Gnngh. Yes, you have to accept that any fix would get eaten by the GOPpers in the Senate or President Veto Sharpie. But in 2009, there’ll still be senators on the Dem side (DE, the Dakotas, possibly Schumer himself in NY) who have to deal with the state clout of Big Debt.

Jack Kemp wrote an excellent op-ed in the LA Times recently on the subject.

The major problem is that the Congress & Wall Street “prioritized” non-collateralized debt ahead of collateralized (i.e., mortgage) debt. Thus, if you declare bankruptcy, you will lose your house but you will still have all of that credit card obligation, which will be restructured. Meaning, you still have to pay it off.

If the economy is in an upswing, not too many people would notice that change in the bankruptcy law. But given a down turn, the sky will fall — on everyone. We will all become further enslaved to the financial system than we already are — except we will be paying $1,500/month rent for a two-bedroom apartment instead of $1,800/month for a mortgage on a three bedroom house. And we will still be paying on the credit cards.

And to those “true believers” who say these people need to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions, yes, you are right, and so on…
But good luck refinancing your house when its value falls by 30% and you only made a 20% downpayment. You are going to have to come up with a tidy sum or be forced into a [gasp] subprime mortgage. Ha ha. See we are all in this boat together, a boat that Halliburton and freinds had a no-bid contract to maintain.

The bad news is that we’re not going to do anything about it until 2009. Senator Schumer explained that he didn’t want to pick around the edges, he wanted to make a real fix, and we’re not going to be able to do that until we get a bigger majority.

Grrrrrrr!!

Here’s just a small sliver of why. The Credit Suisse one was my wake-up call a year or more age. Note that we’re now one more month out from the start date on the first graph. Pair those resets with the dim prospects for refinance as shown in underwater graphs like the ones here and it should be clear that 2009 is going to be too late for many households that could use a reasonable way out.

I think Bobo’s wrong, again. Wrong because he conflates policy concerns with political methods.

Partisanship can mean having a policy point of view and sticking to it. Isn’t that what Americans liked so much about Bush? He stuck to his values.

But in the vernacular, “partisanship” has come to mean a disingenuous, intentional misrepresentation of your opponent’s position, or a dishonest misrepresentation of your opponent’s record.

Non-partisanship doesn’t have to mean abandoning one’s principled position in return for harmony. In fact, that’s just silly. Maybe the vernacular is just more Orwellian doublespeak meant to spread the blame around, in a bi-partisan sort of way.

Sept. 11th really did leave a residue — an unconsummated desire for sacrifice and service. The old Clintonian style of politics clashes with that desire. When Sidney Blumenthal expresses the Clinton creed by telling George Packer of The New Yorker, “It’s not a question of transcending partisanship. It’s a question of fulfilling it,” that clashes with the desire as well.
The Kennedy Mystique by Bobo

So what is Obama advocating? I like the way he campaigns and I prefer it to the way Hillary has campaigned against him since NH, Iowa really. But what would Obama’s governing style be like? How would he overcome opposition to his policy proposals when his opponent’s counter-proposal is in direct conflict with his, and he needs some agreement to move forward?

Or you could try the otters in the video at the end of this post.

[Mild hysterics provided by the double Google-ad on the front page … for Lindsey Graham. Oy, did they get the wrong blog!]

In response to the string of post 43-46 about power and control, abusers, Obama, I would like to make a couple of comments.

One, the bush adminstration has been acting exactly like an anti social batterer of the american people. I work with the batterers and the battered; only in our agency we have elected for less judgemental terms. We have men and women nonviolence groups and then the domestic violence empowerment groups for folks who have been victimized.

What we teach is accountability. We teach accountability to community programs in regard to violent and abusive behavior as well as to victims and to those who use violence. Same goes for our substance abuse programs. Accountability. Shame is the tie that binds us to most compulsive behaviors. And not being accountable, avoiding shame instead of using it to shape behaviors and make amends feeds more shame, feeds more compulsion. I think greed is a compulsion as well.

Anyway, I hope Obama is willing to make accountability the top priority. If a woman is going to stop the battering or the wife of an alcoholic is going to be willing to take better care of herself, she is going to have not “enable” the bahavior by failing to set boundaries, failing to hold the person accountable. She is going to have to learn how to not accept unacceptable behavior. She will have to learn how to call the police, get a protection order, enforce a protection order, walk out of room, walk out of the house, go to a shelter. She will have to learn how to protect herself in a way she has never had to do before. Few of us find ourselves up against a more formidable foe.

The American people have for too many years been accepting unacceptable behavior and failing to hold our administrators accountable. We fear the fight, we fear the mess, we fear the division. When you listen to a group of victimized people you find that they don’t want to hold the batterer accountable, not because they like being abused, or because they are lazy, or because they are not strong. It’s because it takes tremendous strength, fortitude and courage to confront unacceptable behavior. It rips apart your life. It’s uncomfortable and they usually fight back. Those who engaged in abusive behavior do not want to face the legal, emotional, and social implications of their behavior. They cannot face the pain and yet it is facing the pain, the shame that causes change and healing. It is the most difficult thing to do, and at the same time it is the only thing that brings truth and healing.

Victims of domestic violence are at a higher risk of dying AFTER they get the protection order. This is the most dangerous, messy and uncomfortable time. The sacrifices are real. The risk is real. The fear is real.

This is the decision that the American people have before them. Do we take the risk for the sake of our principles, are we willing to deal with the mess and discomfort, are we willing to hold these criminals accountable so that we will be role modeling to the world, and ourselves that our values, our constitution, our democracy has meaning. If we do not, we will continue to get more of the same. If we hold them accountable, we will be doing something different, and we may not be successful in the first round, the second round, but we will be living in line with the principles for which most americans stand. It takes courage to stand up for our constitution and the laws and values of our country. It doesn’t necessarily require a war, but it does require courage.

I hope Obama is willing to make hold these criminals accountable, even if it’s risky, messy and uncomfortable. If he’s not we need to be developing politicians with the skills set to follow through.