A Look Back
Eric Rauchway takes a look at some historical September 24ths that didn’t seem to require suspension of political campaigns:
– September 24, 1864: The nation is literally at risk of collapse, mengaged in a large-scale civil war: “Yet the campaign for the presidency was “now being prosecuted with the utmost vigor,” as one could read in the New York Times.”
– September 24, 1932: The nation is mired in Depression, coping with it a full time job, “Yet Herbert Hoover prepared to give a large speech in Iowa and Franklin Roosevelt had just given what became a famous address to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.”
– September 24, 1944: World War II well under way, with the United States engaged in fierce fighting, “Yet President Roosevelt had just officially launched his campaign for a fourth term, while Thomas Dewey took his turn speaking in San Francisco, challenging Roosevelt’s supremacy.”
But John McCain feels he can’t do debate prep and make up his mind about the bailout proposal at the same time. He wants an extension.
35 Responses to “A Look Back”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The whole thing might make sense if he was actually on the Banking Committee or if he did not own a telephone.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
That’s brilliant. Needs widespread distribution, and hopefully incorporation into Jon Stewart or Colbert’s routine tonight. Such cutting mockery needs some high-profile exposure, no offensive to your guys’ awesome, totally non-sucky blogs.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Or how about 1968? You’ve got the Vietnam War raging, two major American political leaders had already been assassinated that year, student revolts around the world, and a sizable portion of the country in full backlash against the civil rights movement.
Did Humphrey call time out then? Do I even need to answer that?
September 24th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
You’re stepping in deep shit, Matthew. And you don’t have the Birkenstocks for it.
My DailyKos Dairy explains why:
—————–
Obama May Lose Hillary Voters Over Bailout
by bmastiff [Subscribe] [Edit Diary]
1) Obama’s Passive Acceptance of the Republican $2 Trillion Bailout of the Financial Sector may cost him the votes of millions of embittered Hillary supporters looking for a reason to stay home on Election Day.
2) This week, while Republicans are deciding the future of the next Administration, Obama has been at Debate Camp. But when Congress recesses in a few days, there won’t be anything left to debate.
3) Either a Democratic Congress will have denied a Bailout –and accepted Republican criticism for the consequences — or they will have imposed a $2 Trillion additional debt on the taxpayers. Spread over 65 million households , that works out to $31,000 per household. You can fly to Europe and buy a lot of abortions for $31,000.
As voters seethe in the coming weeks, they will remember several things.
They will remember Obama being one of only 50 some Democratic Senators — yet shouldering none of the responsibility that goes with that position.
They will remember Obama surrendering without a fight, saying yesterday that he has to drop most of his promises to us over the past year because there’s no money left.
4) They will remember that Obama showed no leadership on this major problem –including questioning whether there are alternatives –and that Obama did not propose any significant countermeasures — like a $2 Trillion Income Surtax on the Richest 3 percent of the population to make them pay for the trainwreck they have caused.
5) Single mothers trying to support children will ask themselves if Obama is an empty suit — and if they want to depend upon such in the grim years ahead.
NOTE:
a) Cost of Bailout so far (Bear, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Emergency Loans) is $700 Billion. ADDITIONAL cost of Paulson’s new proposal is another $700 — which is why the Bailout Bill includes a provision to raise national debt limit to $11.3 Trillion — $1.5 Trillion above the $9.8 Trillion limit of a few weeks ago. But Interest on the $1.5 Trillion over the next 5 years will be ANOTHER $500 Billion (assuming 6 percent rate.) Total equals $2 Trillion.
b) There are about 116 million US households but roughly 50 million have incomes less than $40,000 a year, are barely surviving ,and cannot pay additional taxes for the new $2 Trillion debt. $2 Trillion divided by 65 million yields $31,000 per household. That’s in addition to the $154,000 per household already owned on the $9.8 Trillion of existing federal debt.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Yes, but FDR didn’t have to run the war, run for reelection, AND wage a heroic battle with Alzheimers.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Don Williams: chill, dude. Bush’s own party isn’t going to let this thing get to the president’s desk.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Not to mention the fact that whether or not the Dems succeed or fail in turning this nonsense into sense has very little to do with whether there is a debate on Friday.
