Chicago Tribune -- The Chicago freaking Tribune! -- endorses Obama

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


How many Dems have been from Chicago?

The last one was Adlai Stevenson. The Trib endorsed Eisenhower. Both times.

(And Kennedy might as well have been from Chicago, given how much interest Daley had in him; the Trib endorsed Nixon.)

You're well known for being completely out of your depth in discussions of American politics, Ben, so its no surprise that you know nothing about Chicago politics or its institutions. But you do know nothing, let's be clear about that.

[DaShi]

Hmm, you know this has got me thinking. I'd better announce my endorsement of Obama soon, or people will just think I'm following the bandwagon.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're well known for being completely out of your depth in discussions of American politics, Ben, so its no surprise that you know nothing about Chicago politics or its institutions. But you do know nothing, let's be clear about that.

If the Tribune is heralding Obama because they expect limited government from him, I want some of what they are smoking.

They are either stupid, or paid well, and I tend to believe the latter and not the former. It's sad that formerly principled groups fall, but everyone has a price.

[DaShi]

They were forced to become sane.

[Dinner]

The people don't want limited government Ben. People want effective government even if that means more regulation; in fact especially if that means sensible regulations as opposed to the wild west attitude which got us into this mess.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The people don't want limited government Ben. People want effective government even if that means more regulation; in fact especially if that means sensible regulations as opposed to the wild west attitude which got us into this mess.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hence, why the Tribune has sold out. I don't see why it's so hard to believe.

Now if you said that Rush was endorsing Obama, I might believe you, but the Tribune?

People want effective government even if that means more regulation; in fact especially if that means sensible regulations as opposed to the wild west attitude which got us into this mess.

The market is too big for the government to step in and control things.

All their mucking about will do is make things worse. The best bailout plan is for congress to go out bowling and strike out poverty.

[Dinner]

It's along shot but if Dems can get 60% in both houses then they'd have a filibuster proof majority to pass universal health care.

[DaShi]

And maybe they'll fix the rail service too.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The market is too big for the government to step in and control things.

All their mucking about will do is make things worse. The best bailout plan is for congress to go out bowling and strike out poverty.

History proves you wrong. Up until the deregulation of the 80's government was able to effectively deter the worst practices. I'm not saying we want a command economy and we need to avoid the dangers of excess regulation (it's as bad as no regulation) but clearly we do need some sensible regulations in place.

For example credit default swaps exist for one reason and one reason only namely to act as insurance while avoiding the regulations insurance companies must follow such as the requirement that companies have capital reserves set aside to pay claims should the insurance policy be used. It's only sensible that companies issuing defacto insurance policies should have enough assets to pay claims should they have too. That's part of the reason AIG went bust and cost taxpayers around $100 billion in bailout money.

A simple change in regulation would prevent a repeat of such an event. That's a very reasonable stance.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If the Tribune is heralding Obama because they expect limited government from him, I want some of what they are smoking.

They are either stupid, or paid well, and I tend to believe the latter and not the former. It's sad that formerly principled groups fall, but everyone has a price.

Could also be a great big **** you to the new owner of the Tribune, Zell, who's a big McCain donor.

[Ben Kenobi]

History proves you wrong. Up until the deregulation of the 80's government was able to effectively deter the worst practices. I'm not saying we want a command economy and we need to avoid the dangers of excess regulation (it's as bad as no regulation) but clearly we do need some sensible regulations in place.

I don't see Pelosi et al riding that train. The bailout wasn't about 'regulation' but about nationalisation and control.

The regulations which were eliminated by Clinton simply have to be restored. No mortgages on 0 percent down, no mortgages to those who are overleveraged. No cutting and slicing up mortages to distribute risk.

The lenders who engaged in these risky activities should just go bankrupt so that the market can move on and reward those who avoided these loans.

A simple change in regulation would prevent a repeat of such an event. That's a very reasonable stance.

Agreed. Neither of which should cost 700 billion to fix.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If the Tribune is heralding Obama because they expect limited government from him, I want some of what they are smoking.

They are either stupid, or paid well, and I tend to believe the latter and not the former. It's sad that formerly principled groups fall, but everyone has a price.

So principles = blind adherence to ideology?

Read the endorsement. They're very clear that they don't expect limited government from him. They're also clear that they consider sound, sober, thoughtful leadership to be more important than limited government at this particular historical juncture, and that's why they're endorsing Obama. Noting that McCain has proved clueless, rudderless, and possessed of poor judgment, and we've had quite enough of that, is not selling out; it's simply being reasonable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Read the endorsement. They're very clear that they don't expect limited government from him. They're also clear that they consider sound, sober, thoughtful leadership to be more important than limited government at this particular historical juncture, and that's why they're endorsing Obama. Noting that McCain has proved clueless, rudderless, and possessed of poor judgment, and we've had quite enough of that, is not selling out; it's simply being reasonable.

Did he lead a girlscout troop?

This Obama aid is powerful stuff.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The regulations which were eliminated by Clinton simply have to be restored. No mortgages on 0 percent down, no mortgages to those who are overleveraged. No cutting and slicing up mortages to distribute risk.

You're seeing only a small part of the problem. The housing-mortage bubble is like the TNT which sets off an atomic bomb. It's a trigger; it's not the main explosion.

The main explosion came from the financial sector, in which trillions of dollars of derivitives were being sold without transparency. No one knew what they were worth, or what was in them. Plus, hedge funds etc. were highly leveraged, which is great when thing are going up, but really bad when they are going down. There was also securities, which were essentially insurance policies for corporate bonds. The problem was, you didn't need to own a bond to buy an insurance policy. Indeed, there were on average 30 policies on every bond. So, when Leaman Bros. went bankrupt, lots of folks couldn't pay off, and an economic cascade began.