Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Committed Carbon Emissions Are Rising Fast






Truthdig Bazaar
The Making of Global Capitalism

The Making of Global Capitalism

By Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch
$29.95

more items

 
Report

Obama Chooses Wall Street Over Main Street

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 25, 2008
Summers and Obama
AP photo / Charles Dharapak

They have his ear: Lawrence Summers, left, is just one veteran of Clinton-era deregulation who has found his way into Barack Obama’s inner circle.

By Robert Scheer

Maybe Ralph Nader was right in predicting that the same Wall Street hustlers would have a lock on our government no matter which major party won the election. I hate to admit it, since it wasn’t that long ago that I heatedly challenged Nader in a debate on this very point.

But how else is one to respond to Barack Obama’s picking the very folks who helped get us into this financial mess to now lead us out of it? Watching the president-elect’s Monday introduction of his economic team, my brother-in-law Pete said, “You can see the feathers coming out of their mouths” as the foxes were once again put in charge of the henhouse. He didn’t have time to expound on his point, having to get ready to go sort mail in his job at the post office. But he showed me a statement from Citigroup showing that the interest rate on Pete the Postal Worker’s credit card was 28.9 percent, an amount that all major religions would justly condemn as usurious.

Moments earlier, Obama had put his seal of approval on the Citigroup bailout, which his new economic team, led by protégés of Citigroup Executive Committee Chairman Robert Rubin, enthusiastically endorsed. A bailout that brings to $45 billion the taxpayer money thrown at Citigroup and the guarantee of $306 billion for the bank’s “toxic securities” that would have been illegal if not for changes in the law that Citigroup secured with the decisive help of Rubin and Lawrence Summers, the man who replaced him as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration.

As Summers stayed on to ensure passage of deregulatory laws that enabled enormous banking greed, Rubin was rewarded with a $15 million-a-year executive position at Citigroup, a job that only got more lucrative as the bank went from one disaster, beginning with its involvement with Enron in which Rubin played an active role, to its huge role in the mortgage debacle. It is widely acknowledged that Citigroup fell victim to a merger mania, which Rubin and Summers made legal during their tenure at Treasury.

Yet despite that dismal record of dismantling sound regulation, Summers has been picked by Obama to be the top White House economic adviser and another Rubin disciple, Timothy Geithner, is the new Treasury secretary. Geithner, thanks in part to the strong recommendation of Rubin, had been appointed chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank after working for Rubin and Summers during the Clinton years. Once at the New York Fed, he was the main government official charged with regulating Citigroup, a task at which he obviously failed. Yet over the weekend, it was Geithner who hammered out the Citigroup bailout deal with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and a very actively involved Rubin.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
As The Washington Post reported, Paulson had indicated last week that no further bailouts were planned before the new administration took office until “Rubin, an old colleague from Goldman Sachs, told Paulson in phone calls that the government had to act.” Rubin conceded in an interview with the Post that he had played a key role in the politics of the bailout.

This outrageous conflict of interest in which Rubin gets to exploit his ties to both the outgoing and incoming administrations was best described by Washington Post writer Steven Pearlstein: “The ultimate irony, of course, is that just as Rubin and Co. at Citi were being bailed out by the Bush administration, President-elect Barack Obama was getting set to announce a new economic team drawn almost entirely from Rubin acolytes.”

As opposed to the far tougher deal negotiated on the bailout of AIG, the arrangement with Citigroup leaves the executives, including Rubin, who brought Citigroup to the brink of ruin, still in charge. Nor is there any guarantee of the value of the mortgage bundles that taxpayers will be guaranteeing. That is because, as candidate Obama clearly stated in his major economics address back in March, the deregulation pushed though during the Clinton years ended transparency in banking.

Why then has he appointed the very people responsible for this disaster to now make it all better? Why not ask him? Heck, yes, it is time for the many of us who responded to his e-mails during the campaign to now challenge our e-mail buddy as to why he suddenly acts as if the interests of Wall Street and Main Street are one and the same.

Robert Scheer is editor in chief of Truthdig and the author of a new book, “The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.”

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Bush’s Follies Will Destroy Obama If He Lets Them

Next item: Bush’s Hoover Impression Flirts With Depression



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Wall Street Trader, October 24, 2009 at 3:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If it is true than he choose money and connections over the people in my opinion on this topic but go figure.

Report this

By Doug Tarnopol, December 5, 2008 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

Dear Robert:

Kudos to you for having the courage and intellectual honesty to write this article. It’s never easy to do that, and not that you should care what I or anyone thinks, but it was well done.

I would love to be wrong about Obama. I look forward to writing something analogous to your piece if and when that occurs. I’ve never wanted to be wrong about something so much in my life!

Best, Doug

Report this

By KDelphi, December 3, 2008 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

Jaki—I see what you are saying, but, you are fortunate to live where you can do these things. I do a garden every year (sure not now in the Rust Belt!)and we have a small community garden (I cant work either as much as I woudl like). My father’s place, about 5 acres, just sold for nothing—and the people who bought it are going to put condos on it—no food will be grown there anymore..I remember whole acres of pumpkins, watermelon, peppers, etc, all fertilized with rabbit and horse manure!

My sisters just couldnt afford to keep it anymore, and, I cant afford to live there. No one was going to “farm” it—no one “farms” anymore—its all agri-business…I think PE Obama has actually talked about cutting those subsidies, but only to those makng OVER $2.5 million a year! Way too high!

If we could grow more soy and less corn (mostly fed to cattle), more vegetable crops—but, if you watched Pollan, you know where we have to start with that—big agri-business!

I have worked in plenty of restaurants, mostly fast food. The amount they make you throw away is disgusting. You arent allowed to give it away , or, often take it home. They usually say, “well, what if they get sick and sue us”, or some other such inane thing. I got fired—twice , I think?—for giving it away (when throwing out the trash), or, trying to take it home.

The US lifestyle just seems to assume that things will just “keep on coming”...although Pollan is not a “food fascist” (which I appreciate), he does talk about the extravagent waste of resources such as water, grain, as well as antibiotics…also one of the biggest contributors to water and air pollution. A 2006 UN reported stated that the “world’s livestock generate more greenhouse gases than the entire transporatation industry”.

Again, as you probably read, he does not “insist” on giving up on any one food.(especially not all meat—although, if most people actualy SAW…) But, we have to know that the way the general US population eats is unsustainable..

Report this

By Jaki, December 3, 2008 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

There is a woman in San Jose, CA., as reported recently by one of those news mags (like 60 Min.), who has for six or so years been collecting fruit from the backyard trees of people who have abundance and can’t use it.  The first year, a couple of thousand pounds, this year 10 times that much.  Word spread. She created an organization (can’t remember the name, unfortunately—something like Abundant Harvest) Then she distributes it to food banks and individual poor people, with her growing team of volunteers.

Once a week I go to my local natural foods store and pick up large plastic bags of produce they are discarding, almost all of it still edible (they have new stuff coming in all the time).  I feed it to my chickens, but I often see other people sorting through it for themselves.  There is a lot of “waste’ that could be organized and distributed.

I live in a rich agricultural area where I see food left in the fields after two pickings that is still good.  It gets plowed under after a week or so. The orchards have tons of fruit left on the ground.

Restaurants are notoriously wasteful in terms of what they throw away to make way for “fresh” and the size of portions they give people, which rarely gets completely eaten.  A campaign to down-size portions in restaurants would go a long way to creating a surplus available for others, as well as smaller waistlines for those who can afford restaurants.

It is not difficult to grow a garden on a very small plot of land.  The food guru, Michael Pollan, recently on Bill Moyers’ Journal, said he grows all of his own veggies, and gives some away, in a garden box (or plot)  that is ten feet by 20 feet.  He also does it for spiritual reasons—staying tuned in to The Earth’s energy, and having direct contact with the life force that he takes into his body.  Plus, it nourishes his spirit to give away that which he has grown.  Many of us could do that.  Dig up those lawns!  Put in a veggie garden, share with your neighbors and those in greater need.  Adopt a family in your (or another) neighborhood.

