What's next?

[JustBecause]

I'm so excited and anxious to know the direction our new president will be taking our country in. I check change.gov everyday to see if there is any news.

I'm also optimistic that as they are still Senators, that President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden will have a chance to sow the seeds of change in the current session of the Senate - even though it is a lame duck session.

[Coolwater]

There isn't much the new admin can do until they are in office, but they're already pulling together the new cabinet and other appointments. It probably means that in January a bunch of executive decisions made by Bush and his guys will get reversed. Starting with the economic policies and our fuel situation! But what else?

1. The new Environmental Protection Agency folks will probably reverse a great many of the decisions to allow industry to pollute and to make selfish use of public land and water. We will probably agree to cooperate with world wide efforts to improve the environment.

2. Research funding priorities will change. I suspect there will be a big review of the policy concerning stem cell research, and that may well be reversed. Restrictions on NIH and NIMH to fund basic research will be removed. (The Bushites will only allow applied research to be funded. We're falling behind in innovative exploration as a result.)

3. What one article called the "Bush Police State" will probably be seriously curtailed, civil liberties will be restored, and torture will be curtailed. New efforts to decrease discrimination against all and any groups will be made.

4. Efforts will be made to repair our damaged relationships with the other countries in the world. As I said, the Kyoto Accord on the environment may be signed by the US. We have to make things right and get out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. That won't be easy, and I think it will take longer than Obama thinks it will.

And that is just what fell out of the top of my head! :eek:

[JustBecause]

The top of your head? :eek:

So Cw, how about giving it a little more thought? :D

By 'sow the seeds of change in the current session of the Senate', I meant that I am hoping that Senators Obama and Biden can line up bi-partisan support before they take office in January.

President Elect Obama is already on the right track with his position regarding Joe Lieberman and the Senate Democratic Caucus. There is also speculation that he may reach out to involve Senator McCain as well. If his preference is respected by the Senate Democratic leadership and he does reach out to Senator McCain and/or other Republican Senators, the Republican leadership will be hard pressed to argue that the administration is ignoring bi-partisanship.

Without that arguement, there is less to prevent the Democrat/Republican differences from being only about the issues.

[Coolwater]

No, I can't give it any more thought. My head is empty and it will take some time to refill. ;) There are lots of other issues, but I'm tapped out.

Yes, I agree: bipartisanship is very needed. I'm not sure how far it will go at first because so many of the things the Obama administration is aiming for are things that Republicans have said no to already. Now, it may be that since there is "a mandate for change," as the Republicans said once upon a time, they'll have a look at their constituents' responses to poll questions and finally recognize that what most Republicans want is common sense and moderateness, and not the extreme right-wing decision making, or the corporate greediness that guided the previous administration. If they understand that (or if the Obamans are smart enough to point it out to them), then cooperation could occur.

OH! Health care issues just flowed into my head. That will have to be a bipartisan issue, even with a Democratic congress, I think.

[JustBecause]

Hear, hear!! :) (or in your case, head! head!) ;)

[Scarpetta]

Think we should bail out the Auto Industry?

[JustBecause]

To answer that, I have to give a little of my perspective of why we are in the trouble that we are in.

The economy was already fragile and the rise in gas prices earlier this year pushed it over the edge. While everyone's attention was focused on the problems that the airlines were having, the failure of small businesses across the nation went largely unnoticed. The exorbitantly high gas prices drove a lot of small businesses into the red, and many of them out of business. Many of them were also affected by the natural disasters that occurred. They couldn't get bridge loans from an already strapped financial sector. Then, people started to default on their home loans. This situation partially fueled the financial sector meltdown. We (the taxpayers) then had to bail out the financial segment. Now, medium sized business are failing (Mervyn's, Linen's & Things, etc.).

The auto industry is also a large segment of our economy, so they have to be bailed out. Otherwise, there would be another cascade of small/midsize business failures resulting from the loss of a million+ jobs and the orders that smaller vendor companies would no longer get. So the better way to look at is as the preservation of jobs and the prevention of another meltdown.

[Scarpetta]

Should the government finance ongoing losses and declining markets? Of the $700 B already approved by Congress for Financial, should auto bailout come out of that, or (remember $25 B package meant to help the industry retool to meet higher fuel-economy standards was also approved).

What about capitalism compete or fail? Do taxpayers reward incompetence w/o something in return? Like equity stakes for the government so taxpayers could profit if the companies recover?

