Obama's 'Katrina Moment'? Never Mind.

The AIG bailout bonuses were "Obama's Katrina Moment" -- that's what Frank Rich argued in his New York Times column on Sunday. Just three days later that seems like a ridiculous claim.

The original "Katrina Moment" came when the public turned against George W. Bush, definitely and permanently, after seeing his massive incompetence in handling the aftermath of the hurricane in August 2005. Bush's approval ratings dropped below 40 percent, and never went back up.

Obama's approval ratings in contrast actually have gone up since Rich made his pronouncement: in a new CBS poll released Tuesday, 64 percent of Americans say they favor the job that Obama is doing right now – two points more than CBS's poll earlier this month. Even more significant, ratings for the president's handling of the overall economy increased from 56 to 61 percent.

Asked specifically about Obama's handling of the AIG bonuses, CBS reported that "For the first time since he became president, a significant number of Americans are expressing disapproval of Barack Obama's actions. . . . 42 percent of those surveyed disapprove of the president's handling of the AIG bonuses, while roughly the same percentage - 41 percent - approve."

So a lot of people don't like what he did with the AIG bonuses, but they still approve of the rest of what he's doing. The public, in this poll at least, is able to make some distinctions.

It's not hard to see where Frank Rich went wrong with his argument. With Katrina, it was pretty obvious what needed to be done: provide the basics of life -- water and food; get people out of the Superdome and into decent shelter. But with the financial crisis, people are not so sure what's the right thing to do. They know paying millions to AIG execs is wrong, but they also seem to know that's a small part of a big problem.

There are lots of good reasons to criticize Obama's actions on the financial bailout, and lots of good reasons for populist rage over AIG. But the public seems willing to give him more time -- to see what works, and what doesn't.

Comments (64)

1. 'I feel your pain.' -- President Bill Clinton

   -------

   60 Minutes interview 22 March 2009

   President Obama (laughing):'I just want to say that the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money into the auto industry'

   Interviewer Steve Kroft: 'You're sitting here. And you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people gonna look at this and say, "I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money." How do you deal with, I mean, explain the...mood and your laughter... Are you punch drunk?'

   President Obama: 'There's got to be a little gallows humor to get you through the day'

   --------

   'Tragedy tomorrow, comedy tonight!' -- Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Forum

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/25/2009 @ 3:54pm

2. The Obama team will have this economic mess whipped into shape well before the fars stop complaining and throwing tantrums left and right...

   There will be plenty of time for 'extreme democracy'... after the DOW crests 10,000... ;^)

   The 'T' party is down the rabbit hole... with the Mad Hatter... Oh! I can hear him now...

   Twinkle, twinkle, little bat!

   How I wonder what you're at!

   Up above the world you fly,

   Like a teatray in the sky.

   Twinkle, twinkle little bat!

   How I wonder what you're at!

   Posted by ttr at 03/25/2009 @ 4:13pm

3. Have you ever noticed that "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" has the same tune as "The Alphabet Song"?

   Posted by Mistral at 03/25/2009 @ 4:22pm

4. gallows humor, sure, but there's a reason the auto industry bailouts are so unpopular. why? the writing has been on the wall for a decade - oil prices are going one direction: up. the colossal waste of investing in producing leviathan SUVs, for the only reason that they produce a healthy short term profit margin, is an tragedy in the truest sense of the word - the product of willful blindness to facts that everyone with open eyes can see. the only reason anyone buys them at all, is that our government already provides such subsidy to fuel that gas prices are substantially less than they are in Europe, where, guess what - people are driving 50mpg diesel sedans (in Germany at least). take away the props, and the market responds intelligently.

   we've had car designs for at least 20 years that are capable of getting 100mpg or greater. if there's an auto bailout, it needs to be in support of a leaner, meaner industry, and not just a short term rescue that results in the same pattern of waste followed by poverty. take a look at Aptera in San Diego, who have a 130+mpg prototype in the works already. the tools are there, it's time to actually use them.

   Posted by canaro71 at 03/25/2009 @ 4:41pm

5. I'm not saying that Obama is another Hitler, so Mask and others don't try and twist this post..

   but Obama's popularity lies primarily with his speaking ability and not the substance of what he is doing. People during times of national stress often respond to either demagogues and/or "populists" who satsify their ears, but not their brains. He sounds good to them and he promises them help. But his solutions are not helpful.

   It will not be surprising if he crashes and burns like most of those before him.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/25/2009 @ 4:48pm

6. is that our government already provides such subsidy to fuel that gas prices are substantially less than they are in Europe, where, guess what - people are driving 50mpg diesel sedans (in Germany at least). take away the props, and the market responds intelligently.

   we've had car designs for at least 20 years that are capable of getting 100mpg or greater. if there's an auto bailout, it needs to be in support of a leaner, meaner industry, and not just a short term rescue that results in the same pattern of waste followed by poverty. take a look at Aptera in San Diego, who have a 130+mpg prototype in the works already. the tools are there, it's time to actually use them.

