[Update 10-04-2008] I'm afraid the prediction that this so-called Bailout was not going to work is coming true. Now the Terminator, AKA the Governor of California, is asking for his own 7 billion dollar bailout. The bill was passed with what I am going to call pork not a popular term). Call it what you like, but how far are we going with this. Now the pro-bailout people are pointing to the automobile industry which is "suffering" and may need a separate bailout. Maybe the car business is down because people are waiting to see what becomes of the bailout and are simply not buying cars. We have had so many people telling America that we are almost in a depression why would anybody want to buy a car? 

Be sure this will be an ongoing story.

Any comments on this would be greatly appreciated. Or you can go to MSNBC and see how they report this (well, probably not).  

Bankole Thompson interviews BARACK OBAMA

BO: What I've done is written into the legislation, that there is going to be an independent oversight board to monitor what the Treasury is doing. We have legislation that says that the money from the sale of assets that are purchased all goes back into reducing the national debt so that taxpayers are getting their money back.

But it's going to require that the next administration is diligent about these protections and it's going to be very important that the next administration does everything it can to strengthen the underlying housing market and to prevent the foreclosures that have been devastating in so many communities, particularly in the African American and Hispanic communities.

[John K. Matyi]  “What I have done” is written into the legislation? So I guess this means all those other Senators and Representatives had nothing to do with this bill. So he takes the credit now for this boondoggle, but will he be calling it the “Bush/McCain bill when it becomes obvious that this bill will not help the economy and may result in ‘Jimmy Carter double-digit Inflation?’

As to the “African-American communities;’ I have a real problem with this statement. We are stuck with preventing foreclosures, but how about doing it in American communities. I think the idea that we live in two different countries would die quickly if the liberals would stop being divisive with this race-baiting class warfare type

IPS: You've said China is engaged with South America and the United States is absent. What would your administration do?

BO: Well, I think it is a matter of reaching out to these countries and asking, how can we not only work with them around critical issues like anti-drug efforts, cracking down on criminal gangs; I think we also have to be thinking, how do we help these countries that still have millions of poor people in them? Provide job opportunities and growth opportunities. And part of that is trade structured not just for corporations but for workers. Part of it is basic infrastructure, public health infrastructure, educational infrastructure. That makes a huge difference.

[John K. Matyi] Does this mean that we will have a world economy, or a European-type economy? Last I heard he is (as our president) going to help those who are in danger of foreclosure in the US (he wrote it into the legislation, remember?) He will also reduce the National Debt. Where is all this money coming from? His plan to increase taxes on 5% of Americans is beginning to look like it too will have to change a bit. Are American tax payers now responsible for providing job opportunities in South America, and rebuilding their infrastructure?  I wonder if Obama has shared that plan with the labor union bosses he is in bed with. As to helping the millions of poor people in the world, there will be more about that later. Just don’t forget that little forecast of our future world economy.  Add Comment

IPS: Switching quickly to labour. You've talked about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and that there will be some modifications when your administration takes over. What about the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)?

BO: I think any of our trade agreements has to have strong labour provisions, strong environmental protections and we have to enforce it. We have not been good at enforcing our agreements. That's something that is going to change in my administration.

[John K. Matyi] I guess that means that the statement made to Canada back in the primaries about how all this tough talk about renegotiating NAFTA just being politics as usual (and for them to ignore it), is just that, Obama politics as usual. Let me get my thoughts together here. We will have “strong labour [sic] provisions,” but we will reach out to South America (and all of the poor people in the world) and “Provide job opportunities and growth opportunities.” Now I know why he is called “The One.”  Add Comment

IPS: How do you intend to address the repercussions of the Wall Street bailout on Mexico's economy, since the two economies are tied together?

BO: Well, I think it's not just Mexico. The entire world economy is now tied together. Europe is now seeing huge problems similar to what we've been seeing on Wall Street. So that's why it is important for us to coordinate with the G-20 countries [a bloc of developing nations] to do everything we can to make sure that when we have regulations in place here, that they are mirrored overseas that there is just one system of rules that all of global capital has to play by.

[John K. Matyi] Here is the most frightening statement yet: “[T]hat there is just one system of rules that all of global capital has to play by.” Is this another forecast of the future for the soon to be ‘United States of the World?’ Is this what we want to be moving toward for the next four years? I wish I had the room here to add all the promises BO made to the world on his World Tour.  Add Comment

IPS: Pakistan has been in the news a lot, and it came up in your Sep. 26 debate on foreign policy. Under your administration, what would the relationship be between Washington and Pakistan, in light of the fact that a lot of U.S. tax dollars are going there?

BO: Well, Pakistan is a difficult problem. You've got a fragile democracy after years of military rule. These hills and mountains of Pakistan where the Taliban and al Qaeda have made base camps are very difficult to access. I think Pakistanis are worried that if they go after them too hard that they would see more of the bombings like they saw at the Marriott Hotel.

So what we are going to have to do is to work diligently with them, explaining, "We would continue to provide you support and aid but you have to take this issue of terrorism much more seriously than you are taking it right now." And in fact conditioning it on their willingness to cooperate and hunting down those who killed 3,000 Americans [on 9/11].

[John K. Matyi] I would guess that this is a slight shift from his August 2007 stand when he said (in response to a jab by Hillary Clinton):

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

I guess this is another San Francisco v Scranton, PA kind of remark. You remember, the clinging to guns and religion. My guess is BO did not figure anyone in the US (we call them voters) would be smart enough to read any of this. At the very least, he was quite sure that the American MSM would never print anything negative about ‘The One.’My interpretation of this is that BO has a 'different' message for every audience. Add Comment

Here is a video of BO’s promise to attack Pakistan. My guess is you will not find this information anywhere else today.