If they fail, so share of the burden should go to Obama — roughly the amount that goes to McCain (a little more or less depending on the particular shape of the failure). But saying that these two people can’t conduct their business, and hold a debate afterwords, is silly. Skip the debate camp, not the debate.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
So you’re the retard that wrote that stupid diary on DKos…
September 24th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
If he were really serious, he would hold his breath until a deal is reached, or at least give up sweets.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Re “So you’re the retard that wrote that stupid diary on DKos…”
———
Yeah, but I told them my name is Matthew Yglesias.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Don Williams, your post is wrong on so many counts I can’t even begin to address its myriad failures to reflect the truth and sound logic.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
For starters, giving loans isn’t a “cost”. Loans earn interest and then get paid back. It’s not like the money we’re throwing down the proverbial toilet (sandbox?) over in Iraq.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
The real point is that McCain is once again re-directing the focus of the entire election with his antics.
First, he selects this dumb bitch from Alaska as his running mate. Everybody – especially Matt – falls for this dodge and spends every waking second messing with her every comment, her every hair out of place, etc., while McCain is ignored and gains time.
Meanwhile, serious foreign policy issues involving Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan are totally ignored – issues that could gain McCain the four to ten points he will need to beat Obama.
So when the economic issues take center stage – the one place where Obama conceivably could easily beat McCain – McCain takes the lead by focusing the situation on him while Obama waffles.
So far the Republicans are eating the Democrats for lunch, while the Democrats pat themselves on the back for how “sophisticated” a campaign Obama is running and how certain it is that Obama is going to win.
Bush has an “October Surprise” on tap to make sure that foreign policy issues – McCain’s strong point as the “war hero” – remain front and center over economic problems Obama could use to win with and provide McCain with the mere four to ten points he will need to erase Obama’s narrow lead.
Obama is going to lose, as I’ve said all along.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Oh he just wants to get his little darlin’ out of her own debate – what a scam!
September 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
pssst…they’re runnin out of money… that is the financial crisis that Team McPalin are wanting to work on……
September 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Re: So far the Republicans are eating the Democrats for lunch
Last I checked the Democrats are running away with the game in the Congressional races and Obama is doing fairly well in the presidential race (and look likely to be the winner).
September 24th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
No way, THE Don Williams?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Williams
September 25th, 2008 at 10:47 am
If any of you idiots knew more about business than the few soundbytes you overhear while delivering packages on your bike routes or understood that there’s more to economics than the few theoreticals you professor drilled into your head, you would understand the urgency. The difference in all the cases you stated above is that those wars were all being waged and didn’t require immediate action (congress about to adjourn). We can’t let plans sit on hold while other institutions fail. I haven’t decided who I am going to vote for yet; but, I understand the urgency we currently face. With over a month left until the election, what’s the harm in pushing back the debates until these issues are resolved?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Don Williams, your comments/blog raise some interesting points. One thing I would like to add though is that this money isn’t just going out the door. The $700bln used to rescue Bear, Fannie, Freddie, AIC, etc. gave the government a stake in those companies (minus Bear, where the fed just brokered the deal and provided the debt for the acquisition, which will be paid off). That stake has value, even though the governemnt may not earn back 100%.
The plan proposed by Paulson and Bernanke or the compromised version (which will hopefully be in place by Monday) is for the government to set up a fund similar to the RTC that saved us from the S&L crisis. This $700bln fund/agency would buy illiquid assets from banks (toxic mortgages, complex derivatives, etc). Buying these assets frees up liquidity and alleviates concerns at banks making them more willing to lend money to businesses. This will hopefully free up the capital markets, which is the biggest issue currently hurting our economy. This also prevents a fire sale, where banks are forced to sell off these assets at huge discounts. The fed would be able to sell them off over time.
Since these assets still have value, even though the value is extremely hard to calculate for some of the complexed derivatices (one of the major problems at AIG – and reasons many private equity funds passed on it before the Fed was forced to bail them out – was that even AIG itself didn’t know how to value many of the derivatives on its books). The government would be selling off the assets over time to recoup most of (hopefully all of or even make a profit) the money spent buying the assets.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Look at the yield ratio from the 1989 Savings and Loan crisis — that was a similar clusterfuck in real estate. COST taxpayers roughly what ?? $187 Billion? And the pool of liabilities was much smaller than what we’re dealing with here.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
thanks ! this post helped me out with my class project !
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:10 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:09 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive!
viagra