Getting back to your point, I concur that the administration seems to only want to put humpty-dumpty back together again w/o addressing the root causes of this crisis.

One could make a good argument that the “panic” started in September when Paulsen and Bernacke alarmed with market with their demands for a immediate bailout. Their alarm was akin to screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre, and in this case investors rushed to the exits. To add insult to injury that bailout did not achieve it’s stated goal avoiding a crash in commercial and residential lending.

Bush had a ‘hands off” managerial style where he let his department heads often run amok. Which Bernacke and Paulsen surely did in the case of the bailout. So Bush must take responsibility in part for the collapse. He also let the SEC relax capital reserve standards for investment banks, an incredibly dumb move. Plus while he did try to reform Fannie and Freddie, he never really invested much political capital in doing so and never informed the public of the magnitude of the potential risk that quasi public agencies egregious practices could have on this country’s economic future.

Jude- talk about a wingnut. What do you call it when a President disregards completely bankruptcy law and strong arms investment banks that he now controls into relinquishing their fiduciary responsibility to their bondholder clients? You’re right, maybe “creeping socialism” isn’t the right term, perhaps “fascism’ would be better.

The underlying reason why all of Geithner’s public/private partnership schemes won’t work is that any level headed CEO is not going to get in bed with the government headed by a guy who abandons the rule of law on whim for purely short term political advantage.

Arguments with rabid wingnuts leads to tiny attempts to appease them with small “narrative concessions”: “Yes, well, both sides share some blame” you will eventually tell them. Then they will build these crumbs into a threshhold narrative that will reverse their political fortunes.

The resurgence of the rabid is inevitable. Because too many sane people try to compromise with clearly deranged belligerents.

How?

How has President Obama had a broader calming effect? When Obama fired the CEO of GM, I did not feel calm. When the GM preferred shareholders were snubbed and frauded by our new “car czar” many felt a degree of panic. But when Obama threatens to fire all the staff at 5000 public schools in the US, I felt definate alarm.

Might you please reassure we dear readers as to how Obama is calming with some exact evidence or antidotes?

If one believes his actions now are calming the market, then one would also have to believe that his previous comments were creating instability in the market. Then I have to ask why would the President want to influence a market downward if it wasn’t warranted?

As for Paulson’s plan, wasn’t it originally 3 pages? After the Senate got ahold of it, it was over 1000 pages. My point here is that the Administration, Congress, and Obama who voted for the measure and publically supported it are all responsble for it.

I think this is like saying “1932 was post panic”