   Posted by canaro71 at 03/25/2009 @ 4:41pm

   1. The difference in fuel prices isn't subsidy (which we don't do), it is a combination of fuel taxes and volume purchasing.

   2. As to Diesels, I'd love to see them but the Democrats with pressure from enviromental groups keep them out of many states like California where you cannot sell a new Diesel.

   3. Natural gas which we have an abundance of would be a great transition step in our choices. Most vehicles could be easily converted and it burns far cleaner; Again though, too many groups fighting against even this moderate step.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/25/2009 @ 4:59pm

7. It will not be surprising if he crashes and burns like most of those before him.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/25/2009 @ 4:48pm

   It might be hard to argue this point.. does "like most of those before him" include Bush, in your opinion?

   Posted by A.D.H.D. at 03/25/2009 @ 5:39pm

8. I'm just saying that Bush fits your description...except for the part about speaking ability...oh yah, also he might be more comparable to Hitler than Obama (if your purley taking the "deaths caused by" factor into account)

   Posted by A.D.H.D. at 03/25/2009 @ 5:46pm

9. Mr. Wiener:

   You say ".....With Katrina, it was pretty obvious what needed to be done: provide the basics of life -- water and food; get people out of the Superdome and into decent shelter. ...."

   Then I would have to ask, why didn't the Democrats running New Orleans and Louisiana do that, or why were they incapable of doing that?

   If you are going to concern yourself with "Katrina moments", that would be a good place to start.

   Posted by sjchermak at 03/25/2009 @ 6:11pm

10. oh yah, also he might be more comparable to Hitler than Obama (if your purley taking the "deaths caused by" factor into account)

    Posted by A.D.H.D. at 03/25/2009 @ 5:46pm

    You just Godwinned yourself, but you were cleverly led into it by antisocialist, who sort of reverse Godwinned.

    I propose that the latter be declared and illegal manouevre, thus allowing the debate to continue without necessary forfeiture.

    Posted by Fargo at 03/25/2009 @ 6:49pm

11. (Deleted scene) "But, please, please forget that Dubya appointed a HORSE LAWYER as head of our national emergency management"----Posted by sjchermak at 03/25/2009 @ 6:11pm

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 8:32pm

12. With the exception of my two senators, Snow and Collins the republicans all sound and look like the Stepford Wives and all married to the firemen in Fahrenheit 451. Didn't these guys graduate from high school. They seem like they have spent too much time in a rest room without a ventilation fan in the dead of the hottest day in summer after they have all taken a dump. They all seem like mean little children who love to tear the wings off of flies and torture kittens.

    Posted by julien38 at 03/25/2009 @ 9:14pm

13. we've had car designs for at least 20 years that are capable of getting 100mpg or greater.

    Posted by canaro71 at 03/25/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Possibly, but not with the internal combustion engine. four strokes 10 percent efficient. A good design for steam.

    Posted by julien38 at 03/25/2009 @ 9:21pm

14. Sorry Mr. Wiener, but Obama's "Katrina moment" will end up being our Asian Tsunami. That massive spending bill he's imposing will drown us all.

    Just damn!

    Posted by ACook at 03/25/2009 @ 9:28pm

15. the colossal waste of investing in producing leviathan SUVs, for the only reason that they produce a healthy short term profit margin, is an tragedy in the truest sense of the word - the product of willful blindness to facts that everyone with open eyes can see. the only reason anyone buys them at all, is that our government already provides such subsidy to fuel that gas prices are substantially less than they are in Europe, where, guess what - people are driving 50mpg diesel sedans (in Germany at least). Posted by canaro71 at 03/25/2009 @ 4:41pm

    'The only reason"? Are you sure? Couldn't another reason for building all those SUVs be BECAUSE THAT'S ALL PEOPLE WANTED TO BUY? Even now, Chevy dealers have tons of small, high mpg cars on their lots, unsold. Chevy isn't NPR. They have to make money to stay in business. If Mercedes makes a 50 MPG sedan, why don't they bring it here?

    Posted by twillie at 03/25/2009 @ 9:37pm

16. Posted by ACook at 03/25/2009 @ 9:28pm

    So what's YOUR escape plan, ACOOK?

    I've gotten Larry's (lvlib/anti-soc) but he seems to be hedging his bets now after Mauricio Funes won....

    and can't get ANY answer out of RIO/comanche....

    so what's your plan of escape to a "last bastion of freedom and Christian morality"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 9:44pm

17. Intresting Wiener used CBS's leftist skewed minimal poll while larger samplings show Obamanation is down to 47% approval (and falling)!?! I'm sure hsub will be along with a dozen others to help wiener out!

    There is so much bad news on so many fronts showing just how bad the Obamanation Presidency and the Demoncrats are NOT handling various crisis's that he may NOT last a year before you get to see true anti-government populism explode like a gas fire! Just pick a subject like illegal immigration, Iran, bailouts, economy, N.korea, russia and on and on etc.!

