I don't want to be accused of 'secret plan-ism' (0.00 / 0)

and I'm not the biggest Obama-booster around, but this is certainly what the Obamaphiles have been saying forever: "Frankly, I don't care whether they call what they will eventually do "nationalization" or not - as long as the policy is sound."

---

by: Joel @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 06:53:51 AM CST

Mazel Tov! (0.00 / 0)

Wednesday? What, no kiddush?

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 08:05:17 AM CST

Some sort of meal I am sure there is (4.00 / 1)

I am wondering if there is any difference on what he's going to do. There is no necessary Torah reading today.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:43:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute, it's Rosh Chodesh (4.00 / 1)

So there is a Torah reading. Hits head.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:44:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It isnt a nomenclature problem (4.00 / 1)

Correct

Frankly, I don't care whether they call what they will eventually do "nationalization" or not - as long as the policy is sound.

The problem is sticking the costs and risks of business plans, whether banking, cell phone systems or any coercive market controlling set of institutions, onto the public, while assigning any 'profits' privately. By profits of course we include all the bonuses, dividends, "creative financial instruments", disappearing pallets of cash, fees, fraud and spa/golf weekends.

Profit is an outdated term when accounting has not the slightest resemblance to financial factuality. Profit in this case refers to everything that isnt locked down, or anything that can be transferred to an account, whether earned, entitled or even representing an actual asset.

If "Wall Street" is willing to pay tens of billions in bonuses to its 'employees' - try and imagine the profits that make this wage rate sensible to a corporate board.

All this is part of the disconnect between the twin concepts of "responsible for" and "responsible to". We are, dumping is too frail a word, we are "avalanching" cash at the financial institutions because in our society wide ignorance  of the processes involved, we recognize only that we have to help those that are "responsible for" banking etc. or the entire economy and all the ordinary folks living a few checks away from ruin, will fail utterly.

Now, politically, we need to understand and develop processes, laws, agreements and even an underlying philosophy of "responsible to." The blindly greedy 'wizards of Wall Street" have, in their behaiviour causing the collapse, their behaviour since the collapse, their disregard for their responsibility to use a teachers income tax money sent by congress to protect the American and world economy and not as an increased demand for a Maserati.

The genius of democracy of course provides the answer to applying responsibility to.

Businesses of course already abide by such rules. They are allowed to make even outrageous profits, but they cannot for example sell heroin to school kids. Because in a democracy, they have a responsibility to our society writ large.

That discussion, especially now, still needs increased  time, increased depth, increased courage and increased volume. Americans right now are discovering the secret of democracy, hidden so long by the Republican/media/educational monolith of post WWII accepted wisdom. The secret that we can design, repair and re-define not just just our townships, schools, roads and watersheds, but our business models, jurisprudence and fiduciary obligations.

This is time for real leadership that asks the questions of responsible for / responsible to. America, even the world, is asking the questions of sustainable economics, of community serving economic policies (for what else is the demand for business laws and rules that maintain jobs) and of ecologically sustainable economies. America wants that leadership, and it belongfalls not just to our 'ally' Obama, but to the wide progressive community. We are, having charted the irrational unpleasant course that took us here, responsible for describing the process not just away from these problems, but responsible to generations of people past present and future to whom we have pledged our efforts.

Progressives now must be vocal and consistent and unflagging in repeating and expanding the analysis and warnings that have proved over and again so clearly correct these last decades. The discussion has just started. We have a social responsibility, a historical responsibility and the opportunity to drive that debate, to suggest these changes to demand democracy, transparency and responsibility.

And a family sized Mazel Tov David.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 08:21:54 AM CST

You should have known, David! (4.00 / 8)

Didn't you see Lou Dobbs's report about how Mexicans were ruining everything with their mid-week Bar Mitzvahs?

---

by: vastleft @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 08:41:12 AM CST

Mazel Tov! (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like a great place to celebrate.  

It is not clear to me, from what Bernacke said in his testimony yesterday, that the Administration will throw out current management. Nor will the big banks be broken up.  Without these two ingredients, the bailouts will not work.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:27:12 AM CST

Mazel Tov! (0.00 / 0)

I am related to a former Chief Rabbi of Mexico(Rabbi Avigdor). I am not sure what kind of cousin he was.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:40:25 AM CST

Bienvenidos y Mazel Tov (0.00 / 0)

Hopefully you get to meet some the americans who've said good bye to your fair country.  

---

by: Ashes77 @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 13:08:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]