How deep is too deep in this hole we are digging?

[Coolwater]

JB, how does the making of bad loans fit into your hypothesis? I've been looking at the mortgage crisis as the result of two things: folks who were bad risks being given loans by unscrupulous lenders who never intended the buyers to succeed, and variable mortgage rates. The people I've talked to personally who are likely to lose their homes are those whose rates started off being reasonable, but who now find that their home and house insurance rates are so high that they cannot pay them. They never thought the rates would become unpayable, believing that the rates they started with were representative of how the rates would go, or that their personal economic situation would improve with the rise in rates rather than getting worse.

Scarp, what was the name of the ponzi scheme we were talking about, and what law was it that Clinton got rid of for the Republicans that would have prevented the betting on stocks one doesn't own? I need an economist to keep it all straight!

Honestly, Scapetta, I have no idea how deep is too deep. Are we talking about just GM or are all the US auto makers in trouble? If it's just GM, then I say down she goes. The dang automakers here only look at short term gains. They got away with manipulating government to push the market their way during the '40s and '50s (more funding for individual transit, and less for mass transit), and seemed to have found that bliss again with Bush. They just don't seem to understand that petroleum products are dirty and in limited quantities, so in spite of getting whumped by the Asian car markets, they make SUVs, and Hummers, and we stupid Americans kept buying them. Now they're paying the price, and so are we with them.

I don't have the negative reaction many folks do to the word socialism. I do believe that it should be a buy out, not a bail out. Fire most of the upper management, sans golden parachutes, or at least rein the rascals in. Write the buy outs carefully, so we don't have management sending themselves off to spas on the public dole. If the conservatives want to scream about that, let them buy the industries back from the government, or just buy them now. But they can't, can they? The don't have the money to do it unless they do it collectively... Oh, gosh, collectively? That's socialism!

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." :mad: Those SOBs need to start putting their own money where their mouths are.

Oh, BTW, the Wall Street Journal this morning was saying that Obama is likely to use the executive power to block new petroleum drilling leases in environmentally delicate areas, allow stem cell research, allow family planning clinics to talk about abortion, and to allow CA to restrict green house gases. And that's just for starters. Meanwhile, Bush is signing all sorts of things as fast as he can to provide one more shot for the exploiters, and to slow the Liberals down.

And JB, you were right, the new admin is working on bipartisanship stuff right now. They're already accessing national security info, for example. The first things they plan to work on come January, are health insurance, economic and tax reform, education, and energy reform. (WSJ, A6, cols 3-6, top of the page.)

[Coolwater]

Oh, and I heard another goal on on MSNBC : they want to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, release anyone they have no good reason for holding, bring the remainder back to the US, and have regular, open trials for them. The Bush gang are smirking and saying this will be a lot harder than the Obamites think it will be. Probably, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.

[JustBecause]

Scarpetta, Good questions all... I've got a slightly different response than Cw. :)

I'm not informed enough on the budget and appropriations to answer your first question. I do hope though, that any aid would come out of funds that have already been set aside.

As to the next set of questions (and this is only my own perspective), I believe our free market capitalist economy should be left alone for companies to compete - and succeed or fail.

However, these are extraordinary times. Previous administrations (Democrat and Republican - added this aside after reading Cw's post) decimated the body of regulations that were in place to protect the market, consumers, and jobs. The amount of regulation that should be in place is - and always will be - a hot topic of debate. I think that what is clear today though is that the current level of regulation is woefully insufficient. So we find ourselves in a downward spiral that could potentially take all of us with it. How deep is too deep? That is the question that scares us all. However, I still believe the government has to act.

I have seen indications in new reports about the Obama plan and in statements made by the President Elect himself that taxpayers should (must?) benefit from the aid that is being provided to the failing market sectors once they are in recovery. It isn't yet clear that he can realize that goal or if he can, how taxpayers will be rewarded. It will also be interesting to see what regulations are put in place over time to prevent a reoccurrence of meltdowns of this magnitude.

Hey Cw! I agree with your assessment of the mortgage crisis. I lumped it all into 'economy was already fragile' and went right for the event that I believe greatly increased the number of people in crisis and intensified the downward spiral.