Chickens are a great source of protein just in the form of eggs, which are one of our healthiest foods, especially if raised free range and organic.  I have been raising chickens for over 40 years.  I don’t eat them, just their eggs, but I get great joy from having them in my life.  They are very intelligent, interesting beings, with individual personalities. There is no better egg than one that was laid that morning by your own hens, who are fed organically and cruise around eating bugs and green stuff.
AND, they recycle just about everything you want to throw at them—all garbage—and create fertilizer for your garden.  Raise chickens and distribute the eggs to your adopted families.

I know these are very individualized ideas and do not address the root of the problem—elite class selfishness, power politics,  and unequal distribution of wealth.  We have to work on these things continuously over lifetimes.  I believe someday we will get there. 

However, we also can do small things to help others, individually and collectively.  There are many ideas out there and knowledge about what others have taken on and accomplished—community and neighborhood gardens, adopting individual families and taking them food and clothing, etc.  Let’s just put out more and more ideas and maybe some will take the ball and run with it.

The situation is desperate and will get more so.

We need to SHIFT our awareness from things we can do very little about in terms of life and death impact, though I do not deny it is important to speak truth to power and organize.  But at the same time, we can create space in our awareness and action to actively start DOING things that will help individuals and families survive in these dark times.

Think of how many hours you put into blogging.  Those hours in a garden will, I guarantee, bring you much more nourishment, physically, emotionally, spiritually.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 3, 2008 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Shift—Sadly, your question, “should someone steal to feed his or her starving children”, or themselves, has already been answered.

Check out Jeremy Scahill’s “Blackwater”. The people you saw shooting people during Hurricane Katrina, for “taking bread and pop”, that were shot? Yep.

The GOP sent them in, the Dem Governor deputized them, and, the Dem Mayor just let it happen.

I wonder if the people who sent money to Obama’s campaign, who, maybe now wish that they hadnt , are entitled to a refund that is donated to their local food bank…

Report this

By Folktruther, December 2, 2008 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

This hunger will get worse under Obama and there are worse things than hunger.  It is a product of unregulated globalization that will continue along with the wars that the US substitutes for economic efficiency. 

The worst is the hunger of children who cannot learn in school until fed. But war takes up the expenditures that would otherwise be spent on the population.  And the American power structure has militarized the police with SWAT teams and stationed twenty thousand American soldiers in the US for use on the American population.  So the US is prepared for food riots, in this country as in the others it occupies.

Report this

By Paul Lacques, December 2, 2008 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s a bit late to concede that Nader’s critique of
Obama was on the money.  The time to put pressure
on Obama was during the 2 year campaign for President. But the left was silent, so eager were they to avoid a Clinton or McCain presidency. 

Obama is likely to the right of Clinton, with a
mandate to continue that administration’s failed
policies, in a much more unstable era.  We’re getting
exactly who Obama said he was.  He conceded nothing
to environmentalists, peacemakers, or advocates for the working poor and the homeless.

Next time maybe we’ll take Ralph a bit more seriously, if we have the good fortune to
have a next time.

Report this

By Shift, December 2, 2008 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

Is starving with dignity in the wealthiest country in history a virtue? 

Should a father or mother with no financial options watch their children go hungry, or should they break the law and steal to feed them? 

Will Washington and State Governments wait until small decentralized revolutions (food riots) break out before focusing on and relieving hunger?  Probably!

Caring people are helping to the point of their own detriment by giving what they can and fasting in solidarity to provide what they can while most ignore the reality of serious hunger in America.

There will be no money infused at the bottom of the economic heap until the debate is changed to focus on the bottom.  That focus will not emerge in Washington but instead with us.  Rage on!

Report this
Clash's avatar

By Clash, December 2, 2008 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

People are hungry, it is up to us to show some solidarity and help those less fortunate, and government surely isn’t going to. Someone said “1 dollar from 20 million people should do it”, an easy exercise, well I am hard pressed to believe that 20 million people even give a shit.
But maybe that was just a comment from someone who believes they are entitled.

And by the way the shit started this time in 1963 on a Texas street.

So fact and figure away, and argue the merits of who said what the fact is it is going to get much worse before it gets better.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 1, 2008 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment

BTW, that $10,404 annual income is a measly $5.00 hr. for a single person.

Additionally, that $35,604 annual income for the family of eight translates as $2.14 hr. per person or $8.56 hr for the two “breadwinners”.  That’s assuming of course a 40 hour work week full-time, but of course that isn’t always the case at these “fire sale” wages, is it?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 1, 2008 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment

Hunger is at epidemic proportions and getting worse. From MSNBC:

“The 44-year-old food-stamp program, which was revised Oct. 1 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, in part to fight the stigma, has strict eligibility criteria. Benefits are intended to go only to households with net incomes at or below the federal poverty level, which ranges from $10,404 a year for single person to $35,604 for a family of eight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27827700/

>These incomes levels are EXTREMELY LOW making qualification for help out of the reach of many.  The income level is one aspect that needs changing.

An article from the LATIMES, highlights the situation:
Breaking the symbolically important 30-million mark comes on the heels of government data that showed that 11.9 million people went hungry in America at some point last year. That included nearly 700,000 children, up more than 50% from the year before.

Food pantries and other charitable organizations are also reporting an increase in demand from those in need. Visits to local pantries are up 20% to 100% over the last six months, and calls to the Capital Area Food Bank’s hunger hotline have jumped 248%. Most are from people who have never used food stamps or a pantry before, said Lynn Brantley, the organization’s president and CEO.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-food-stamps26-2008nov26,0,5485670.story

Another take from the “Bloomington Alternative”:
average food stamp allotment for one person is $21 a week. That means they get $3 a day and $1 per meal. Not quite the budget needed for a well-balanced diet. So, to bring awareness of this issue, town leaders participated in the Bloomington Food Stamp Challenge last week….

....Food stamp survival is cruelly uncertain,” Mayor Kruzan wrote. “At the end of this week, we participants will no longer worry about amortizing our groceries or restraining our restaurant visits. Our fellow citizens - those living the real deal - won’t share our good fortune.

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2008/11/30/9836

>He’s right.  It is cruel.  We have laws against cruelty to animals, aren’t we humans animals?

There was also this from CBN:
“Some wait over 12 hours,” he told CBN News. “We had a three-o’clock distribution today and I’ve seen people line up beginning at 2:30- 3 a.m…..”

.....This story line is playing out at churches and food pantries across the country, courtesy of an economy gone bad. More families are forced to cut back—and that includes groceries.

“More and more families are going a day or even two or three days without any food whatsoever,” McDonald explained.

The non-profit group Feeding America oversees 200 food banks across the country which supply 63,000 food pantries. This year, the pantries report demand for food is up by 20 percent. That translates into an average of 4 million people standing in line for food every week.”

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/485723.aspx

>The sad fact is WE ARE the richest country in the world. It’s sickening….  I guess “the owners” think more on the “pragmatic” line of thought…. you know, the one that says why feed them if they’re just going to die by being denied healthcare anyway…?  Or maybe they just feel that if you can’t live on your Social Security check…. well,... then you’ll die.  Then again, possibly the “pragmatic” contend that if you can’t figure out how to live “within your means” (that whole $8.00 hr.) then you’re just a “slacker” and your death is irrelevant.

It has to be one of these, since that is the direction we in which continue to move.

How many have already died?

Report this

By omniadeo, December 1, 2008 at 11:17 pm Link to this comment

“The Repubs talk brash, but the Dems talk a smoother game (like, “I feel your pain”, as the Dems bomb people in foreign lands).” - Joseph Anderson

So true, sir. The posters here haggle over the dwindling crumbs and the thin conceptual veneer of US politics. Left right center blah blah blah.

“Obama should not do that bad thing and play with those bad people!” “

“No he has to. It’s reality.”

Everybody’s right. He SHOULD NOT but he HAS TO. So what does that mean? That he has to?