    What a disasterous no hope and change for the worse was in 2008!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/25/2009 @ 10:26pm

18. so what's your plan of escape to a "last bastion of freedom and Christian morality"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 9:44pm

    I'd pull the Ark doors and watch the rains come... ;-)

    Posted by ACook at 03/25/2009 @ 10:41pm

19. I live in Maine where diesel isn't the ideal starter at 30 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. I have a buddy who owns a Ford F 250 diesel but the fuel for the thing is 4.50 a gallon. I still love deisel and the Mercedes sadan diesel is a pig. I don't know how the turbo acts.

    Posted by julien38 at 03/25/2009 @ 10:53pm

20. Posted by julien38 at 03/25/2009 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Could be WORSE biodeisel get the consistency of jello in the fridge BEFORE it even hits freezing! Engine block heaters do no good with that stuff in the fuel lines and filters!

    Funny these guys haven't seen cars on natural gas or LNG! If you get one say your prayers the that the superthick steel cylinders in the trunk don't rupture even w/good design! Pressurized at 600 times and @ minus 260 degrees its liquid in your trunk. Don't know just how much additional weigh it adds cutting down milage but a few of our state cars run on it!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/25/2009 @ 11:32pm

21. No one in the top echelons of the financial industry who has a weekend place in the Hamptons is a Republican.

    No, there is one. Teddy Forstmann. He has to throw his own parties and fly guests in. Otherwise, if they want to go to any half-decent parties, bankers must be Democrats. At their income bracket, multimillionaires will trade a little extra tax money for good cocktail parties.

    Even the "Republicans" on Wall Street don't care about national defense or social issues. They just want to trade with China and hire illegal aliens.

    Last September, The New York Times reported that individuals associated with the securities and investment industry had given $9.9 million to the Obama campaign, $7.4 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign and only $6.9 million to the McCain campaign. Either they're all Democrats or some commodity named "hope" was going through the roof last year.

    Employees of Lehman Bros. alone gave Obama $370,000, compared to about $117,000 to McCain. (No wonder Bush let them go under.)

    According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records by the Center for Responsive Politics, the top three corporate employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top 30 donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Bros., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group.

    Since 1998, the financial sector has given a total of $37.6 million to Obama, compared to $32.1 million to McCain. But Obama ran for his first national office only in 2004. So McCain got less from the financial industry in a decade that included two runs for president than Obama did in four years.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/26/2009 @ 12:07am

22. As we've seen in recent weeks, Wall Street gets what it pays for. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd included language in the stimulus bill allowing executives of the bailed-out banks to collect million-dollar bonuses.

    And yet the Democrats' endless favors for their Wall Street friends never sticks to them because everyone treats Democrats' shilling for their own contributors as if it's a Nixon-goes-to-China moment.

    On the March 23 edition of MSNBC's "Hardball," The Nation's David Corn said: "Remember -- What was it? A year or two back when there was talk about taxing hedge fund managers at the rate that the rest of us pay? Who intervened in that? Chuck Schumer."

    But Corn then quickly added that this "got a lot of Democrats really mad. Here was a Democrat, you know, getting in the way of a populist issue at a time when the economy was already heading in the wrong direction."

    Which Democrats got "really mad"? Chris Dodd? George Soros? Warren Buffett? Jon Corzine? Tim Geithner? Roger Altman? Bob Rubin? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein?

    Corn's formulation was wonderfully subtle: Admit that a Democrat preserved a sweetheart deal for hedge fund managers -- but then claim that his fellow Democrats were furious with him.

    People are more likely to believe something if they think they came to it themselves. Hearing a liberal muse on TV that it was an aberration for Chuck Schumer to intervene to protect hedge fund managers -- risking the wrath of other Democrats -- the average person thinks: So Democrats must be the party of the people. I always thought George Soros was a Democrat, but he must be a Republican.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/26/2009 @ 12:10am

23. Democrats take care of the financial industry -- and the financial industry takes care of Democrats. After honing his financial skills as the bagman for Bill Clinton's White House, Rahm Emanuel was hired by the investment bank Wasserstein Perella, where he worked for 2 1/2 years.

    For that, Emanuel was paid more than $18 million. (Maybe Rahm Emanuel was the Democrat livid at Schumer for preserving a sweet tax deal for hedge fund managers!)

    Democrats have a beautiful system: They're showered with Wall Street money, but they also get to pillory Republicans for being the party of "Wall Street." The bankers don't care if Democrats attack them. They still get their bailout money. By Coulter.

    Now that sure hits the nail on the head, but do you think anyone in the national Obmanation media cares to report the truth, if so take another drink of Koolaide and forget about the tales of responsible journalism in the past.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/26/2009 @ 12:14am

24. the 50mpg diesel is indeed on the way:

    I don't think I can post a URL, but do a google search on "2009 honda accord diesel 52 mpg" and it will come right up. Using an engine that has been in use in Europe for years.

    p.s. the problem of diesel fuel gelling is easily solved with an onboard heating unit.

    p.p.s. (and if you want to read something REALLY interesting, google "motorhead messiah".)

    p.p.p.s. there most certainly WERE internal combustion cars that got over 100 mpg, that were designed over 20 years ago. The Avion got 103.6 mpg driving at 55mpg from Mexico to Canada, in 1986. Also, the ECV made in Britain. The technology has been around for two decades.

