Obama: The Fundamentals of our Economy are Sound

the recession dident start untill Obama's government took over.

Um, I think Rabel was being perhaps being intentionally sarcastic with that statement. I could be wrong, but most of his posts seem to blame George W. Bush and the GOP

Over the weekend The Times and other newspapers reported leaked details about the Obama administration’s bank rescue plan, which is to be officially released this week. If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy " specifically, the “cash for trash” plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair.

After all, we’ve just been through the firestorm over the A.I.G. bonuses, during which administration officials claimed that they knew nothing, couldn’t do anything, and anyway it was someone else’s fault. Meanwhile, the administration has failed to quell the public’s doubts about what banks are doing with taxpayer money.

And now Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they’re doing.

It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.

<<<Snip>>>

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus " for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to " will change that fact.

<<<snip>>>

Even more important, however, is the way Mr. Obama is squandering his credibility. If this plan fails " as it almost surely will " it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

All is not lost: the public wants Mr. Obama to succeed, which means that he can still rescue his bank rescue plan. But time is running out.

Well, the bell continues to toll for Geithner...

Dow soars nearly 500 points on banking plan
Program to remove some $1 trillion in bad assets from their books

March 23: The Dow closes up almost 500 points on news of a government plan to sell toxic assets and better-than-expected home sales.

NEW YORK - Wall Street got the news it wanted on the economy’s biggest problems " banks and housing " and celebrated by hurtling the Dow Jones industrials up nearly 500 points.

Investors added rocket fuel Monday to a two-week-old advance, cheering the government’s plan to help banks remove bad assets from their books and also welcoming a report showing a surprising increase in home sales. Major stock indicators surged about 7 percent, including the Dow, which had its biggest percentage gain since October.

Analysts who have seen the market’s recent false starts are still hesitant to say Wall Street is indeed recovering from the collapse that began last fall. But the day’s banking and housing news bolstered the growing belief that the economy is starting to heal, and that is what had investors buying.

Quote:

Lot of economists say hyperinflation is coming, DTOM. Surely, this worries you?

not so much, alv. as far as i can tell. inflation began several years ago when gas prices started shooting up. everything else went up in price immediately.

or as ms. dtom commented a few years ago; "jeeezz... when i go to the grocery now, everything is five bucks."

i have to ask you this though. why are you so down on money being spent on education ? ( in the interest of full disclosure, both my wife and sister in law work for the school system at the college level. )

i get, and even agree that sometimes tenure can keep a lame ass teacher employed, but in the scheme of things they are a distinct and small percentage. but beyond that, i find it difficult to understand the attitude that education and decent wages for those who are teaching "our most valuable resource" and "america's future" are wasteful spending.

Lot of economists say hyperinflation is coming, DTOM. Surely, this worries you?

FACT: Before the federal government got involved in funding and imposing rules and regulations on the schools, the schools were far better.

We are in agreement that a highschool diploma from that school at that time provided the equivalent or better than four years of college now.

No it is a fact. I have read the studies and have witnessed it first hand. I am not a teacher, but have taught in the classroom as a substitute or in very limited areas of expertise. I have served on a schoolboard. And I have raised kids through the system and currently have a grandchild in the system. I'm not making my observations in a vacuum.

Well perhaps we can agree that based on your criteria, my opinion is at least as good as yours.

By the way, tagging other people's posts with 'snarky' tags is tacky.

Don't you think?

http://able2know.org/user/farmerman/

FACT: Before the federal government got involved in funding and imposing rules and regulations on the schools, the schools were far better.