Drop your precious ideologies and think about it while you watch the corporate raiders loot the populace to fight new foreign wars “justified” by more mysteriously well financed terrorist incidents.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 1, 2008 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment

Re: Shift

Your comment: “This is a strange thread.  Ego’s and personalities abound in comments, yet the issue of hunger in America relative to choosing Wall Street over Main Street garners not one comment.  I guess the poor are invisible not just to Washington but to ordinary people as well.  Not judging, it just strikes me as unusual.

I know what you mean.  It certainly isn’t true of many who post here, however it is definitely true of some.  Several post here with the intent to obfuscate and deter the voice of The People.  They attempt to undermine facts by talking “over” others in the hope that it isn’t obviously apparent that they inflate their ego daily by blowing extremely hard in that area of their anatomy where the sun don’t shine.

From my perspective the first step in addressing poverty is to STOP those who create it.  This would be Larry Summers by definition, although he’s not the only one.  Summers has already caused starvation in Lithuania and along with Furman in the Soviet Union as well, via “neo-liberal economic theory”.  These “theories” are really just academic verbiage used to qualify stealing, in your face corruption and worse.  Yet, these are some of the advisors Obama has chosen.

In this aspect, many of the comments on this particular thread were directed to this facet of the issue, not because we don’t care but because we do.

Report this

By Anar-peace, December 1, 2008 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

All I am asking from all of the forgoing outline is to give Obama just enough but reasonable length of time to see what he can or cannot accomplish. Thank you


____________________________________________

But in order for Obama to work it out; he has to understand the problem; and make it aware to the people.

There is absolutely nothing Obama can do to—prevent—the coming storm, from forcing the country into a depression.  Obama knows it; as well— as all the crooks in Congress know it. But, if they made it public; they would give some benefit and comfort to the people,  so they could prepare.

And, with him not being open with the American people; he is only benefiting the market insiders; and not the people.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

Sodium—With 75% (I think?) of the country expecting (almost) magic, out of President Obama, I fail to see how a few people posting oppositon is “standing in his way”! He is the PE, and can do as he pleases—if he has the nerve.

I am certain that most who are disappointed (or, who never “signed on”) are hoping to hell that PE Obama will surprise us . I, for one, would love to have to say, “Hey, I was wrong, This is ceratinly different than Bush, Clinton et al.” I wouldnt regret it in the least—there is too much at stake…                                                 

I am NOT giong to say “I told you so” top anyone—it actually is just too painful.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 1, 2008 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

D.E.Shaw (Hedge Fund and global financiers)
Lawrence Summers employer in 2006

http://www.jobsamiksha.com/company-it-de-shaw-india.html

D.E. Shaw Group
39th Floor, Tower 45 120 West Forty-Fifth Street New York, NY 10036 USA

http://www.deshaw.com/


I guess it just depends on how much respect you still have for Hedge Funds…

Profile
D.E. Shaw was started by David E. Shaw in 1988, after the Columbia professor (comp sci) left academia (1986) for Morgan Stanley. The privately held investment firm has long had a reputation for being both mysterious and heavily quantitative (although they do have a qualitative analysis practice). Shaw is no longer involved in the day-to-day operations of the firm.

The firm had $34BN in investment capital as of January 2008 and offices in New York, London, Silicon Valley, Houston, Kansas City, San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Hyderabad, India. Lehman Brothers purchased a 20 percent stake in the company in 2007

D.E. shaw is apparently known for some pretty nice Christmas parties; last year’s was at Cipriani’s and featured Blue Man Group. D.E. Shaw had 1,300 employees as of January, 2008

Also, 2007 “Hedge Fund of the Year”!! Yaah!

http://www.deshaw.com/articles/Risk.pdf

Summers helped negotiate a bailout of hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998.[Overall, the hedge fund’s employees skew heavily Democratic, contributing more than $200,000 to political candidates in the 2008 campaign cycle, according to the center. Only $2,000 of that went to a Republican: Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas.

The hedge fund also has gotten much more involved in Washington

The lastest from Politico
“... policymaking in recent years, contributing to the Managed Funds Association, the trade group that has led the charge on resisting increased regulation and taxation of hedge funds in Washington….
In 2007, the fund sold a 20 percent stake to Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy in September
“...$3000 to Barck Obama and $6000 to Hillary Clinton…”, according to the Center for Responsive Politics


Volcker’s record from 1979 to 1987 suggests what this “fresh perspective” will consist of. Unemployment in the United States reached 11.3 percent in 1982, double the level of 1975. The average wage of young workers fell 30 percent by 1987. Infant mortality, family violence, drug addiction and other concomitants of economic hardship soared.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/volc-n29.shtml

But the wealthiest 1 percent of the population saw a staggering 50 percent increase in their wealth during that period. That is why the American ruling elite remembers the Volcker years fondly, and why, acting through their servant Obama, the financial aristocracy has summoned the old reactionary for one last service in attacking the working class.


I guess it depends on whether you are part of the ruling class—or a fan of theirs…

Shift—I am not ignoring your posts. The Food Banks in my city are pretty empty…but, here in the Rust Belt, they have been geting that way for years. (In this country we should not even HAVE Food Banks, with all the fricking elites we have!) The poor look to be as disposable to Blue Dog Dems as to neo-con GOP…but, the “Stimulus Pckgs”, “tax rebates”, “health care insurance tax breaks”, etc. never do anything to help the poorest of the poor. And neither “party” seem to care at all…as a former social worker, I wish I knew what more to do..if there is to be change, it doesnt look to be coming from teh govt…

Report this

By Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, December 1, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert Scheer: “Maybe Ralph Nader was right in predicting that the same Wall Street hustlers would have a lock on our government no matter which major party won the election. I hate to admit it, since it wasn’t that long ago that I heatedly challenged Nader in a debate on this very point.”

I don’t mean to disparage Scheer and, to say the least, I have no great love for the egotistical white male, Ralph Nader, but a gnat with a lobotomy would have known this.

What a lot of liberals/progressivess/leftists engage in every four (presidential election) years is sheer (no pun intended) wanton fantasy (first of all that they’ve got “a peace candidate”, and second that they don’t have yet another servile servant of the financial elite who don’t greatly tend to prefer/pass/emplace legislation and ‘fixes’ that just make rich people richer, or let rich people kept their riches, or get us taxpayers to bail them out: socialism for the rich!).

Ya played yourself Robert. But you had plenty of liberal/progressive/leftist company.

All, I’ve said about that is that people like you all need people like me to later say, “I *TOLD* ya so…”—the same thing I said after the Nov 2007 elections when all you libs/progressives/lefties thought that the Dems were going to bring the troops home from the U.S’s greatest foreign policy debacle (bringing death, dislocation, and suffering to *MILLIONS* of people) that the Dems as a whole were hand-in-glove on with the Repubs.

See Scheer’s other commentary: “Change We Can Bank On” (Nov 18, 2008).

If the Dems (who’ve always shown that they can be baited [red-baited, black-baited, yellow-baited, Muslim-/Arab-baited, soft-on-war/terrorism-baited, etc.) by the Repubs on anything) ever do anything good, it’s only because circumstances eventually might *force* them.

But, besides that, at the presidential level, the Dems are merely the “Good Cops” to the Repubs “Bad Cops” game in their “Good Cop, Bad Cop” pas de deux.

As Thomas Frank (“What’s The Matter With Kansas” book) once said, but forgot himself as he drank the Obama Kool-Aid too (and I *told* him so), right along with you and others who should easily have known better (I mean, you guys have a lot more official credentials that *I* have: I just have a certain measure of common sense), ‘On issues of *major* military and economic policy, there is really little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.’ The Repubs talk brash, but the Dems talk a smoother game (like, “I feel your pain”, as the Dems bomb people in foreign lands).


Joseph Anderson

Berkeley, CA

Report this

By Sodium, December 1, 2008 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Subject:Important points Overlooked in “Obama Chooses Wall Street Over Main Street” By Robert Scheer.

I do have profound respect for the writings of Robert Scheer.His political analysis and his obvious acumen command such a respect,whether I agree or disagree with what he writes.He certainly is a genuine professional journalist.He seldom overlooks an important issue,trend,or just simply an un-visible point,in his well received political writings.

As far as I am concerned,all of the forgoing is true about the excellent writings of Robert Scheer.

