lookin

November 2, 2010, 11:59 PM How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms By TIMOTHY EGAN If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought. For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price. Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here's why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power. As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent. But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies? The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged. Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated. "An apology is due Barack Obama," wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama's signature economic successes. Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade. All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes. "We have done things that people don't even know about," Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority. But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don't know that, either. Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. "It could have been much worse!" is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today. Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system — but no jobs. Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama's initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must — or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year. Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation — which should please big business even more. President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank "holiday" in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign. Obama can recast himself as the consumer's best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform. And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives – insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil. They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.

Matrix, I can't figure out if I agree with everything in your post, or disagree with everything in your post. What say we go fire up a bowl and get our heads clear? PS: Lucky, who says your posts don't get a response?

Thank you. The silence has indeed been awesome. Better yet, why not run a contest? Best Thai Trip Under $3500! The winner gets to go along for free. I'm sure you can convince TY and OZ to help sponsor it, as new members will be flocking here to help you design the perfect trip. Who knows, maybe even Daddy will enter! Once you've picked the winner, get a travel consultant to feature Lucky's Special Package on his website, and offer special discounts to MER members and a kickback an earmark to you. Money in the bank, my friend, as who here could resist Giant Member Savings in Thailand?

Well someone certainly thinks well of herself!

I'm not sure what part of the budget 'sacred cows' represents, and what part is represented by wars we could limit by engaging in more skillful diplomacy. In my opinion, it's at least worth bringing in to the national debate. Ideologies can shift when that happens. I also believe we should have some public discussion of our role as financier of 43% of the world's military spending. By my calculation, even dropping down to 40% would save us close to fifty billion dollars. Imagine how many good teachers that would pay for.

I was getting a tad discouraged too when my posts languished without comment, like a fart in a wetsuit. 'Was my material boring?', I asked myself. 'Could I be more interesting?' 'More relevant?' 'Funnier?' 'Smarter?' 'Less self-absorbed?' 'Nah!', I finally decided. The members here are just more worldly, active, and involved than those on other sites. They have things to do, people to meet, and places to be. They read my posts and are moved, enlightened, titillated, and amused by them. But they just don't have time in their busy schedules to let me know how much they enjoyed my latest effort. It will have to be up to me to punch the 'Add Reply' button, and then close my eyes and listen carefully for the respectful and enthusiastic applause sure to follow from the far reaches of the MER empire. At least that's how I've got it worked out, and I'll thank you all not to burst my bubble.

I wonder why? If ever a budget needed a closer look, it's this one: source: Wikipedia Even a 2% reduction could fund the National Park Service in its entirety. A 10% reduction could more than pay for recently enacted health care reform. To not even consider a reduction in U. S. military spending seems foolhardy in the extreme. And the fact that we can afford to cover 40+ percent of the world's military spending without being able to afford universal health care for our own people shows a disregard for our citizenry that beggars belief. If you ask me, we threw out the wrong bums.

I definitely agree with your first statement, but don't share your (perhaps temporary?) lack of hope. For me, the only logical thing to do is shift some of my modest efforts from away from federal solutions and toward state and local solutions, where possible. As a first step, I plan to get more involved in the campaign for single-payer health care in California. The state legislature has twice sent a single-payer bill to a Republican governor who, predictably, vetoed it. Our newly-elected Democratic governor has been non-committal on the issue throughout his campaign, saying he wants to see how it would be paid for. Fair enough. That's a place to start. The election of a progressive Lieutenant Governor who delivered increased health coverage in San Francisco should make the job easier, as will the shift to majority (rather than two-thirds) budget approval in the legislature. I'm not at all averse to letting the states lead the feds whenever possible, nor to letting the county lead the state, nor to letting the community lead the county. To 'think globally and act locally' seems especially relevant now. The odds are better.

Maybe they thought you were the Bedbug Inspector.

Just got around to watching Obama's Deal, Frontline's report on how the healthcare legislation got done. Worth watching, if only to confirm how worthy objectives were sacrificed, one by one, to force the legislation through. (sidenote: Rahm Emanuel can't exit Washington soon enough for me.) It will be more than interesting to watch the Republicans try to make good on their threat to dismantle the small bits of healthcare reform that actually got through. Turns out it was the insurance lobby who demanded that everyone needed to buy coverage, so what will Boehner have to give the insurance companies when he takes those new customers away? Higher premiums and copays? More exclusions of higher risk patients? Cheaper care? How will that play out on the nightly news? And when he's done with his clawbacks, does he think that corporations will now rethink their decisions to pass more healthcare costs on to their employees? This will not be pretty to watch, in my opinion, especially against the backdrop of all the other industrialized nations that have found a way to provide healthcare to their citizens. The Republican House will have its work cut out for it.