    Posted by canaro71 at 03/26/2009 @ 12:33am

25. "the Avion got 103.6 mpg driving at 55MPH"... sorry for typo

    Posted by canaro71 at 03/26/2009 @ 12:34am

26. Then I would have to ask, why didn't the Democrats running New Orleans and Louisiana do that, or why were they incapable of doing that?

    If you are going to concern yourself with "Katrina moments", that would be a good place to start.

    Posted by sjchermak

    Hey, how about this Katrina moment....

    The Hurricane had passed and New Orleans was a city flooded with contaminated sewage with thousands of US citizens in misery, some dying and some already gone.

    The media started asking questions about how CNN and Fox could get camera crews to the Superdome but the Govt. hasn't brought them supplies....

    And...George H.W. Bush, the Old Man, goes on tv and indignantly complains about media playing the "blame game."

    People were still dying, and those that died already were left rotting...And he was indignant.

    If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it.

    Posted by koroviev at 03/26/2009 @ 03:02am

27. koroview,

    And how and why did the Democrats running New Orleans and Louisiana, first responders in the case of natural disasters, let the situation get to that point?

    And why was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an environmental "activist" complaining almost immediately about the administration being "wrong" in not signing the Kyoto global warming treaty, and claiming hurricanes were getting worse because of global warming - given that it is a fact that hurricane intensity and frequency has been cyclical over the years and not impacted by "global warming"? (In other words, why was he shamelessly using the hurricane as a prop to promote his view of the world and crucify the administration for not believing as he does - especially since he has shown to be wrong?)

    And why was the news media shamelessly displaying the circumstances of the people of New Orleans, highlighting the ethnic background of a lot of the people involved, in order to promote that their circumstance was due to racism?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/26/2009 @ 03:52am

28. And why was the news media shamelessly displaying the circumstances of the people of New Orleans, highlighting the ethnic background of a lot of the people involved, in order to promote that their circumstance was due to racism?

    Posted by sjchermak

    It's usually a big news story when a major American city lies in ruins and the President is on vacation.

    I'd compare Dubya to Nero, but that wouldn't be fair to Nero. At least he did all he could to help Roman citizens while Rome burned.

    As far as RFK Jr...Why even bring him up?

    As far as Dem. Gov. and Mayor, it's one thing to screw up an evacuation, which is reprehensible. But, to allow the situation to go on for days after the storm passed, is worse.

    Posted by koroviev at 03/26/2009 @ 05:24am

29. Posted by ACook at 03/25/2009 @ 10:41pm

    So like RIO, you predict "DOOOOOOOOM!!!!!"....

    but have no plan for escaping it????

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 06:16am

30. (if your purley taking the "deaths caused by" factor into account) Posted by A.D.H.D

    How many deaths were caused by FDR?

    Posted by abell12ct at 03/26/2009 @ 08:13am

31. I had a three cylinder Saab, two cycle. does that let me into the "AVION" club. Being french I also like the name Avion. Not terribly practical. Relies on what my dad use to love to do and scare the bejesus out of my mom, coasting. As a matter of fact my Saab had the free wheeling clutch feature that you could choose. Not too terribly practical in cities. The Avion requires special driving skills and you will be required to maintain designated speeds. By the way there is a Brit that has a closed loop steam engine. Steam can use a single cycle and approaches a fifty percent level.

    Posted by julien38 at 03/26/2009 @ 08:13am

32. Posted by abell12ct at 03/26/2009 @ 08:13am

    Dunno....did FDR attack Argentina because Japan bombed us, on threat of Juan Peron not being forthcoming about his "tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction" and "his ties to Imperial Japan"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 08:18am

33. I had a three cylinder Saab, two cycle. does that let me into the "AVION" club. Being french I also like the name Avion. Not terribly practical. Relies on what my dad use to love to do and scare the bejesus out of my mom, coasting. As a matter of fact my Saab had the free wheeling clutch feature that you could choose. Not too terribly practical in cities. The Avion requires special driving skills and you will be required to maintain designated speeds. By the way there is a Brit that has a closed loop steam engine. Steam can use a single cycle and approaches a fifty percent level. I still don't think that the personal car is the answer. Highway design can help, parallel rail and super highways where you can match passenger rail with car transportation. Limited city traffic, I know un-American. How about electrically powered highways and focus on eliminating the internal combustion engine. I know, I know I love the sound of a supercharged diesel. My little ford Festiva five speed gets fifty miles a gallon, but it is suicidal to drive the thing at seventy on the turnpike. If the economy is an ocean liner not a speed boat, The gear head culture is like continental drift.

