Although he's made some good moves in his first week or so as President, one area in which Obama seems to be acting much the sameas Bush is the economy. Appointing people like Geithner in Treasury and Summers (!) as head of his National Economic Council surely can't give much joy to those who've watched this whole economic disaster unfold and who know the reasons for it. It was Summers, along with Rubin, who helped bring about the deregulations of banks and deriviatives under Clinton which led to the current crisis, after all. They also formed part of the team which did such good things for the Russian economy (read: transferred the nation's wealth to a few rich plutocrats) under Boris Yeltsin's drunken misrule.

I'm not yet turning on Obama, I think he still has the potential to be a good President; but how can you be positive about the economy when you see Clinton-era hacks put in charge, when you see massive new spending bills pushed through, and when you see the banks and Wall St. continue to reap the benefits of the disaster THEY CAUSED?

This is not encouraging....this is not filling me with 'hope for change,' frankly.

How about the part of the stimulous bill that gives money to illegal aliens? Do you like that one?

Jack

issues happened and I know why they were inevitable in general -- if not predictable in specific -- but that is all water under the bridge now. We deal with a crisis situation with the President we have not with the president we should have had. :-)

You know that some day that evil old bastard, Donald Rumsfeld will be more famous for his pity and quotable remarks and homilies than for the nature of his loathsome actions? I find that ironic as hell.

At the moment our new president cannot control the democrats in Congress and he is not going to have much meaningful influence on them until he learns what the levers of power are -- both in front of and behind the scenes -- and how to use them. Currently, he is just too green as a politician. A couple of years on the job, however, will season him nicely and then he will be formidable indeed; or probably will be that is. Meanwhile he is going to make big mistakes and be somewhat ineffective.

Similarly he is taking recommendations from experts with conflicting agendas in regards to which powerful and experienced giants in their field should be brought into his administration. Again, he is at the mercy of these advisers because he is not yet a seasoned enough Washington D.C. politician or executive to know how to pick and chose for himself among the available options, and so he is going to be screwing up for a while. Eventually, however, he will learn what he needs to do and how to do it.

All of this was predictable and posters like me predicted all of this [as inevitable general consequences] during the campaign season. So it goes.

Or should I say Juan? :)

...I don't know why you're upset, given that you're a Clintonista. Obama has done little but appoint Clinton people, including the Dragon Lady herself, to posts within his administration. Obama for President, Hillary for President...is there even any DIFFERENCE?

Your problem is that, instead of making good points, you've just run Obama down. You've used snark and sneer instead of substance. That's why you don't have a lot of friends and supporters here.

attention to the numbers of upticks my better posts get from time to time? I have a fair number of simpatico fellow posters on this board. It's just that I don't have a goodly number of liberal buds in this posting incarnation.

You have been so busy reacting to me because I am not a fan of Obama that you have failed to pay attention to what I actually write in regards to politics in general. Now consider what you top posted about the Obama Administration today and consider that a week ago you would have jumped down the throat of the author of such a top poster with both boots on. Your attitude toward Obama is changing in the face of current political realities. The only difference is that I PREDICTED the onset of these realities DURING the campaign season.

Now ask yourself how I could possibly have known any of this. It's called a good general education in politics coupled to a healthy cynicism. Already I am being proved correct about Obama, just as I was correct in regards to Hillary Clinton.

Oh, and in regards to Hillary, such posters as you invariably assume that I trust her or think of her as a fine and ethical human being. Far from it, I consider her a walking talking and utterly corrupt scum bag of a politician and human being. For cynical reasons, however, I also considered her to have been the best candidate for the presidency at this point in time. It had nothing to do with her character and everything to do with her experience and abilities and political connections.

Political Reality 101. Enjoy.

most citizens from south of the border that entered this nation legally and earned their citizenship are utterly opposed to all this illegal immigration? Your emotionalism and knee-jerk assumptions on the subject do not equate to knowledge or wisdom.

So in that sense, I agree with you. But there was a vast difference between Clinton and Bush in a key area. Clinton didn't keep putting the fox in charge of the hen house like Bush did. The best example of that was Cox at the SEC. Plus, McCain's rumored choice for Treasury Secretary, Phil Gramm, was actually more instrumental in the deregulation of banks and deriviatives than was Clinton. Plus, Greenspan made some serious mistakes of his own and he is no longer around.

What the fuck does that have to do with my post? Are you making up stuff at random, or did you start drinking early?

I might have paid attention if I took you seriously at all. Your attitude towards Hillary is a perfect reason I don't - you spent months touting her candidacy but condemn Obama for appointing her people, and her, to office...and still call her a "scumbag?"

LOL (shaking head)

...but NOT a "vast difference." Gramm pushed for this stuff in Congress, but Clinton's people also supported it, and Clinton signed it. he also signed GATT and NAFTA. he was not significantly different from a moderate Republican, and totally in bed with corporate interests.

between spending and spending. I have listened to the GOP ruckus that the money could be better spent; but how does that make any sense? Everyone is an idiot when it comes to the economy... but you still need to have banks... are you saying we should just let them all die? I might be inclined to agree with you, but not if you think that is the fastest road to recovery.

You want to play politics, go ahead, but if you want to question Obama's economic plans... do that. This top post claims to the latter but is filled with the former.

It made me sick to watch Paulson hand hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the big banks. But you can't say it didn't help the economy, it did help, the economy is still in real bad shape, but it is slightly better off after that big giveaway... at least, LIBOR came back down and commercial credit is starting to flow a little bit.

Nothing is going to up and fix this mess over night. Deficit spending is not now a bad idea just because Bush made such a mess of it. We watched Bush and company destroy us over time and we garnered some understanding. Now the same guys who fucked the pooch over the last eight years are screaming that the Dems are spending on Dem pet projects ... giving the repubs a taste of their own medicine. Cry me a river, spending is spending; if McCain was in there, he would be fighting to do the exact same thing.

...but your claim that I'm "playing politics"is bullshit. I supported Obama, still do, but have questions about who he's appointing and what their policies are, and should be.

differentiate between the players and the policies. It might be the same old players, but this is a different economy.

a thousand pardons.

a non-thinking ankle-biter is all you ever want to be on this board, that is probably for the best given what passes for your intellect.