Back when GWB was the preznint, there were several economic issues which were obviously deserving of further scrutiny, the housing debacle chief among them. So when BHO ran on the platform of “change you can believe in” some us took that to mean than he meant to change the way things were done in Washington–and in New York. I bought into that “change” thing–it was a very clever marketing strategy–and here we are, 100 days into his adminstration, and things are looking like the Clinton administration all over again.

Is that a good thing? No, it is not, because the bubble got inflated to near maximum during the Clinton Administration (and continued until 2006 in the GWB era) by some of the same people that BHO has invited back into his administration.

One of the greatest goofs in all of economic history was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. It was enacted after the excesses of the Depression of the 1930’s. It was there for a very good reason.

So in the late 1990’s along comes super-doofus PhD (economics) Sen. Phil Gramm , wrestler Rep. Jim Leach, and smokestack Rep. Jim Bliley–all Republicans– with a package that permits the banks and other commercial lending institutions to do everything that the banking establishment had lobbied for for half a century, in the form of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Clinton is initially reluctant to sign the bill, but is pursuaded to do so by his economic advisors, including Larry Summers, whom BHO has now installed as his chief economic advisor.

If BHO is intent on trying to recreate the Clinton years, he is in for a severe shock. I fear that that is the advice he is getting from his economic team. Now his economic team advises him with such vacuous phrases like “the crisis will pass” (a patient will eventually die, too).

I think the media should look at the track record of the members of BHO’s administration before they take another swipe at his critics. His critics–at least the most of those cited in this article have been right.

But I would not blame it on the conservative democrats in the senate. I would say that either implicitly or explicitly Obama let them kill it. Because he’s in the bankers back pocket.

He simply pulled another Slick Willie. Say what people want to hear, and do what the business buddies want.

How many senate votes have had democrats vote against Obama’s agenda?

BTW, I now hold all politicians, bankers, lawyers, CEOs, regulators in low regard, until proven wrong. There are very few true statesmen left. And too many “interested men” running the show. Now that the curtain has been pulled back exposing the mechanism, I find nobody left to trust.

Some disagreement about the stimuli but with the funds leeched off by the big banks with immortal lives then bigger stimuli are unimaginable and current stimuli are insufficient, kind of the worst of both worlds.

The stress tests are also the worst of both worlds, most banks will pass but even those that pass will need more extraordinary funding from US.

you’ve yet to get it, yes? try understanding that the phrase: “The Big Picture” is, both, highly contextual, and highly subjective, at the same Time.

To be clear, I am, in no way, speaking for BR.

Context? Is there a larger Megaphone on the face of the Earth than the one available at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Did we see 44, on the hustings, over the airwaves, or otherwise, Campaign for “the mortgage cramdown bill”? hmm? No?

But, Campaign he did for ERRA, yes? What was the result of that? Passage?

LSS: you’re, certainly, Free to Pick n’ Choose, but, remember, if you’re not in an Orchard in Michigan, leave the cherry-picking out of the point you’re trying to make.

in other words, why don’t you grow-up, 4 a Change? try asking a question that displays some semblance of Intellectual maturity.

I’ll, even, give you an example: BR, how do you surmise Obama being successful in promulgating, and achieving, the Idea of “Bank Nationalization” as the proper course to navigate through these shoals?

411, here’s betting you can be better that that..

I thought that as part of the FDIC agreement between a bank and the govt was that in exchange for deposit insurance, the federal govt has the right, at any time it deems it necessary, to seize the institution and put it into receivership for the good of the overall economy. Congress doesn’t have to approve a thing, it’s already a done deal.

Now the will to do it, that’s another ballgame.