However,as I reread his piece entitled “Obama Chooses Wall Street Over Main Street” I realized that he did overlook a few important points:

(1)In order to provide the reader with the correct complex picture of the current U.S. economics and financial difficult circumstances,one may choose to use a metaphor as a tool to achieve that goal.In one single word it is not a crisis but TSUNAMI,like the one that hit Indonesia in 2004 and thousands of people perished as a result.Hence,Obama has to navigate very carefully in an unchartered water,to avoid a possible drowning as he takes over on January
of 2009.Therefore,he has to hire the most experienced
and toughest minds in the field,even if such minds had failed once in one point in their historical careers.

(2)Robert Scheer’s article has also overlooked the fact that the very same persons who had failed lately to navigate correctly;and somehow have ended-up facing the the current economic/financial TSUNAMI, were the very same individuals who got the U.S out of
serious inflation/recesion, during the first Reagan’s term in 1980(Volcker) and also the very same individuals who had helped Bill Clinton achieving a surplus of approximately $500 billion as he departed the White House and handed it to baby Bush.Tragically,the latter has squandered it on phony wars so that the Military Industrial Complex and its off-spring derivatives of war profiteers such as Blackwater could continue fleecing the bankrupted U.S. treasury.
It is unfair to ignore the positive achievement of such individuals and concentrate only on their negative failures.

(3)Because of points (1) and (2) outlined above,it is wiser to hire time-tested and failure-toughened minds
to help in navigating with some degree of safety than hiring time-untested and failure-none-toughened in such terrible economic/financial TSUNAMI.

Final words:The purpose of writing this post is not to criticize the writing/analysis of Robert Scheer,but to call the attention of KDelphi,Ed Hagres,and Folktruther and all of the others whose phony names I have forgotten,and ask every one of them to try NOT to stare at one particular tree in the forest,but try to see the whole scene of the forest-meaning,to see the whole complex picture that Obama has to overcome,in order to achieve,for all of us,something of value.

All I am asking from all of the forgoing outline is to give Obama just enough but reasonable length of time to see what he can or cannot accomplish. Thank you.

Report this

By Jaki, December 1, 2008 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment

I think we should all make it a point to IGNORE Shift’s posts of 11/30 9:45 A.M., 11/30 2:21 P.M., and 12/1 5:41 A.M.

Oh, that’s right, we all ARE.  Hmmmmmmm.

I guess it is just so much more important to debate
subway cars and Clintonian Old Boys networks.

Don’t even want to think about what truth, real truth, not speculative BS, that Shift is pointing out, trying to help us face up to?

Perhaps a bit more challenging than ranting and raving about what hasn’t happened yet, what might happen, or what it might mean about what is sort of happening, even though we don’t know the reasons behind it all.

Hunger, massive massive hunger, right now.  Here, there and everywhere. 

But apparently not in the stomachs of we who are spending so much time writing posts to poop out our stuffed brains.

What if we shifted gears and really talked seriously, with genuine concern and compassion, sharing ideas for activism and confrontation, concerning this vital issue of life and death for millions?

Report this

By Maani, December 1, 2008 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

troublesum:

I am not arguing that the so-called “broken windows” theory does not hold.  Of course it does.  And the graffiti on the subway cars was one of half a dozen or so “broken windows” items that were targeted during that period.

However, your original statement seemed to suggest that it was SOLELY the elimination of subway graffiti that brought down the crime levels.  This is simply not so.  In all cases in which “broken windows” items were targeted, there was a concommitant increased police presence to “accentuate” the point.

One thing cannot be separated from the other in this regard: dealing with “broken windows” plus an increased police presence is what brought crime down; not just the former.

Peace.

Report this

By troublesum, December 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment

Maani
You should read what Gladwell wrote.  While the cars were off the tracks to be cleaned, the guys who were doing the grafetti actually came to the place late at night where the cars were being cleaned and tried to deface them again.  They did not want clean cars on the tracks.  Read what he wrote.  Your perception of what was taking place is distorted by the idea that more police means fewer crimes.  I think he may have a better understanding of what happened.

Report this

By Folktruther, December 1, 2008 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

Obama has said a lot of things, Ed Harges, as politicans do, but what he has done with only marginal exceptions is promote Bushite policies.  He has now assembled an experienced and high powered staff to expand the War on Terrorism, continue neolibealism, and continue the postmodern police state that the Bushites have errected.

The US president is now a military dictator, going to war whenever he chooses, however he chooses, with Congress and the Supreme Court being Potemkin institutions devoid of power.  Just as the Roman Senate remained as an institution devoid of power after the Emperor was institutionalized as a military dictator.  With the modern equivelent of bread and circuses to maintain power.

Report this

By Maani, December 1, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

troublesum:

“Gladwell said the drop in crime happened before more cops were put on the street.  I believe him.”

Gladwell was not even living in NYC at the time; he was in England.  I LIVED through that era, and RODE the subways during that time.  It is the height of ridiculousness for you to believe someone who wasn’t even here over someone who was and SAW WITH HIS OWN EYES exactly what occurred, and in what order.

Peace.

Report this

By Shift, December 1, 2008 at 6:41 am Link to this comment

This is a strange thread.  Ego’s and personalities abound in comments, yet the issue of hunger in America relative to choosing Wall Street over Main Street garners not one comment.  I guess the poor are invisible not just to Washington but to ordinary people as well.  Not judging, it just strikes me as unusual.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, December 1, 2008 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

re: Folktruther, November 30 at 9:55 am:

Well, FT, I think you are right to be disgusted with the direction Obama has signaled by his administration appointments and some of his other actions, even if you and I disagree about whether they add up to a new Bush term. Wall Street, the “defense” industry, and Israel will continue to have immense and poisonous influence on our government.

But there are some important differences. Just to choose one at random, Obama has, I believe, stated that he will try to get rid of the provision of the massively expensive prescription drug “benefit” which forbids the US government to negotiate with drug companies on price. This would hugely reduce the cost of the drug benefit, and it is something which could not have happened under Republican rule. There are many other pretty important and specific changes Obama has espoused which I think, in total, mean that this administration will not be “Bush III”.

On the other hand, if Obama’s “diplomacy” with Iran turns out to be just a formality on the way to the war so devoutly desired by Israel, anything good about Obama’s government will be swallowed up by the resulting catastrophe.

Report this

By slowsmile, November 30, 2008 at 11:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Although I completely agree with Sheer’s tenet of avoiding Wall Street advisers within the government, his piece - in its attempted critique of Laurence Summers by his association with Rubin - is poorly founded. Summers was the man who, in the Clinton administration, brought the National Debt down considerably. Summers also says what he thinks, and is wide open with his views, as illustrated by his contreversial time at Harvard.

And what of Volcker, another new high-level member of Obama’s economic team? To call him Wall Street’s man is laughable. Here is a man who doesn’t care about his reputation, who doesn’t care about Wall Street’s selfish wishes. His record during the recession of the Carter and Reagan administrations is record enough of that. He brought America out of recession - not by pandering to Wall Street - but by strangling the dollar supply. Directly opposite economic policies that Paulson and his brotherhood are attempting now.

Report this

By troublesum, November 30, 2008 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

Maani
Gladwell said the drop in crime happened before more cops were put on the street.  I believe him.

Report this

By Maani, November 30, 2008 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

Backbencher:

The transcripts of the debates are available online.

As for stump speeches, it is difficult to find specific citations.  I know that I heard both of them refer positively at different times to Bill Clinton’s overall economic legacy.

Peace.

Report this

By Passingthewind, November 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sodium,

You sentiments emulate mine, people expect a Disneyland answer to their request, like God will guide them.

Report this

By Shift, November 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

Although I read all of the comments, I personally have difficulty understanding how Washington, knowing of the extensive hunger American’s are experiencing and the foreclosure of millions of homes does not affect them.  How can a government of the people provide 7.6 Trillion Dollars to the wealthy financial interests and absolutely nothing to the people?  It seems to me that all of the debate about political personalities is meaningless under these conditions.  Something is so very wrong with this situation.  I can read between the lines and evidence clearly shows that poor people in America are disposable.  There is a Wall Street and Washington led war on the poor and weak, and that increasingly is the Middle Class too.  It seems to me that NOW is a DO or DIE moment.  Wait any longer to take hard but legal action and we will be consumed.  If we can’t even feed hungry American’s can we have faith that we can do anything?  I don’t think so.