__________________________________________________ _____
On a slightly different note, this is Veteran's Day in the US. I wish for the families of veterans that they are observing this day in the company of their loved ones, or with fond and happy memories of them if they cannot be present. :)

[Coolwater]

Part of what I was thinking about a buy out instead of a bail out, is that when the companies start making money again, the US citizens are shareholders, and entitled to collect from the profits. If the companies are sold, then the profits come back to the citizens. And when I say come back to the citizens, I mean that the deficit resulting from the buy outs is reduced, not that there is actually a disbursal of the money.

Of course, once we're in the black again, that could be reconsidered.:D

[JustBecause]

Part of what I was thinking about a buy out instead of a bail out, is that when the companies start making money again, the US citizens are shareholders, and entitled to collect from the profits. If the companies are sold, then the profits come back to the citizens. And when I say come back to the citizens, I mean that the deficit resulting from the buy outs is reduced, not that there is actually a disbursal of the money.

Of course, once we're in the black again, that could be reconsidered.:D

I love that idea - either way! :)

[Scarpetta]

Gets complicated doesn't it. More so for those of us who have a 'bit' of knowledge but not considered experts. I speak for myself.

JustBecause made a comment that reflects that 'capitalist quagmire'.

I believe our free market capitalist economy should be left alone for companies to compete - and succeed or fail.

That is usually how it works in a capitalist society. Then there is the 'but', and the crux of the matter always comes after the 'but' . If auto dealers aren't assisted by government 2.5 Million jobs could be lost. I believe all three are sitting on dangerous ground and looking for assistance.

Is Chapter 11 and restructuring an option or does government NOT take that chance?

Other Nations have 'Nationalized' banks with options, we have too, with options.

Auto dealers. I can't get around saving their fannies when Democratic leadership pleaded for so long for them to increase their fuel economy standards, which would have made them more competitive.

Obama and others are requesting from the current administration funds from the original $700B for auto companies. Bush is now stone walling. Makes one wonder if that is not another political ploy to walk away from a mess you helped create, leave it to Democrats to 'own' so you can do the ol partisan trick, yell 'socialism'.

I would like to see both parties do what is best for the country, for taxpayers and not what is just an 'ideological' move for the Republican Party.

Footnote. Close Quantanamo. There may be legal rules that will have to be written to try them in US Courts. That appears easier than holding them indefinately. Many would be let go. Bush is saying no country will take them? I have a feeling that is not entirely accurate.

I think it is a no brainer 'Just Because' that regulations will be increased. There is little argument left for being against it now.

Obama prior to his election as President-elect told

Barteromo in an interview:

.... we've got a regulatory system so that investors can trust the market and don't feel like insiders are going to be taking advantage of them. That's what makes the market run. And when we lose that balance, what ends up happening is in the short term you've got some people who make out like bandits. And the only reason that we haven't seen some of these problems in the US economy previously is because consumers had been driving this, even though their wages and incomes haven't been going up, because they've been able to use their credit cards and home equity lines as an ATM. That's gone away. And so the question now is who's going to drive the economy, if not consumers? And the only way that we can make sure that consumers are able to drive that economy is if in fact they've got some money in their pockets. And right now they don't, because they are getting squeezed hard.

I believe that is the message Obama has been telling us right along. consumers/taxpayers are the driving force behind our economy. (Has been for some time!) so the safeguards of any bailout should BENEFIT consumers. It is obvious. Taxpayer money = taxpayer benefit.

Now if they (government) will make sure those provisions are in place.

[Coolwater]

Gets complicated doesn't it. More so for those of us who have a 'bit' of knowledge but not considered experts. I speak for myself.

You're speaking for me, too. Every time I put fingers to keyboard in this thread, I'm waiting to be caught saying something uninformed.

The Governor of Michigan was on CBS arguing for the auto bail out. She says ten million jobs are at stake, and that if the auto industry go down the tubes, it will pull the rest of the country with it. Michigan never recovered from the loss of heavy industry in the '80s, so her worry is understandable. They can't take the hit.

Losing all of the auto companies would be bad, no two ways about it. Honestly, though, I think that any loans made to failing companies have to have thick strings attached, and that the strings have to vary by the industry. "Mr. Hitler notwithstanding,"* a modern day "people's car" may be something that the government can require as a stipulation for the loan, for example. Small, energy efficient, safe, inexpensive. How many of us are driving cars that need replacing, but can't afford a new or even a used one? There are dozens of good automotive engineers who have designs (I know at least one), but no one would look at them because the industry wanted to build "status cars."

It will be very interesting to see what public outrage gets for us besides a change in administration.