I think somebody's been teasing you with partial info. The $869,000 is for the six-month period from April through September. Since he started in 2009, the trustee has collected about $1.5 billion. And, not that they'll all be successful, there are lawsuits filed seeking to recover another $15.5 billion. Most of this comes from 'clawbacks' from investors who did make some money, and will be given to other investors who lost money. I don't think they're finding much that Madoff himself had squirreled away. I agree that $27 million every six months in legal fees is a bit steep, but I think they have to pull out all the stops in order to discourage the next Ponzi scheme. Getting peoples' attention is expensive. Just ask Meg Whitman.

Personally, I'd have a moderate preference for being able to see images without being logged in, as I often don't log in when I visit. I know I miss some images that migrate downward between logins, but I definitely see the other side of the equation and respect the position that TY and OZ have taken. But I think this thread is about more than images. I intially took Matrix's suggestion at face value, and was surprised by the seemingly outsized reaction to it. I felt bad for Matrix, and thought about posting here for awhile just to keep him company. Now it appears that there's a disturbance in the force here that this poor Wookie just doesn't understand yet. Seeking enlightenment, I have pinged Doobie-Wan Kenobi, Obi-wan's older brother, and a personal friend. Perhaps he knows something.

I prefer to think of myself as emotionally aware and refreshingly candid. Still, I can appreciate your position. Bitch!!

I'm confused. I had originally thought that Matrix had chosen to post in this new oddly-titled forum, although I couldn't figure out exactly why. Now it sounds like the forum was created so his post could be moved there, although, again, I can't figure out exactly why. Anyone care to smarten up a chump?

No worries here! I was only half-joking in my earlier post. I could see having fun splashing some vinegar around as Epigonos suggested, or even a spritz or two of sulfuric acid should the need arise. While I don't feel that good-natured posts necessarily have to be boring, I do understand that others may enjoy a little bloodletting from time to time, and would increase their participation were it more prevalent. I never joined the all-mean all-hateful all-the-time websites and would avoid them like the plague, but it might be fun to toss around a few good insults and engage in the odd bit of character assassination every once in a while. Given the range of personalities here, combined with the limited subtlety of text-based posting, it probably wouldn't be easy to get the right balance between entertainment that would bring some folks in and downright snarkiness that would drive others away. But it might be fun to try. That's why I suggested a one-week trial period providing a chance to see if we could get it right, and giving it an over-the-top name that would remind people that it was all in fun. My hunch is that a few feathers, I say a few feathers!, might get ruffled. But there's also a chance that another rooster or two might be drawn into the henhouse. Maybe it would be possible to devote a separate forum to the nasty posts, and folks could choose to go there or not. With props to both Epigonos and Edward Gorey, I'll suggest calling it The Vinegar Works, then standing by to see who drops in.

Interesting thought, and may be worth testing. We could declare the first week in November Nasty Poster Week and take off the gloves. We'd have to truss up the moderators of course or, better yet, convert them to the cause. At the end of the week, we could do a tally and see if the numbers are up and we've got the site we want. Let me know, though, as I'll need to lay in some supplies.

There's just not room for everything in these skimpy outfits they give us!

Well, they say opinions are like assholes, so here's mine! Both the original post and the response were a smidge too loud for my ears. But so what? Don't friends and families get on our nerves once in a while? It's about the longer term for me. OneFinger, TampaYankee, and TotallyOz are all important posters and all have kept me entertained and informed over the years. If any one of the three backed off from the site, I'd feel a loss.

If it's traffic you want, why not pin 'A really big cock by lurkerspeaks'? That should bring 'em into the tent.

Noticed your reviews on Steve Stacks and DamienDivinus the other day. Looks like you guys all had a good time! Thanks for writing them too! Good info, well written, and enough detail to arouse my 'interest', if you'll pardon the expression.

These are not your father's markets, dominated as they are by algorithmic trading and opaque financial 'instruments' that would make a robber baron blush. I'm coming to the conclusion that these markets are beyond the small investor's understanding and the government's ability to regulate. I wouldn't outlaw them, if that were even possible, but I would try to find a way to completely wall them off from the legitimate raising of capital for the creation of tangible products and jobs. And I'd do it quickly. A major chunk of our economy is buzzing around inside these giant high-speed computerized networks which I believe are fully understood by no one, and certainly not by the government or its citizens. I believe it is only a matter of time before a cyberterrorist gets inside and swings an electronic pickaxe around, just to see where the pieces fall. In the meantime, I'm keeping what little I have left as far away from Wall Street as I can get it.