Report this

By Back bencher, November 30, 2008 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Maani, November 30 at 12:50 pm #

Not so.  Actually, both Obama and Hillary noted this at various times during the debates, as well as in stump speeches.  You may simply have missed it.

I read four newspapers a day, and watch newshour most nigyhts, but I missed it also… Funny though, I don’t see the references you and Cyrena are always requesting… did I miss that too?

Of course, I was in the business of making small appliances inin the USA in the 1990’s and business was not particularly good in Utica.

Report this
Clash's avatar

By Clash, November 30, 2008 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

When we get to March or April of next year and the PATRIOT act is still in place you will know exactly what type of leader we have put in control of our country.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 30, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

Folk—I knew some of this. I knew Summers was a crappy human being—I didnt know he was a political idiot…in any case, Obama certainly isnt one! He is being praised as “bold” by the likes of neo-cons! Just listen to them…they are laughing at progressives. It is true.

I can hear others’ televisions and radio…

Republicasn strategists are thrilled.

Summers is said to be “US’s Yeltsin”—who was placed in office by the Clinton machine—yep, he looks really bad, true. (World Bank, dumping pollution on Third World countries fiasco, measuring a person’s worth as to their earning potentional to determine how long someone shoudl live, backing Yeltsin’s ignoring the will of Parliament, and selling Russia’s resources at fire sale rates, further causing economic collapse—-great!)http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/62701/larry_summers_s_ghosts

IRW—You must also be against the Wall St Bailout, too then—for yourself , as well. I am against both bailouts , as wel as capitalism. But, taking advantage of the working class bailout of wall st while crying over the automakers attempts , is hypocritical.

Sodium—This is not a question of “capability”—it is a question of desire and willingness to go against the grain. I do not see it.Yes, symbolism is there. Not much else.

Report this

By Maani, November 30, 2008 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

scottkn:

Not so.  Actually, both Obama and Hillary noted this at various times during the debates, as well as in stump speeches.  You may simply have missed it.

Peace.

Report this

By scottkn, November 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I noticed cyrena, is talking about how great the economy was under clinton, not suprisingly these facts were never raised during the primary when her boy Osame was competing againist clinton, but now that Osame’s cabinet is clinton 2, all the sudden the clinton years were great economically. Now as far the surpulus and economy under clinton goes, can anyone say social security surpulus, dot.con, and Enron accounting. But don’t worry cyrena, Alan Greenspan called clinton the best republican president we ever had, and if Osame has anything to say about it bernake will be calling him the best republican president we ever had.

Report this

By scottkn, November 30, 2008 at 11:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Folk:what is becoming obvious that true progressives will be sleazed by Dem progressives in the same way that Gop and media sleazes smear Dems.  Truthers like Cyrena will be the Ann Coulter of the Dems, or the Rush Libargher.  Progressives have to understand this and not let it bother them.

You are so right on my friend.

Report this

By scottkn, November 30, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Sheer writes: Maybe Ralph Nader was right in predicting that the same Wall Street hustlers would have a lock on our government no matter which major party won the election.

Of course Nader was right, he is usually always right and more importantly a man of his principles which is why I voted for him for president. But hey Osame voters, look on the bright side, at least you get Hillary for Sect. of State and Bob Gates at Defense, no if they isn’t change you can believe in, well then I just don’t what is.

P.S. I am laughing so hard at you Osame supporters right now it hurts, especially you cyrena, but don’t worry we all know you are like the 20 percent of voters who still approve of Bush, no what Osame doesn’t you will defend him and worship him till the end, its the American way isn’t it.

Report this

By Maani, November 30, 2008 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

troublesum:

“In his book THE TIPPING POINT, Michael Gladwell wrote about the effect on crime which resulted in cleaning up all the subway cars in NY city.  Before they were cleaned up it was becoming unsafe to ride the subway in ny.  After the cleanup, crime virtually stopped on the subway.  They discovered that the criminal type were less likely to commit crimes in an environment which was respected by the people in that environment who cared enough to keep it clean.  The project took several years to complete.  Surely there are other cities in the nation which could benefit from similar projects which would require little planning.”

I’m guessing you don’t live in NYC.  (I do.)  What Gladwell apparently fails to note is that at the same time that the graffiti was being cleaned up, the Transit Police increased its presence manifold, both within the system itself, and outside subway stations.

Thus, to suggest that the elimination of the graffiti by itself caused a drop in crime is absurd; clean cars or dirty, if law enforcement had not also been beefed up during that time, the drop in the crime rate would have been minimal, and perhaps insignificant.

Peace.

Report this

By Folktruther, November 30, 2008 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges- I DO think Obama is Bush 111, that the continuity that Obama is pursuing will lead him to promote Bushite policies.  And this is not because he is stupid, ignorant or doctrinaire, but because he accepts the political counterrevolution in the American power system that the Bushites accomplished.

Bush himself might have been doctinaire and ignorant, but he was by no means stupid, nor was Cheney, Rumsfield, etc.  They successfully subverted the bourgeois Democracy of the US without critics fully undestanding and saying publically what they were doing. 

Just as Rome was transformed from a Republic to an Empire with the institutions intact, drained of power, so the President is now a military dictator, as the Roman Emperor was, with a powerless Congress and Supreme Court retaining a facade of the Democracy.

Obama accepts this reality and is consolidating it.  It’s policies are perverted to support Israeli imperialism as well as US imperialism.  So Dem Insiders and Zionists distort your arguments and set up straw men and attack those.  This is the future of the Dem party, which is increasingly adopting the Gop and Rush Limbargher approach to politial discourse.  They have to, because of the conflict of the Elite conensus and the population consensus.

Report this

By Shift, November 30, 2008 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

What is wrong with this picture?  Financial institutions get loans and guarantees for 7.6 Trillion Dollars and food pantries get zero Dollars.  There is no argument here.  The score is wall street 1000% and the hungry, minus 1000%.  The food pantries and the people they serve are in deep trouble, yet to Washington they remain purposefully invisible.  There are no special sessions of Congress to address hunger, and there are no speeches from the President Elect to address hunger.  Fact: Wall Street Wins!!!

Report this

By Sodium, November 30, 2008 at 10:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Subject:Why I voted for Obama?

Although I have known specifically the short comings of Obama and I have even filed them with their complete details,I have voted for him and I will do it again if the whole election has to be run all over again.

The question that is valid to raise is:WHY?

I have voted for Obama for ONE SINGLE reason:

I was/am fully convinced that he would/will be capable of STOPPING the disastrous bleeding in blood and treasures that started,eight years ago,by the neoconservatives/uncle Cheney/baby Bush.

If he succeeds in just STOPPING the bleeding,I will be satisfied and will NOT consider voting for him was a waste.

With all candor,I did not(and I do not)expect Obama to succeed in getting the U.S. out of its current monumental and massive problems,because of the huge foreign debt.Needless to say that the recent bailout of the Wall Street,in the tune of $700 Billion,just added more mud to a very muddy situation.And wait/see
what else needed to be bailed out beside the automobile industries which are in the waiting lane,for the last three weeks.

The worst part of the whole mess is the fact that the
Federal Reserve Bank keeps printing paper currencies
that are worthless.Questions:

How long the Federal Reserve will continue to deceive itself?

How long the Federal Reserve will be able to continue
deceiving the American taxpayers and the rest of the world?

HOW LONG?

Please,please and more pleases,help Obama to succeed in just one SINGLE problem:

STOP THE BLEEDING IN BLOOD AND TREASURES.PERIOD.IF HE
SUCCEEDS IN HEALTH CARE,RESTORING FIRM ADHERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION,JOBS,ETC…WILL BE A BIG PLUS AND MOST WELCOME.

