals came out of the Republican playbook, and since poll after poll shows the majority of voters favor health care reform, raising taxes on the rich and other Obamafied issues, perhaps we could actually achieve something. We've seen -- up close and way too personal -- this stuff doesn't hinge on who's in the White House as much as who's in Congress. That should be our focus.
Welcome, another Paula!

[Sir Charles]

Hi Paulas,

I think it is hard to exaggerate how important it is that Obama be re-elected whatever his flaws.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C:
No, I'm sorry, but what IS absolutely vital is that no currently visible Republican Candidate ever see the inside of the White House except as a visitor.

It is probable that our two statements are identical, but it is also possible that it will become apparent Obama CAN'T be reelected. Then we need a plan B.

I wish I had one that was a believable scenario. Anyone?

[nancy]

O/T I don't know about y'all but I smell big barrels of stinking fish--this goes back to April. As though there was never to be a way that this administration was going to avert this downgrade due to the anticipated financial scorecard which would issue forth out of a divison of GOP-extremely-friendly McGraw-Hill. Here and and here also .

I could use a translation since this looks like it was always intended to be inevitable based on these reports. S&P wouldn't be playing politics, now would it?

OIANE - Obviously I am no economist.

[nancy]

Prup--We need Obama to be re-elected so we must all get on the job and on his case immediately. But we've got to sign on and stop griping. Man needs some help with the heavy lifting. And you'll like this--we need to "stay out of the way" to encourage more of this. One step at a time and we can get there. These folks have to be sold on moving the crazy train to a dead end siding.

[Paula B]

Sir C---I wasn't saying Obama shouldn't be re-elected, but that 1/replacing him would not solve the problem, and 2/the problem is with Congress, not Obama. If he had been elected during most Congresses in recent memory, we wouldn't be having most of these conversations. He might not have been able to push everything on his agenda, but he probably would have done better, don't you think? We can't blame Obama for what the GOP has foisted on us. And, any replacement candidate would run into the same brick wall.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

I was responding to Jim.

nancy,

The funny thing is that the cost of borrowing for the U.S. just went down. In the face of the stock market meltdown investors scrambled to the safety of U.S. bonds.

I actually don't think what S&P did had much impact on the market. I think what spooked investors was the crappy economic data at home and the crisis of the Euro abroad.

[beckya57]

I'm with the Paulas. And I agree with Sir C re what's spooking investors. With all the bad news out of Europe and here, it'd be weird if they weren't spooked.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I had a long 'scenic route' post, but I ran out of steam last night before I could finish it. This won't be the last time these topics are breached, so I'll just say -- in what is probably a thread ender -- that Obama resembles a person who wears roller skates to a tug-of-war. He just has never been able to find traction enough to stand for anything and pull back. We'll probably have to support him -- certainly we have to see he is re-elected rather than let any Republican challenger win. But let's admit who it is we are supporting, and maybe use that understanding as a way to influence him.