    Posted by julien38 at 03/26/2009 @ 08:25am

34. I'm convinced that Katrina provided the emotional impetus for Obama's win. America had a chance to see the results of callous elitism and racism displayed on its TV screens and said, "That's not who we are!" First, ordinary people opened their own homes to refugees, whatever their race. Then when an intelligent black man appeared on our ballots talking up the America that's in all our hearts, we voted for him with a vengeance, as if to say, "Take your response to Katrina and shove it, George Bush!"

    Obama will have problems because he's human, but I don't think he's capable of a Katrina moment.

    Posted by jilla1 at 03/26/2009 @ 08:33am

35. Sorry about the double posts but my computer seems to be psychotic lately. By the way there are civil engineering designs for down hill highways, check that out. I know I had a ha ha moment, until I thought about it, but think about it, gravity is free and doesn't compete with the jet people.

    Posted by julien38 at 03/26/2009 @ 08:33am

36. koroviev,

    You say ".....As far as Dem. Gov. and Mayor, it's one thing to screw up an evacuation, which is reprehensible. But, to allow the situation to go on for days after the storm passed, is worse....."

    OK, no argument there..... the actions by the Democrat Governor and Mayor in screwing up relief efforts they were responsible for (as is the case in all places as first responders) was worse than their screwing up the evacuation.

    I guess one can debate which Democrat screw ups were worse... but that is six of one and half a dozen of another.

    You can also add in the state of poverty in New Orleans, which was the blame of Democrat governance in that city for years, which put the residents in the situation they were in to begin with. (and for which the media and Dems shamelessly cited racism by every one other than they as the cause).

    So there were a whole lot of screw ups by Democrats, I guess they all were bad and contributed to the nightmare.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/26/2009 @ 09:14am

37. Posted by sjchermak at 03/26/2009 @ 09:14am

    But NO screw-ups by your Messiah...er...I mean Dubya, right?

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 09:21am

38. So there were a whole lot of screw ups by Democrats, I guess they all were bad and contributed to the nightmare.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/26/2009 @ 09:14am

    Odd how you are always willing to acknowledge to faults of Democrats but not the ones of Republicans. The first response by Democrats failed and then the second response by Republicans failed equally. If you step back a second, Bush SHOULD have done better. He had days to get the facts on the ground. Which means when he came in he SHOULD have come in fully prepared. Instead he didn't. Everyone else will acknowledge the complete failure of the Democrats in that state. It's only partisan idiots who try to use that to wash any blame away from Bush. What is the point of having FEMA and the National Guard if the President is so incompetent he can't use them in an emergency.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/26/2009 @ 11:24am

39. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/26/2009 @ 11:24am

    Well, that's not true, CCC.

    I'm sure SJCHER will acknowledge the failings of...Specter, Collins, and Snowe.

    Just not the Chosen One.

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 11:57am

40. Posted by antisocialist at 03/25/2009 @ 4:48pm

    You are making an apt comparison - but for reasons different than you intend. If you look at the economic policies of Hjalmar Schacht, who basically ran the German economy from 1933-1936, then there are parallels. He kept interest rates low and started large deficit spending on massive public works projects. As a consequence, Germany had fuller employment faster than other countries trying to deal with the Great Depression. The rest of the "stimulus" was provided by the war itself - but the precursor was remarkably effective.

    The difference between Hitler and Obama is that Obama doesn't have the intention of turning the American economy into a war economy. It's not that he doesn't have ambition. It's because that particular ship has already sailed.

    Given the U.S. economy's reliance on the military industrial complex over the last 60+ years capped by George W. Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures, Obama will have to come up with something pretty clever to save the sinking ship.

    To return to your original point, he may not be that clever, and he has other failings. He excels at speaking, and he has some competent people working for him. But, what he lacks is Hitler's decisiveness. Hitler, no matter what else you can say about him, could at least make up his mind and knew when to not compromise in order to forward his agenda.

    Posted by ACook at 03/25/2009 @ 9:28pm

    Excuse me, ACook. But, where was this concern for sound fiscal policy when Bush was blowing trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you just get religion on Sundays (or when Democrats are in power)?

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/26/2009 @ 4:41pm

41. by Cccomfo1 at 03/26/2009 @ 11:24am...

    We can take this concept and run with it...

    1.) Dot com bubble bursts... nothing we could do

    2.) 9/11... nothing we could do

    3.) Misinformation leads to war in Iraq... nothing we could do

    4.) Hurricane Katrina... nothing we could do

    5.) Subprime housing crisis ...nothing we could do

    6.) Potential collapse of entire global financial system ...nothing we could do.

    Its all Obama's fault. Yeah... right...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 03/26/2009 @ 5:36pm

42. ...and now we're all wringing our hands woefully chanting the same mournful chant... as if to try to affirm what we've been told for too many years...

    "There's nothing we could do"...

    Well... we could start by waking up, tasting the coffee, and then proceed to reinstating Democracy before we help ourselves to a hearty breakfast... and then to a whole host of exciting new agenda items!