[JustBecause]

Gets complicated doesn't it. More so for those of us who have a 'bit' of knowledge but not considered experts. I speak for myself.

You're speaking for me, too. Every time I put fingers to keyboard in this thread, I'm waiting to be caught saying something uninformed.



Me, too. It's always scary for me when I put something out there. It's like type - and duck! :D I have been enjoying the discussion though - and learning things from those who have been posting.

I'm looking forward to when there will be bi-partisan debate on and enactment of a sound body of regulations. I would also enjoy the debate on the idea of taxpayer reimbursement vs. deficit reduction and how much to apply to either, policies regarding economic sector oversight, etc.

To me, having these debates would mean that we are again operating in a sound economy.

By the way, has anybody been paying attention to the Obama - Biden transition team? It seems they've enacted a policy on ethics that limits the participation and influence of lobbyists during the transition period.

[Coolwater]

Whoa, coolness! I missed that.

There was a report om CBS tonight that said that if Americans expect an accounting "for every dollar" of the bail out, that they will be disappointed. He said that we have to trust that the money will be used appropriately. Curic replied that rust is in short supply right now.

Why? Why do we have to trust that the money will be used well? Individuals applying for easements and handouts are obliged to provide all sorts of proof of need, and there are all sorts of restrictions on how they use the money. Given that the corporations have already shown that they cannot be trusted to use money wisely, why should we trust that they will suddenly show responsibility?

[JustBecause]

Why shouldn't taxpayers get an accounting of every dollar? Eveyone has a budget and most people watch every dollar. I don't think that taxpayers should expect anything different. :confused:

I believe the government has the responsibility to giving us a full accounting of how they spend our money.

Who was being interviewed?

[Coolwater]

I don't know: we were fixing supper. After I get the morning rush taken care of, I'll see if I can find out.

[Scarpetta]

You mentioned accounting. They were supposed to do that weren't they? Hmmm. Why is the Congressional Panel for Oversight on the $700B unnamed, unseated and unavailable for comment!:(

Treasury Sec'y Paulson changed the spending of that $700B, (now down to $400B with little idea where $300B went) Government is now buying stocks in banks and the money bought and merged other financial institutions! Main Street-Americans. Duped again!

JustBecause made a comment and perhaps a 'slip' on deficit. Perhaps I read it wrong but most Americans use 'debt' and 'deficit' interchangeably. They are different.

The U.S. Federal Deficit is when government spending is greater than revenue received for that year. In Fiscal Year 2007, the budget deficit was $163 billion. This was less than the FY2006 deficit of $243 billion.

The U.S. Federal Debt is over $10 trillion. This is nearly double the debt in 2000, which was $6 trillion, and $1.3 trillion more than a year ago, when the debt was $8.7 trillion.

Leading to the confusion is that this is not all bad..until it is! Thus the statement:

Initially, deficit spending and the resultant debt can increase economic growth. This is especially true in a recession.

However, in the long run, the resultant debt is very damaging to the economy, and not only because of higher interest rates. The U.S. government may be tempted to let the value of the dollar fall so that the debt repayment will be in cheaper dollars, and less expensive. As this happens, foreign governments and investors will be less willing to buy Treasury bonds, forcing interest rates higher.The greatest danger comes from the debt to Social Security. As this debt comes due when Baby Boomers retire, funds will need to found to pay them. Not only could taxes be raised, which would slow the economy, but the loan from the Social Security Trust Fund will stop. More and more of the government's spending will need to be devoted to pay this mandatory cost. This would provide less stimulation, and could further slow the economy.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt_Deficit.htm

Feel free to be confused. Perhaps there is a reason that the Oversight Panel sits empty.

A (somewhat Libertarian blogger named coyote) states:

A free economy is like a group of rabbits on Viagra.

I tend to agree with that again with ? and this is good or bad?

[Coolwater]

Why thank, you; I AM confused. And here I thought I understood it.

How can we have a debt in the trillions but a deficit in the billions? Doesn't the one include the other? Or is it that the debt is on loans that aren't due yet, and the government isn't counting them as outstanding?

Rabbits on Viagra, that's perfectly descriptive and we're the one the bunnies are f***ing. Yeah, I'm upset that an accounting isn't being demanded and that the managers of the money aren't being threatened with jail time if they can't figure out whom they gave the money to.