And I do not expect much more in the next four years.
Most likely,the current mess that Obama will inherit may require several generations of vigilant/caring Americans to clean.

May the future show that Barak Obama has been up to the task,all along,from the very start.It was almost two years ago,in a very called February day,when he declared that he would be a candidate for the Presidency of the United States Of America,from Springfield,Illinois,the town of Lincoln and the land of Abraham Lincoln,a great American President.The symbolism is there.Let us just extend a helping hand to Obama to turn the symbolism into reality…..
WHO KNOWS?

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 30, 2008 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

ITW writes:

“Stop thinking Obama is stupid, ignorant and doctrinaire like Bush is…”, etc.

For the record, ITW, I voted for Obama, was glad he won, given the alternative, and have never said, nor would ever say, that he’s just as bad as Bush. Once again, you grossly exaggerate my position, then attack the straw man.

It is possible to be deeply dissatisfied with Obama’s administration choices, and deeply outraged at certain other of his actions - such as going to Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman in 2006 - without for one moment thinking that Obama is “Bush III” or whatever.

I’ve had enough of this exchange; you are not addressing your arguments to me, but apparently to someone else by the same name.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 30, 2008 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, November 29 at 10:45 pm #

ITW, what got us into Iraq is the same mindset that can so easily drag us to war against Iran. Obama has completely signed onto the alarmist lies about the non-existent nuclear threat from Iran.

So see, it doesn’t matter if he genuinely plans to get us out of Iraq. He, like so many of the creatures of the Washington “consensus”, is always against the last war - the one that everybody now knows was a crock of crap - while he joins in hyping the next “threat”, which is no less of a crock, promoted by the same people who sold us the previous crock.

Obama opposed the Iraq war before he was in the Senate, but once in the Senate, he voted and orated on all matters concerning the Middle East in such a way that we can be pretty sure that, had he been in Congress when it was time for that fateful war authorization vote in the fall of 2002, he would have voted yea right along with Hillary.
******************************************

Do you form your views and then never change based on the changing situation?  Didn’t you notice that Iran reached out to Obama and he hasn’t slapped away their hand like Bush did, repeatedly.

Stop thinking Obama is stupid, ignorant and doctrinaire like Bush is. There’s no evidence of that.  Idiots here are calling him Bush III. I say “Idiots” because they are clearing ignoring the facts that EVERYTHING about the President-Elect is different than President Colonel Blimp.

Report this

By troublesum, November 30, 2008 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

MSNBC is reporting that Obama is meeting with “the brass” to “reassure them.”  Apparently his promise to increase military spending and to lay waste to any country which dares to oppose us wasn’t enough to calm their fears that he doesn’t love all things military.  There’s that speech he gave five years ago against the iraq war which scared hell out of them.  They’re starting to worry about where their next war is coming from.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 29, 2008 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

ITW, what got us into Iraq is the same mindset that can so easily drag us to war against Iran. Obama has completely signed onto the alarmist lies about the non-existent nuclear threat from Iran.

So see, it doesn’t matter if he genuinely plans to get us out of Iraq. He, like so many of the creatures of the Washington “consensus”, is always against the last war - the one that everybody now knows was a crock of crap - while he joins in hyping the next “threat”, which is no less of a crock, promoted by the same people who sold us the previous crock.

Obama opposed the Iraq war before he was in the Senate, but once in the Senate, he voted and orated on all matters concerning the Middle East in such a way that we can be pretty sure that, had he been in Congress when it was time for that fateful war authorization vote in the fall of 2002, he would have voted yea right along with Hillary.

Report this
Clash's avatar

By Clash, November 29, 2008 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

Well, congress will be back in session soon, on the agenda will be the next portion t of the great robbery. Ford, Chrysler and of course General Motors will be back hat in hand, hopefully arriving by train this time.
Is Just me or does irony of bailing out corporations that played a major part in the down fall of so many South American country’s seem a bit ironic.
I wonder if after they get their socialized bailouts they will still scream loudly for the free market economy, or just start the torturing and disappearing right away.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 29, 2008 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

Jim C.
Try READING my posts before you attack me.  I am against most deregulation and in favor of most regulation.  The last 8 years have been disastrous and a mis-use of both.

Nor am I in favor of the government neglecting the public good.  I read a few days ago that there’s a town near the Silicon Valley where the houses go for $2million and up, but there are potholes everywhere since the residents prefer to bust up their cars rather than pay the taxes necessary to fix their local infrastructure.  Yeah, I think this is insane.

But I am NOT in favor of government ownership of businesses.  But I am in favor of a new national movement to fix the infrastructure that is already crumbling.  Bridges that collapse and roads, canals and levees that fail are INEXCUSABLE in our nation.  Hospitals that cannot treat the sick, a health care system that puts profit above all, even if it means some people die who could be saved is sickening.

Even in Bushland, Texas, vast windfarms are running ‘way below capacity because they can’t get enough high-tension lines built to carry the clean electricity to the rest of the nation.

And I also believe the government MUST re-regulate pollution controls, strongly and with draconian force if needed.  Nobody should have the right to poison the water, air and ground beneath us.

If you think that makes me a neo-con, you need a new dictionary.

Report this

By Dick Kaiser, November 29, 2008 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We can put Mr. Robert Scheer toward the head of the line of pencil pushers who stoke the outrage of the Left (I’m a proud member most of the time) for a thousand days and then dutifully (?) turn corporatist a fortnight before a national election to the corporatist candidate who is least offensive to their sensibilities.

I applaud his candor in the first sentence of this piece. He knows Nader has been right all along. In fact, Nader has held “majoritarian” positions for the past eight years.  Sadly, few in the super Left have the courage (great exception is Chris Hedges, bless you, mensch!) to hold to their principles and go to the Dark Side when their paychecks (?) are on the line.

I do applaud Scheer for another reason.  His piece written on the eve of the election throwing his not inconsequencial weight to Obama made me respond at Common Dreams with such abject disappointment that I was banned from blogging there! After a few moments of grieving over my loss of access at CD, I realised that there are other venues for trying to tell the truth.  Why not at TRUTHdig?

Report this

By truedigger3, November 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

My best appreciations and regards to outraged, KDelphi, Folktruther and Anar-peace and all the people who want REAL CHANGE.
About Cyrena, maani, Inherit the Wind and all the
people who still cling to a floating straw and claim
it is a real boat I say abandon all hope for now.
Under Obama there will be no change in Washington D.C. and business will be as usua and may be worse.
The gang is wearing a very deceptive mask now!!

Report this

By Jim C, November 29, 2008 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the wind , what exactly does this mean ” radical left-wing “progressive” neo-Marxism “? Do you mean ” radical ” like actually trying to get some rules back in the game and perhaps wanting the piles of legalized bribes out along with the wall street hacks that wallow in selfish self interest ? And ” Some of these appointees were/are part of the problem - but they’re taking very different jobs now “. Really , what different jobs are you refering to ? Summers has been named an ” economic advisor ” , may I ask how that is different from his old job ? You remember , the one where he was essentually an ” economic advisor ” to Clinton , where he helped Grahm and Rubin push through disasterous ” economic reform ” or Obamas shiney new treasury secretary who just happens to be a protege of Rubin and holds views so close you couldn’t see light between them . If feeling that this ” new bunch ” stinks to high heaven and praying that he would actually put some people on his economic team that were’nt steeped in vile , filthy , failed , fascist , plutocratic economic snake oil makes me a ” Neo Marxist radical , then sign me up , that’s where I want to be . I do know where I don’t want to be . Back in the conservative , corporate run ,trickle down cesspool that these conservative Ayn Rand , Arthur Laffer , Milton Friedman ( Larry Summers ) types would drag us into . Yep , if that makes me a Marxist pinko commie sign me up , I want off this conservative train wreck .

Report this

By Folktruther, November 29, 2008 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, Summers is a political idiot.  He managed to enrange the Harvard faculty, no radical enclave, to expell him in a few years.  After getting the prestigious names in the Black Studies caususes to leave, he attributed the low number of women as scientists to their genetic inferiority.  Hell, even Rush Limbargher would know better.