    Let's get to it!

    Posted by ttr at 03/26/2009 @ 5:49pm

43. Excuse me, ACook. But, where was this concern for sound fiscal policy when Bush was blowing trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you just get religion on Sundays (or when Democrats are in power)?

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/26/2009 @ 4:41pm

    Understand something, SRJ, I supported my president on defending our nation, but I didn't say I supported his heavy spending ways. I was quite bothered by the fact that everytime he asked for money, Congress gave it to him. Bush didn't control the money. I blame Congress for not having the guts to stand up to him and say "no".

    Having said that, the 2 trillion Bush spent won't hold a candle to what your president is about to drown us with.

    Posted by ACook at 03/26/2009 @ 6:25pm

44. Posted by ttr at 03/26/2009 @ 5:36pm |

    Congrats, ttr. You are now fully qualified to get a job filling in for Rush!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 8:18pm

45. Posted by ACook at 03/26/2009 @ 6:25pm

    There is plenty to be upset about ACook. Congress ceded their responsibilities to the executive branch on a number of occasions. The most recent of note were the vote authorizing the President to decide whether to take the U.S. military into Iraq by a Republican Congress and the blank check writing for the Fed by the Democratic Congress.

    But, the whole "I supported the President in time of war" argument is a bunch of hooey - and you know it. It is the same excuse that everyone who voted on the Iraq measure could use to support their votes.

    On the factual tip, Bush started office with a $5.6 trillion deficit and left with a $9.6 trillion deficit. That's $4 trillion, and he almost doubled it. It's not quite up to the Ronald Reagan standard of doubling the debt in five years - but it's close. Even if you discount the interest - which I'm not sure why we should - that's significantly more than what you state.

    Also, Obama isn't my President. I voted for Nader in the general and Kucinich in the primaries. While I think he is a better candidate than McCain, Obama is a moderate right politician that doesn't represent my left, libertarian views. The same can be said of my representative in Congress who I've contacted to let him how much I dislike the Democratic party's support for writing blank checks for Wall Street with my money. While it is better than writing blank checks for bombs and torture facilities, it's not much of an improvement.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/26/2009 @ 8:23pm

46. Dunno....did FDR attack Argentina because Japan bombed us, on threat of Juan Peron not being forthcoming about his "tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction" and "his ties to Imperial Japan"? Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 08:18am

    Nope. He attacked North Africa because Japan bombed us. Go figure.

    Posted by twillie at 03/26/2009 @ 8:49pm

47. Posted by twillie at 03/26/2009 @ 8:49pm

    Yes, and who was in North Africa. It was the Vichy French (who promptly surrendered because they didn't support their government's tacit alliance with the Germans) and GERMANS who had declared war on us and were a SIGNATORY ALLY with the Japanese who attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

    Argentina however, like Iraq, had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor (though they liked the Germans some)....which means if Dubya had been President in 1941, we would have plowed into Buenos Aires, spent a couple hundred billion (adjusted down for inflation) propping up a pro-fascist regime, killed more troops after we "won" than before, and paid for the whole thing with massive debt because we couldn't raise taxes on Henry Ford and the Rockefellers.

    Then we would have told Great Britain to "handle those Germans", while Japan once again fell under control of the Imperialists (after ignoring it to go after Argentina)

    Then he would leave it to his successor and Republicans would be claiming "We WON in Argentina and Truman is an abject failure his first 2 months in office!!!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 9:00pm

48. by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 8:18pm...

    Great!

    One one hundredth of his yearly income would significantly change my income bracket...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 03/26/2009 @ 9:19pm

49. by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 9:00pm...

    That was deliciously wicked...;^)...and historically astute.

    Well done!

    Posted by ttr at 03/26/2009 @ 9:33pm

50. Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 9:00pm

    So, you're saying that if a Repub had been in office in 1941, we would have invaded Argentina? I'm afraid I have no response to THAT.

    Hitler declared war on us because FDR basically goaded him into it by plying Germany's enemies with lots of industrial and military goodies.

    Germany, like Argentina, had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

    Mask, I advise you not to pursue this any further. Otherwise, I'll have to bring up FDR's unlawful imprisonment of US citizens, his opening of citizen's mail, and his overreaching accumulation of power in the executive branch.

    Manzanar=Gitmo

    Posted by twillie at 03/26/2009 @ 9:54pm

51. Frank Rich: Obama's Katrina

    By Frank Rich, he means - look look look at me, my name, I'm important

    By Obama, he means - he, Frank Rich, has knowledge of our country, our leader, that we all, all of America just must have!

    By Katrina, he means - hey look here! My special knowledge is not only important, it's ominous.

    Nation, you need me to let you know about DANGER. Read on, I might even help some of you peons survive. I am Frank Rich, master of ultra inside, ultra important, ultra ominous information.

    Rich just doesn't do truth: Mediocre Writer Seeks Your Attention But Only Has a Mediocre Idea Not Worthy of It.