Worth noting that this guy joined Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan in running Brooksley Born out of Washington twelve years ago when, as head of the CFTC, she proposed regulating the derivatives market. Had her advice been followed, the 2008 meltdown could likely have been avoided. At the time, Levitt insisted that the capital markets could be trusted to regulate themselves, and succeeded in gutting her agency. Now he wants to see what's left of it get merged into the SEC. Probably easier for Goldman Sachs to keep an eye on it.

I think some may underestimate the challenge a lurker faces when deciding whether to post or not. Sure, we have a Community Home Page, but that's only the basic stuff dealing with privacy and stalking and such. It doesn't really describe the unspoken rules that guide our interactions and make us such a lovingly inbred and dysfunctional family. Before I ever considered starting a post, or even replying to someone else's, I spent months just trying to figure out the lay of the land, so to speak. So perhaps it would help to share my own baker's dozen of hard-won insights on what makes our little community of posters tick. I'm sure others will join in and generously offer their own. ● If you don't have anything nice to say, immediately click the 'Register' button in the upper right hand corner. When finished registering, hit the 'Login' button to its left, and start typing at once, before any kinder gentler thoughts have a chance to intrude. ● References to the 'other site' will always attract viewers and responses. Even a single use of the word 'Daddy' will keep your post at the top of the forum for weeks at a time. ● If you are a client replying to an inquiry about an escort you are fond of, add 50% to his published rate and cut his dick size in half. If you really like him, suggest that his ongoing drug problems make him a risky bet for an outcall and that his own quarters have recently become infested with bedbugs. ● If you are an escort here to make some new contacts, try your best to laugh at all client banter. While concurrently rolling on the floor is not absolutely de rigeur, it can be a nice added touch. If a potential client has already begun stalking you, it may be best to keep up this facade until a restraining order has been served and tracking device fitted. ● Should you sense that another poster would appreciate some encouragement or feedback on something he has written, quickly close the thread without replying. It will help him avoid becoming too needy, and he will thank you one day by returning the favor. ● Never start a new thread when you can highjack an existing one. ● Use smiley faces liberally. Nothing gets a snarky comment past the moderators like a well-chosen emoticon. ● If you come across a post containing the letters 'BN', consider it an engraved invitation to dive right in and post the most outrageous stuff you can think of, on either side of the issue, or even both sides at once. It doesn't matter if you even know who this 'BN' fellow is. Post away! Half your readers will consider you a hero, and the other half will assume you know something they don't. ● When making a political post, do not - repeat, do not - include any verifiable facts or relevant information. Always allow the rhetoric to stand on its own. And do try to use the word 'agenda' at least once. ● If you see a post about a city or country you have never visited, be sure and let others know why you would never be caught dead there. ● When sharing pictures, try to find those that have blocked or expired links. If that's not possible, misspell the URL. A picture post festooned with red x's or blue ?'s will immediately endear you to all the other posters whose graphic treasures likewise remain tantalizingly just out of reach. ● All too often, you may find yourself deeply offended by something another poster has written or even by the poster himself. Whatever you do, do not suffer in silence. It will only encourage him. Let him know just how disgraceful his conduct has been, and ask him to seriously consider turning in his avatar and joining the Foreign Legion. ● Always post what's on your mind. If you don't have anything on your mind, don't let that stop you. Remember, there are plenty of us who have even less on our minds than you do, and we are all desperate for something new to read. And now, if I may grow lyric for a moment, I'd like to conclude with a polite and patient plea to people presently perched on the precipice of prolific posting: It doesn't matter who you are, A troll, a , a movie star, Bronzed and young, or old and gray, Bi or straight or proudly gay, If you've got nothing much to say, Come login once and post all day. And if it's not all up to par, You'll fit right in at MER! Hope this helps, and happy posting!

An Armenian lass named Giselle Has an ass that is hairy as hell. In addition it reeks And, although it's been weeks, I just cannot get rid of the smell.

Congrats to you both! I know this sounds like a broken record, but I hope you won't push yourself too hard or too fast. (Unlike when you're reaching orgasm, of course, when the opposite advice would be given. ) It's just my experience, but depriving myself of everything I liked all at once, made me long for the day when I could stop dieting. And, when that day came, I ended up celebrating with what I missed most: food, primarily the fattening kind. And then the weight came back on a lot faster than it came off. Sounds like you're both taking it in manageable steps, and won't make the mistake I did. Anyway, thanks for including us in your journey and, if you find any tricks that work well for you, I hope you'll share.