But the mass media keeps saying how smart he is, over and over, so this neoliberal Zionist Rubin-clone is assumed to possess talents that no one has every seen him display.  He was one of the deregulators that got the US into its credible financial mess.  Only a Vichy Democrat or a Zionist would defend him.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 29, 2008 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther is right—-Anar-peace has some good points,as did Outraged, troublesum, etc. and all the Obama defense league can do is call people names, tell them how stupid they are. Its all a stunt, for lack of any substantive arguments. Nader was right about some things too. To not admit it, and just keep circling like a tag team, is to miss everyones’ points on purpose.

This isnt funny at all. People like Summers are very frightening. He doesnt give a damn about anyone but himself.

Anybody read any of the links here? There is some really good stuff. It doesnt fit the duopoly, sorry, I forgot.

The life of our country—and much of the world—depends on progressives keeping their promises that, if Obama was elected, he would be “influenced ” to change”. Waiting is useless.Criticizing the team a PE chooses is called free speech. I can just imagine if, before the election , Id said “I’m afraid Obama wil apopint HRC, Summers, Gates…”?? Obama supporters would have protested to the rooftops. What bullshit this is.

The Obama defense will become very ernest, cruel, lots of cussing, and, then, we’ll settle back into the US duopoly’s bullshit..

Asking for “
change” that was promised is not “revolutionary”, although we could use a little among these kiss ass Democratic loyalists!@

BTW—Summers is a horribel person. I dont care if he is smart or not. We have yet to have a truly “stupid” persident. Hasnt done us much good has it?

If this was anyone but Obama making these appointments, (even HRC, who some now defend!)—-just imagine..the original argument concerning Obama’s appointments was the article—not some individual Nader of third party supporter.

How ridiculous!

Report this

By Folktruther, November 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

Obama does move the historical discourse forward.  Instead of opposing Bush Gops with the similar Dems as the alternative, it is now possible to oppose Obama with a possible genuine left alternative, whatever it turns out to be.  This would involve and ideological split between the pro-Dem leaders and anti-Dem leaders.  As illustrated by TD truthers.

What this would entail ideologically and organizationally has yet to be worked out.  But what is becoming obvious that true progressives will be sleazed by Dem progressives in the same way that Gop and media sleazes smear Dems.  Truthers like Cyrena will be the Ann Coulter of the Dems, or the Rush Libargher.  Progressives have to understand this and not let it bother them.

In the civil rights movement, young African-American girls were warned and strengthed in conscious raising sessions agaisnt the racist smears they could expect in progressive operations. 

This sleaze will also occur in the progressive split because that is all pro-impealists or pro-Zionists CAN do, since they cannot appeal to reason, evidence, common decency and elementary justice.  Because what they are supporting are ultimately Bushite policies, and the media deceit that helped implement them.

Report this

By troublesum, November 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

In his book THE TIPPING POINT, Michael Gladwell wrote about the effect on crime which resulted in cleaning up all the subway cars in NY city.  Before they were cleaned up it was becoming unsafe to ride the subway in ny.  After the cleanup, crime virtually stopped on the subway.  They discovered that the criminal type were less likely to commit crimes in an environment which was respected by the people in that environment who cared enough to keep it clean.  The project took several years to complete.  Surely there are other cities in the nation which could benefit from similar projects which would require little planning.

Report this

By troublesum, November 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

Even artists were hired by the government to produce artwork for public buildings.  People were hired to clean up and beautify public parks and national parks for instance.  This is the kind of thing that does not require an inordinate amount of planning.

Report this

By troublesum, November 29, 2008 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

Maani
“Overnight” is your word, not mine.  Road repair, bridge repair or replacement, ect., these things are needed badly in every state in the nation and do not require a lot of advance planning.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 29, 2008 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

Re Maani:

Your comment: “So you cannot (or at least should not) make some direct comparison between the two times.

Second, to say “It would be a very simple matter” is so patently absurd that I don’t even know how to address it.  “Simple” to whom?  YOU?  Troublesum, the Queen Goddess Bufu of All Things Economic?”

Here we go with the dictator rants.  Of course one can make direct comparisons, what are you talking about…?  That’s what history is for.  No one is claiming that it’s exactly the same… well, except you, but why you’d put yourself there is beyond me.  Illogical.

Concerning it being a “simple” thing to employ people through the use of government infastructure projects, troublesum is correct, it is not that difficult.  But to do something like that WOULD be difficult with liars, cheats and the basically incompetent in charge.  For this reason a portion of your premise COULD apply, however it isn’t necessary to engage these types and without them it would work very easily.

Also, you shouldn’t project YOUR inability to attain quality standards on others who would have no problem coordinating such a plan.  I’ve known high-schoolers who could do it.  In fact, our armed forces know full well that logistics CAN be handled by young qualified decent people.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 29, 2008 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

Re: Cyrena

Your comment: “Well, I got off track, but my point was that if I narrowed my opinion of Hillary to just that instance alone, or even her campaign rhetoric alone, I would be dismissing the fact that she DOES have these skills and experience, as long as she doesn’t go all rouge on us, or try to follow her own agenda.”

Cheney had the “skills and experience” to be vice-president, but he engaged in all types of illegalities and accepted sub-par standards to suit his agenda.  Yet Bush selected him as his running mate.  Why have you completely ignored Summers’ background and consistently used the “skills and experience” mantra to qualify him?

For the record, your assertion here is incorrect:
folks like Outraged now designating Larry Summers as the most dangerous person in the world.”

What I said was: “Larry Summers is dangerous for America.”  AND, “Very dangerous man.”

As to the “most dangerous person in the world”....?  Well… that would certainly be a large contest and it would be difficult to determine a winner given the certain overload of candidates.  Still, I have to admit, Summers would definitely be a contestant….absolutely.

BTW, it makes you appear less than honest when you purposefully twist and skew others comments to fit you worldview.  As yet you haven’t addressed the very real issues concerning Summers suspect background.  Again from Alternet:

“He worked for 10 months as a top analyst in President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers when his mentor, Martin S. Feldstein, was running it, and his colleagues don’t recall him venting anti-Reagan heresies then ....

....In 1990, Lithuania, a restive Soviet republic seeking independence, hired Summers to advise on that country’s economic transformation. Poor Lithuania had no idea what it got itself into. This was Summers’s first opportunity to tackle a country in economic crisis and put his wunderkind theories into practice. The results were literally suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania’s suicide rate was 26.1 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers got his hands on Lithuania’s economy, life became so unbearable under the economic transition that the suicide rate nearly doubled to 45.6 per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in transition. In fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting something particularly harsh and brutal about the economic transition in that country as opposed to the others, where suffering and pain were common….

...Summers’s other favorite man in Russia was Anatoly Chubais—who consistently ranks at the top of Russia’s “ most hated man” polls. Chubais was executor of the Russian government’s privatization program, in which state companies worth tens of billions of dollars were handed over to insiders for a fraction of their worth in blatantly rigged auctions.

Unbelieveably, there’s more in the article.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106553/keep_larry_summers_as_far_as_possible_from_the_u.s._treasury/?comments=view&cID=1056189&pID=1055698

ITW and Maani, what is your perspective regarding these disturbing facts regarding Summers.

Report this

By Maani, November 29, 2008 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

troublesum:

“Well I did hear of something called the WPA which was created by FDR during the last depression under which upwards of 15 million people were employed to work on public infrastruction projects…It would be a very simple matter to employ at least 6 million people to do something about it.”

First, although we are certainly in an economic crisis the likes of which we have not seen perhaps since the Depression, that does not make the two zeitgeists equal; i.e., there are factors involved in the current crisis that are different from the Depression.  So you cannot (or at least should not) make some direct comparison between the two times.

Second, to say “It would be a very simple matter” is so patently absurd that I don’t even know how to address it.  “Simple” to whom?  YOU?  Troublesum, the Queen Goddess Bufu of All Things Economic?

Unless you can either cite an economist who has suggested that “it would be a very simply matter” to create 6 million jobs virtually overnight, or you yourself have some amazing plan for doing so, please stop making ex cathedra pronouncements about subjects on which you have little or no undrestanding.