    Posted by winyahn at 03/26/2009 @ 10:39pm

52. OK, no argument there..... the actions by the Democrat Governor and Mayor in screwing up relief efforts they were responsible for (as is the case in all places as first responders) was worse than their screwing up the evacuation.

    Posted by sjchermak

    The Mayor cannot be held accountable for relief efforts. His city is underwater and has no resources.

    The Governor can call on National Guard, but much needed equipment was with the LA Reserves in Iraq.

    Major disasters require Federal response. During the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906, US Army troops guarded the US Mint and other Govt. buildings as well as prevented looting etc... The Army dynamited buildings to prevent fires from spreading and fed and provided shelter for the thousands of people displaced.

    1906...

    Also, as far as your charge that the media agravated the issue that racism played a part in the Bush Administration's miserable performance...

    Barbara Bush observed the refugees being sheltered in the Astrodome, people who lost everything and said that they never had it so good.

    These people lost their homes, jobs, neighborhoods, possessions, and in some cases loved ones and/or pets and Barbara Bush had a preconceived notion that they were so disadvantaged that a refugee camp is a step up. Talk about an example of racism and classism.

    Crediting the Democratic State and Local Govt. for poverty in LA or No is absurd. Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the Union, yet I wouldn't hold Haley Barbor solely responsible. Did the citizenry of LA become prosperous now that, volcano advocate, Jindal is in charge?

    Posted by koroviev at 03/26/2009 @ 10:45pm

53. Posted by koroviev at 03/26/2009 @ 10:45pm

    K, you're misleading. All federal buildings are under the protection of the federal govt. regardless as to whether there was a natural disaster or not.

    And yes major disasters can require assistance from the federal government, but it didn't happen in the case of Katrina. Governor Blanco effectively kept the President out.

    The Constitution has always required the President to be the keeper of public order. If the President receives a request from a "state governor" for assistance to quell public disorder, the President may issue a proclamation to the effect that order has broken down, and that those responsible must disperse. This proclamation is similar to the pre-1947 Riot Act. If order is not restored, the President may direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to apply whatever assets may be necessary to do so. Because of its plenary nature, this presidential authority is not subject to judicial review.

    Posted by ACook at 03/26/2009 @ 11:15pm

54. This is a solemn day. Memphis, my alma mater where I earned a worthless degree, is out of the tournament.

    I will now sing "Cortez the Killer" by Neil Young.

    He came dancing across the water With his galleons and guns Looking for the new world In that palace in the sun.

    On the shore lay montezuma With his coca leaves and pearls In his halls he often wondered With the secrets of the worlds.

    And his subjects gathered round him Like the leaves around a tree In their clothes of many colors For the angry gods to see.

    And the women all were beautiful And the men stood straight and strong They offered life in sacrifice So that others could go on.

    Hate was just a legend And war was never known The people worked together And they lifted many stones.

    They carried them to the flatlands And they died along the way But they built up with their bare hands What we still cant do today.

    And I know shes living there And she loves me to this day I still cant remember when Or how I lost my way.

    He came dancing across the water Cortez, cortez What a killer.

    Thank you.

    Posted by gangpapist at 03/27/2009 @ 12:02am

55. by twillie at 03/26/2009 @ 9:54pm...

    By keeping it lite and frivolous, Mask's 'wicked' metaphorical comparison sheds some light on a troubling contemporary issue... and it worked.

    You took it and made yourself look silly by comparing our national reaction to two different wars... wars of geometrically incongruous magnitudes...

    But they are valid points nonetheless...

    Posted by ttr at 03/27/2009 @ 12:21am

56. , you're misleading. All federal buildings are under the protection of the federal govt. regardless as to whether there was a natural disaster or not.

    Posted by ACook

    I did not intend to mislead, however, I have used US post office and other Federal Buildings several times and have never seen the US Army present.

    Regardless, I really don't want to make the comparison to 1906 because it was so long ago. I probably shouldn't have.

    But, the Fed. response was miserable during Katrina and even volcano proponent, Bobby Jindal, said so during that awful speech.

    Cronyism of Bush cost people their lives. Brownie was a joke. But, in his defense, how could anyone expect a horse attorney to have the expertise to direct relief and rescue during a major disaster.

    Brownie also stated that some members of the Bush Admin. wanted the relief effort in LA to be Federalized because of the Dem. Governor, in order to rub her nose in it. The Bush Whitehouse denies this.

    Posted by koroviev at 03/27/2009 @ 02:31am

57. If the media turns on Obama for the failures of local and state governments then Obama will have a Katrina moment.

    Posted by abell12ct at 03/27/2009 @ 08:46am

58. The hundreds of billions in bailout money that have been given and will continue being given by the Fed and by the federal government to the banks "to save the financial system" are a de facto immense transfer of wealth from the general population to America's richest 1%, 0.1%, etc, a transfer that intends to keep this upper crust as rich as it was before the financial bubble bursted and vaporized the upper crust's "shrewd" investments in "innovative financial instruments" (and yes, what middlemen like "greedy bankers" and "Wall Street" do with some crumbles of the bailout money should be better ignored right now since many Americans have mixed feelings about "the financial system" because their pensions and life-time savings could come back to life if the stock market recovered).

