We're in agreement again, I have to say:

"I don't know enough about the situation and economics in general to say whether or not it's a good thing that the Obama administration steps in."

Although I still think that politically, he needs to at least give out the appearance that he's montioring the situation, at the very least.

-CW

Oh, OK, now I get it. You're saying Obama should be more hands-on with the problem. I hate to say it, but I think we're actually in agreement on this one.

I don't know enough about the situation and economics in general to say whether or not it's a good thing that the Obama administration steps in.. I am naturally wary of Obama et al stepping into MORE doo doo...

But, my point in saying that the Obama administration should get involved is that it is out of character for the Obama administration NOT to stick it's nose into things...

Or maybe it was Agatha Cristie (somebody, please, stop me... heh...):

Heh heh.

You REALLY need to get out more.... :D

Michale.....

"Ah, Hastings, the distinguished Michale seems to think we are using the wrong phrasing, that I have been linguistically led astray by my little grey cells. He suggests that even the famous brain of Hercule Poirot can make the occasional mistake when confronted with the colloquialisms of the English language. He thinks Poirot is not... how do you say... on the top of his game." Poirot paused, and made a minute adjustment to one of his moustaches. "But I think not. I think Poirot is in fact on the very game top! I think, Monsieur Michale, that Poirot has in fact used exactly the correct term for what has occurred here: 'Piffle!' Because you may be assured that piffle it was -- and what is furthermore, it was piffle most foul!"

Heh heh.

-CW

Oh, OK, now I get it. You're saying Obama should be more hands-on with the problem. I hate to say it, but I think we're actually in agreement on this one.

:-)

-CW

Comes from too much P.G. Wodehouse at too tender an age.

Heh.

Here's my fake Wodehouse prose, in response:

"'Piffle!' I said, and 'Piffle!' I meant," I said forcefully, waving my g-and-t in his face (which appeared to be rapidly losing focus, from my perspective) in what I felt to be an overwhelmingly convincing and argument-winning fashion. And then I laid this bombshell upon his astonished ears: "And I'll tell you what's more... Piffle and tommyrot!"

Heh.

-CW

"Piffle"???

Is that an industry term?? :D

Michale.....

If it's a criminal matter, if there is massive fraud, then let the FBI or State Police or whoever start investigating and, if necessary, bust some heads..

And further, I am not saying that the government SHOULDN'T get involved..

I am saying that the Obama administration has prided itself on sticking it's nose in on practically every aspect of business to date..

NOW the Obama administration wants to take a "hands off" approach??

Why???

Got a link to that Reuters thing? While I fully expect them to, everything I've read says Obama hasn't challenged the judge's ruling yet, just that they're mulling over how to do it.

The actual Reuters link was wanky, so here is a different site..

http://kgmi.com/Obama-administration-appeals-gay-marriage-ruling/8344761

Michale.....

OK, I'm confused. You start off by saying Obama is not showing leadership on the foreclosure thing, then turn around and say the gummint should have a "hands off" reaction to the crisis. So which is it?

As for being "hands off" I say: "Piffle!"

What we're talking about here is massive fraud. Breaking the foreclosure laws on an enormous scale. ALL 50 STATES are joined in looking into legally what went wrong -- that should give you some indication.

So it's not a time for "let the corporations do what they want, hands off, and the private sector will wonderfully solve the problem while unicorns fart rainbows across the sky."

I thought you prided yourself on a LEO background. Here's the case: corporate entities have broken the law on a massive, massive scale. So do you (a) call for "small government, hands off, free market" approach, or (b) lock the bastards up and let the chips fall where they may in court?

If this were just some sort of minor problem, perhaps your "hands off" thing might be a valid response. It's not. It's massive, and laws were broken. Many, many laws, in many, many states, from everything I hear. So how is it not within the scope of the government to address such massive lawbreaking? What other laws should we have a "hands off" approach towards? "Sorry that man killed your loved one, sir, but we're a Republican police department here, and advocate a 'hands off' and 'small government' response..."

Like I said, "Piffle!"

-CW

PS. Got a link to that Reuters thing? While I fully expect them to, everything I've read says Obama hasn't challenged the judge's ruling yet, just that they're mulling over how to do it.

Thank you... :D I take pride in my Outside The Box way of looking at things. :D

Seems more to me like the issue is that government needs to be more by and for the people than by and for the largest corporations.

If you tack on "... and their Party Agendas" I would agree with you 1000%....

I'm not necessarily against corporations. There just needs to be a balance of interests rather than the philosophy of government by and for corporations.

Corporations have one interest and one interest only. The bottom line... If they had other interests, they wouldn't be corporations. They would be philanthropy organizations.

Which isn't to say that corporations should be given carte blanche in pursuit of that bottom line. But to ask corporations to quit acting like corporations is like asking a Republican to quit acting like a Republican or a asking a Democrat to quit acting like a Democrat.

If the conversation can be changed so that its about Dems vs. Republicans, then the outsourcing of government can continue relatively stealthily.

It's not a Dems vs Republicans argument.. It's an Obama Administration vs the American People argument.