[Scarpetta]

How Does the Deficit Affect the Debt?:
Each year, the deficit is added to the debt. The Treasury must sell Treasury bonds to raise the money to cover the deficit. This is known as the public debt, since these bonds are sold to the public.

However, you may have noticed that last year's deficit was only $163 billion, while last year's debt increased by $500 billion. What else is being added to the debt?

In addition to the public debt, there is the money that the government loans to itself each year. This money is in the form of Government Account Securities, and it comes from the Social Security Trust Fund. These loans are not counted as part of the deficit, since it is all within the government. However, as the Baby Boomers retire, it will need to be paid back. Unfortunately, there is not yet an effective plan to do so.


Kinda makes your 'hair hurt' doesn't it?

[Coolwater]

Kinda makes your 'hair hurt' doesn't it?

Makes my hare hurt? No, he's on Viagra, and feeling no pain. At least not until I catch up with him. :D Here, now, stop making me laugh, this is serious business. :mad: (There, that's better.)

I knew that about the SS "loans." The business of using what amounts to pension money, and counting it as an asset of the government / business, instead of as the private funds of the citizens / employees has bothered me for a long time. If anything needs reforming, that little piece of trickery does.

COS: one of the ironies of the whole Wall Street Mess is how Greenspan decided that it would be OK to get rid of the rules regulating Wall Street since the Great Depression. He thought that the banking industry wouldn't do anything that would hurt itself, like making bad loans for a short term profit. That kills me because my husband and I, both research psychologists, had dinner (mumbles) years ago, with a gang of folks who were a mix of Psych and Economics profs. We were arguing at cross purposes about I-forget-what, when one of the economists said, "Come on, people. You're forgetting the First Rule of Economics." I replied that I never knew it, and what was it? "People always act in their own best interest." Well, we psychologists literally gaped, and then roared with laughter because we all knew THAT wasn't true. The confused economists were a bit surprised at our reaction. They believed it.

Now here we are in a hell of a fix because Greenspan, who should have known better, was relying on an erroneous adage. Clearly the other Behavioral Sciences need to take Economics by the lapels and give them some real data to chew on.

[Coolwater]

Mr. Paul, as you've called him, may regret having signed on for this mess.

[JustBecause]

I'm looking forward to when there will be bi-partisan debate on and enactment of a sound body of regulations. I would also enjoy the debate on the idea of taxpayer reimbursement vs. deficit reduction and how much to apply to either, policies regarding economic sector oversight, etc.

To me, having these debates would mean that we are again operating in a sound economy.
JustBecause made a comment and perhaps a 'slip' on deficit. Perhaps I read it wrong but most Americans use 'debt' and 'deficit' interchangeably. They are different.


Not a slip. I just feel that the deficit (for the current year) has to be controlled - before the debt can be attacked. Once we have stopped increasing the debt by adding year after year of deficit spending, then we can attack the debt.

I don't contend that deficit spending is a good thing. We aren't debating good versus bad. We are debating deficit spending to prevent the collapse of at least two major economic sectors (financial, automotive) versus doing nothing and watching the downward spiral take us all down with it. That's like debating 'worst' versus 'the end'.

Are there other alternatives?

I also agree that there should be a full acounting of how the current bailout money is spent and that it doesn't appear that the current administration is behaving responsibly with regard to the distribution of the funds. They are showing us why we so overwhelmingly voted for a change during the last election.

I continue to hope that we can hold on long enough for the new administration to take office. Will it be instant Nirvana? Absolutely not. I do believe though, it will be the beginning of us backing away from the abyss.

[Coolwater]

No, maybe not instant Nirvana, but just having hope that things are going to change feels pretty good. (stretches luxuriously)

[Scarpetta]

Makes my hare hurt? No, he's on Viagra, and feeling no pain.Coolwater

That was good. :)

The deficit as of today is 237.2 Billion. That says many things will be on hold.

If the deficit does reach $1 trillion this year, it would represent 7.5 percent of the gross domestic product, the highest percentage since World War II when it skyrocketed to 30 percent of GDP. "The big difference is back then we owed it to ourselves, to Americans," says David Walker, head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former US comptroller general.


When the Secy of the Treasury under Bush says

This market, which is vital for lending and growth, has for all practical purposes ground to a halt.

It is my 'hope' that the next Administration under Obama has 'hope' and really good ideas!

Hillary Clinton as the next Secy of State. Well, that is interesting on the Foreign Policy stage. They are discussing it I hear.