    This immense transfer of wealth to resuscitate the upper crust that was started by Bush Jr and that Obama wants to continue, is especially pernicious as the upper crust is being given hard cash taken from tax payers who have just seen their savings and pensions shrink by about 50%. This means that upper-crust owners of financial vaporware are in the process of exchanging their worthless toxic assets at face value for hard cash taxed directly from those whose savings have been depreciated by the crisis created by the financial gamblings… of the vaporware owners!

    Aside of the immense injustice and irony of this, the main macroeconomic consequence of these bailouts then is that the upper crust will emerge from this crisis even richer relative to everybody else, and literally by extorting hard cash from everybody else.

    Posted by erplus at 03/27/2009 @ 09:12am

59. However, if the citizenry is thoroughly informed about, and become loudly outraged by, this massive and immensely unjust transfer of wealth towards the richest Americans (which follows with a vengeance that started by Reagan in the 1980s), Obama will have no choice but to propose remedies, e.g., propose to tax back much if not all of the transferred money after the stock market stabilizes and the toxic assets' real value becomes clear; and he could even be pushed to claim an sizeable portion of the "regenerated wealth" for the taxpayers as "interest" earned by the "invested" taxpayer money.

    We all must remind Obama vociferously that during his campaign he actually promised to redistribute wealth *in the other direction* and we should inform relentlessly the general population and in very clear and concrete terms about how the taxpayer money that is being used "to save the financial system" is, intentionally or not, "saving" from ruin America's upper crust.

    It is fine if Obama does not want to risk the eventual chaos that could follow a massive wave of bank bankruptcies, and it is also fine if he feels he cannot risk the "societal disorientation" that could arise if the upper crust of billionaires were to lose 95% of their fortunes if most banks go bankrupt or are even nationalized and the upper crust's toxic assets become terminally worthless.

    What is not fine is that we do not confront Obama publicly with the concrete consequences for the nation's income distribution of his plans to "save Wall Street and the bankers".

    Posted by erplus at 03/27/2009 @ 09:13am

60. What is not fine is that we do not confront Obama publicly with the concrete consequences for the nation's income distribution of his plans to "save Wall Street and the bankers".

    And it is self-defeating for us to continue distracting ourselves with denunciations of "the excesses of Wall Street and the greedy bankers" without stressing much more that the real scandal is that we are all being taxed in order to pay for the resurgence of a self-anointed neo-feudal upper crust that is now staring at trillions in worthless toxic assets which nobody wants.

    Summarizing, the citizenry must become aware i) that the bailouts are an immense tax levied on all Americans to buy worthless assets from an upper crust that is now de facto broke and so save it from financial ruin; ii) that the government should demand "investor rights" for every bank bailout that relies on taxpayer money; and iii) that any individual investor who will be "saved" through the deployment of taxpayer money should be compelled to "give back" most of what he/she will manage to recover or even "earn" when the stock market recovers (i.e., that he/she should be taxed to repay with interest the "bailout help" he/she got from the taxpayers).

    Posted by erplus at 03/27/2009 @ 09:13am

61. Posted by twillie at 03/26/2009 @ 9:54pm

    I'm saying if DUBYA had been President. Wendall Wilkie or Thomas Dewey weren't blind ideologues.

    Germany declared war on us and were SIGNATORY ALLIES with Japan, that attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

    Saddam was not a signatory ally of Al Qaeda (even you neo-cons can't make that case) NOR did he declare war on us two days after 9/11.

    BTW, you'll find no defense of FDR from me on the Japanese internment....you WOULD find such a defense from Right-Wing "Hottie" Michelle Malkin.

    Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 09:22am

62. Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 09:22am

    Are you trying to say she's not hot?

    Posted by gangpapist at 03/27/2009 @ 3:18pm

63. I'm saying if DUBYA had been President. Wendall Wilkie or Thomas Dewey weren't blind ideologues. Germany declared war on us and were SIGNATORY ALLIES with Japan, that attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Saddam was not a signatory ally of Al Qaeda (even you neo-cons can't make that case) NOR did he declare war on us two days after 9/11. BTW, you'll find no defense of FDR from me on the Japanese internment....you WOULD find such a defense from Right-Wing "Hottie" Michelle Malkin. Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 09:22am

    You're on a roll, mask. In your parallel universe, who would FDR have attacked after 9/11?

    Posted by twillie at 03/28/2009 @ 01:15am

64. Hitler, no matter what else you can say about him, could at least make up his mind and knew when to not compromise in order to forward his agenda. Posted by ACook at 03/25/2009 @ 9:28pm

    Now there's a role model the US right can believe in.

    Decisive. Orderly. Uncompromising.

    Posted by sloper at 03/28/2009 @ 1:19pm