The problem here is that all the blame seems to be directed at the Republicans when it's Obama and the Democrats who are at the helm. And have been for almost 4 years..

Michale.....

You always have an interesting spin on things, Michale.

Seems more to me like the issue is that government needs to be more by and for the people than by and for the largest corporations.

I'm not necessarily against corporations. There just needs to be a balance of interests rather than the philosophy of government by and for corporations.

But I understand. If the conversation can be changed so that its about Dems vs. Republicans, then the outsourcing of government can continue relatively stealthily.

-David

I hear you. As I understand it, you have to email Sullivan directly, there are no comment threads.

ACK!!!

What fun is that!!?? :D

David,

Not necessarily always.

Once again, I completely agree with you. And that disturbs me more than I can say, let me tell ya! :D

There are many examples where the Government should NOT take a hands off approach. Natural disasters, attacks on US soil, etc etc are all good examples of when the US Government SHOULD ride in on a white horse..

But propping up businesses??? Forcing itself into one sixth of our economy?? Interfering with legal election activities??

These are instances where the US Government should take a hands off approach.

The Obama administration seems to have forgotten that our government is FOR The People, BY The People, not FOR The Democrats, BY The Democrats..

And if the Democrats don't pick up the cry, the Republicans will.

The American people are starved for leadership. At this point in time, they don't care WHO shows leadership. They.... WE probably won't even care where that leadership takes us. At least not initially. We'll just be so relieved that SOMEONE is having the cajones to lead...

This is what "Hope" and "Change" has brought us to.

The one silver lining in all this is that it will NEVER again be said that Leadership Experience is NOT necessary to be President Of The United States.

Michale.....

Not necessarily always. I think given the situation the country was faced with two years ago that Bush and Obama did the right thing.

Though both got crucified for it.

Bush is staying in his bunker and Obama is being blamed for a lot that isn't his fault.

What actually really needed to happen was that Glass-Steagall should have been brought back and more reforms undertaken.

But it didn't. And the political tides have turned regardless whether any of it is justified.

So I don't believe Obama has the political capital to intervene in this affair.

What I will place my quatloos on though is that if the Democrats don't pick up the cry to do something, Republicans will.

They will abandon their "hands off" approach and start yelling for the government to do something. It might take the form of caps on liability rather than a bailout.

Why? Because if this is truly a risk to the big banks, they will have their lobbyists on it. And if the Democrats don't pick up the cry, the Republicans will.

Want to bet a few quatloos on this?

Cheers
David

"Privatize the profits, socialize the risk"

I hear you. As I understand it, you have to email Sullivan directly, there are no comment threads.

But is there a way to respond to Andrew Sullivan's blogs???

Michale.....

You are dead on ballz accurate, David...

But, the problem the administration faces is THAT was the solution in so many other things of the recent past that the government stuck it's nose in to..

To the detriment of the country..

The government taking a "hands off" approach IS the right course of action..

Too bad the Obama administration didn't adhere to this logical course of action with regards to so many other things they have frak'ed up on...

Michale.....

The foreclosure issue is a very interesting case. Once again, the financial institutions have put themselves in a lot of danger through their practices.

I read an article that said the liability could be as big an issue as the original crisis. Basically, a huge systemic risk.

Yet at this point, I personally have a hard time caring. We've heard this argument before. It sounds a lot like "privatize the profits, subsidize the risk".

Basically, when things are good for Wall St, you'll hear a lot of smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes talk, and when they're not good, we're going to start hearing a lot of talk of systemic risk.

Sound familiar?

The political situation that the Obama administration faces is that a) if they come out for a government solution there is going to be screaming from the usual suspects and b) if they don't do anything they run the risk of something very bad happening, which will also face a lot of blame from the usual suspects.

A no win/no win situation.

What they need to do is figure a way to set expectations appropriately and get themselves out of this trap.

My suggestion would be to actually come out and say that this is an issue which should be resolved by the banks - the government will not get involved unless it has to.

But you're right CW, if the administration says nothing, they will be accused of being too slow to respond.

Cheers
David

p.s. Oddly enough, though, the fact that Republicans will scream no matter what gives them some freedom in their response.

Actually, it's not questionable at all..

The question has been answered...

The Obama administration is appealing the courts ruling on DADT...

(Reuters) - The Obama administration decided on Tuesday to appeal a judge's rulings that prevented the U.S. government from banning same-sex marriages, a move that could undermine support among President Barack Obama's traditional liberal base ahead of a key election.

As far as the foreclosure issue goes??

WASHINGTON – A top White House adviser questioned the need Sunday for a blanket stoppage of all home foreclosures, even as pressure grows on the Obama administration to do something about mounting evidence that banks have used inaccurate documents to evict homeowners.

I hate to keep attacking the deceased equine, but asking Obama et al to show leadership is like asking Beck or Limbaugh to become a flaming liberal.

It's just not in their genes...

I tell ya, it's almost as if Obama WANTS a Dem massacre at the voting booths....

Michale......

Stan...