[Coolwater]

Thanks, Scarpetta. You can count on me for really silly humor.:D

YES! I heard that about Clinton, too. I think she'd do a fine job. You know, If Obama stacks the White House with really good Democrats, we'll have a good crop of "experienced" contenders for '12. I do hope the Republicans do better next time, so that whoever wins is worthy.

[Scarpetta]

Thanks, Scarpetta. You can count on me for really silly humor.:D

YES! I heard that about Clinton, too. I think she'd do a fine job. You know, If Obama stacks the White House with really good Democrats, we'll have a good crop of "experienced" contenders for '12. I do hope the Republicans do better next time, so that whoever wins is worthy.

Whoever 'wins' will be worthy in respect to Republicans? You mean Republican nominee? I'm looking foward to two term Obama with a great Democratic nominee for 2016!

I think Clinton is a good choice. She is a very knowledgeable individual and would be a great choice for 'Chief diplomat'. Many areas are going to require a great deal of diplomacy.

[Coolwater]

Excluding wartime, what is the longest run a party has had in the White House? I, too, would like to see a good long run of liberal democrats in the White House, but there is the possibility of a loss due to stupidity (can we say Monica Lewinski?) or accidents of history (Carter losing to Reagan because of the kidnapping of Americans in Iran - assuming that WAS an accident). I think, though, we also have to consider the possibility that as liberals become comfortable in office, they will become corrupt, or at least become stodgy and wanting to maintain the status quo. At that point we will need to have another "revolution." In any of those cases, having competent Republican and Democratic opponents means that whichever party wins, the US wins.

But, hey, it could happen as you want, Scarpetta, and no one will be happier than I will!

Now, who else has concerns about Rahm Emmanuel, the new Chief of Staff? The prObama pundits think he is being set up to play bad cop to Obama's good cop, but I don't think his arrogance and willingness to be a bully is an act. I don't know much about him.

[Scarpetta]

Yes Coolwater those human frailties do bring down power and can become more important than major issues that actually have something to do with the American People. Such is the nature of politics. I do think however that 'Conservative' will be worked over somewhat. What emerges may not be very similar to now. Conservatism has failed, and it has failed because it is flawed.

Rahm Emmanuel. A former boss (and I can't remember who exactly ) commented that he probably "was the best SOB Obama could have picked for the job!"

[Littledevil]

This certainly has been an interesting topic. In my opinion, President Elect Obama knows that the hole we hve dug ourselves into will not be an easy one to get out of and knows that it will take longer than some speculate. However, getting us started on the right path and keeping us there for the next 4 years and possibly eight will be a great thing. No one can deny that much will happen in the first year once Obama takes office.

I don't agree with the bailout because the greedy CEO's have already proven how than handle $$$. On the otherhand, millions of jobs will be lost if we don't, not to mention retirement, life insurance, etc. will hurt we the people if we don't either if the companies go down. That being said, there should be no choice on the accounting of funds. They got into this mess and we have a right to know where the money is going. Plus the companies should be required to pay back every penny they are given.

Here is a little fact I wasn't aware of until recently. The nominee who wins Missouri has won every election except 1.

[Coolwater]

We have a good friend who calls himself a Republican conservative, but his views are so different from most of the ones you hear about. He's a well read jurist/historian, recently retired as a New York State judge, and very community minded. (After he retired, he and his wife got certified as EMTs so their volunteer fire department would have adequate staffing!) I think I'll write to him to get going on what the GOP needs to do to mend itself. The new motto should be the "Grand New Party!" No, wait: GNP? Gross National Product cuts too close to what they'd like us to forget!

Golly, and here we are on the start of a Liberal redo of the government, and I'm thinking of how to improve the opposition!!! (smacks forehead!)

Obama is going to be on 60 Minutes tonight to talk about the changes he's working on. Apparently he agrees with us about what the automakers and others must do to get their bailout, LD. I'm just not used to agreeing with the president anymore!

Scarpetta, perhaps your boss is right: maybe an SOB is exactly what is needed to act as a "headsman." Emmanuel does the dirty work, and then steps down when he's finished, having done what is needed while deflecting blame from Obama.

BTW, Scarpetta, I thought of you this morning as I was using my toast to avoid losing any savory egg yolk. Mm mm! Trust the Italians to make something as messy as mopping up egg yolk into a good philosophy of life! :D