Peace.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 29, 2008 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, November 29 at 9:01 am #

re:  Inherit The Wind, November 29 at 7:41 am:

What I would like to see in the way of change is nothing nearly approaching your “neo-Marxist” caricature of my position, ITW. But at a minimum, the change that’s required is in the “mindset” (Obama’s word) that got us into the Iraq war, for example. That’s exactly the mindset that you support, ITW, even though you claim to oppose that war. You can’t bear to see the contradiction between your superficial opposition to that war and the mindset which you exemplify and which, by his choice of personnel, Obama has signaled he won’t disturb.
***********************************

Yeah, right. You still are hung up on the idea that “change” means what YOU want it to mean, not what Obama SAYS “change” means.

I have seen NO evidence that Obama isn’t going to act to get us out of Iraq.  Even leaving Gates doesn’t change that. Gates is a fairly competent technocrat who follows instructions.  He has NEVER been sanguine about the Iraq war or Rumsfeld’s pursuit of it.

You have NO idea what I think about the Iraq war. If you did you would never make such a moronic claim about me.  I want us OUT of there, with the least damage possible.  Just yanking the knife out willy-nilly may lead to worse damage.  But the goal needs to be SET by the next administration to extract US forces, to turn the gazillion-dollar bases we built there over to legitimate Iraqi forces.  We need to back away from the neo-con concept of a permanent presence in the ME.

Do you want a skilled surgeon to extract that knife, taking the time necessary, stitching and cleaning the wound as he goes, but always with the goal of removing it safely so it can heal?

Or do you want Barney the Bone-Setter to just yank it out and piss in the wound and hope like hell it doesn’t get infected and gangrenous? (remember: urine was the only disinfectant available to most people for thousands of years)

(Let’s remember: McCain’s solution was to leave the knife in for 100 years….)

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, November 29, 2008 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

Ed, I fear your preoccupation with the word “caricature” may have led you to bite my finger before looking at where my text was pointing (a fate I seem to share with Inherit the Wind)!  This means that you ended up demonstrating one of the key points I was trying to make, which is that difference means something different to each of us.  The other key point is that those who are most effective at “delivering change,” particularly to a culture of instant gratification (which I accuse United States culture of being), turn out to be demagogues.  (I also suspect that those who are most “romantic” about revolution tend to be the first victims of demagoguery.)  If you follow some of my hyperlinks, you will see that I am more afraid of Palin emerging as a demagogue than I am of this happening to Obama;  but I am too skeptical to discount the latter possibility.  Regardless of who the candidate may be, the strongest measure for preventing demagoguery is a clear-headed sense of reality that is never afraid to question someone else’s article of faith.  The lack of that sense of reality is as responsible for the economic crisis as it is for the mess of our ongoing military engagements.  I see Obama as making a serious effort to restore it;  and, given that he has yet to take the Oath of Office, that is a good enough sign for me that change is in the works!

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 29, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

re:  Inherit The Wind, November 29 at 7:41 am:

What I would like to see in the way of change is nothing nearly approaching your “neo-Marxist” caricature of my position, ITW. But at a minimum, the change that’s required is in the “mindset” (Obama’s word) that got us into the Iraq war, for example. That’s exactly the mindset that you support, ITW, even though you claim to oppose that war. You can’t bear to see the contradiction between your superficial opposition to that war and the mindset which you exemplify and which, by his choice of personnel, Obama has signaled he won’t disturb.

Report this

By troublesum, November 29, 2008 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

In her book THE DARK SIDE, Jane Meyer says that the practice of extraordinary rendition began under Clinton with his full knowledge of course.  Is it torture when democrats do it?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 29, 2008 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, November 29 at 5:38 am #

replying to Stephen Smoliar, November 29 at 4:55 am:

Stephen, it’s not fair to characterize those of us who wanted Obama to make good on his promise of “change” as hotheads braying for “revolution”.

Pointing out Obama’s total failure to reflect this call for change (*his* word) in his choice of personnel is not the same thing as wishing that Obama had undertaken some sort of violent and impetuous upheaval of the status quo.
********************************************

Y’know, Ed, you really must listen to more than just the buzzword.  Sure, Obama used “change” as his theme.  But it was to continuously remind us that we MUST have a change from Bush policies if we are to survive.  It led McCain to angrily state that if Obama was running against Bush he should have run in 2004. 

But Obama DID tell us what he meant by “change” and he’s doing it.  YOU don’t like it because what YOU want for “change” isn’t what Obama’s delivering.  No, it’s not. And Obama never said it would be.

“Change” does not necessarily mean radical left-wing “progressive” neo-Marxism. If Obama had been running on that ticket (and Palin and McCain desperately tried to PAINT him as such), he would never have been elected and we would all be looking at an old, sick man who would have died in office and left us with a female “Cuffy Meigs”, Sarah Palin.

Report this

By troublesum, November 29, 2008 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

Maani
Well I did hear of something called the WPA which was created by FDR during the last depression under which upwards of 15 million people were employed to work on public infrastruction projects.  My grandfather was one of them.  The nation’s infrastructure is in rough shape as everyone knows.  It would be a very simple matter to employ at least 6 million people to do something about it.  But you see the money has all been given to the banks who have been handing it out to their shareholders with no public accounting and with the blessing of Obama, Rubin, Summers, et al.  Have another drink. lol peace harmony…

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 29, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

I love it. Especially the part about resisting the obvious need to change. The irony of these same frequent posters wanting a revolution does not escape me.  Clearly they do NOT want a revolution, and just as obviously, they wouldn’t recognize a revolution if it bit ‘em in the ass and tore out a few chunks.  We’re in the midst of a revolution, and they don’t even see that.

The reason? Only THEIR worldview counts, and it’s all determined by their political geography, and where they ‘think’ they’re located, and where they ‘think’ everyone else is located. I think they need a better compass or other navigational system, because the way things are set-up here, we ALL suffer from pockets of ignorance and misperception, in a collective type way.

These people aren’t a “majority” and that’s a good thing, because the mindset is REACTIONARY, which is really no different than the Dick Bush admin that we have now.
*******************************************

Rarely does someone write something that just tickles me into a real belly-laugh with its perfection!  Cyrena, this time you did it! (I guess that makes you the “bitch and moan” Queen, no? Or does Outraged get that?  I’m laughing with you, not at you!)

Yeah I’ve pointed out many times the importance of Clinton’s balancing the budget, and doing it with a Re-thug-lican Congress determined to oust him was a major achievement.  And it was Bush’s UN-doing of that the brought down the house of cards.

Here I’m going to voice a shibboleth: Not all deregulation is bad, and not all regulation is good.  And, sometimes, what looks good may be bad. I’m still not sure why allowing banks to cross state lines is a bad thing—but I AM sure why allowing banks to play in the stock market is. But they are not one and the same. But dividing how savings banks, commercial banks, investment banks, and merchant banks are allowed to manage their money, ie OTHER peoples’ money is critical.  The kicker is we learned NOTHING from the S&L;crisis of the 80’s.  But we CAN tell banks that ATMs SAVE them money so stop charging us for using them. And we CAN regulate, under the usury laws all the crackpot fees they invent on accounts and C/Cs

I’m not at all bothered by HRC as SoS. I think she’s smart, a quick study, and understands that ALL foreign relations are inter-related.  And I have NO doubt Obama will be the boss in this administration. None.

Saying that, I’ll say this: I’m rarely happy with ANY President’s picks for SoS, because they always pick fellow politicians “with Foreign Policy experience” rather than career Foreign Service professionals. FSOs are very different than pols and have been attacked since Jesse Helms made a mini-career out of pushing for political hacks to be ambassadors instead of FSOs when it was critical to have an FSO there.  See, hacks are good for ambassadorships to countries we have good relations with.  FSOs are critical to go to nations we do NOT have good relations with—it’s their job to improve them.  This is why Ambassador Joe Wilson was SO important—and why the Bush mafia attacked him.

But so many posters here remind me of the late 60’s with the colorful fist posters and chants of “Power to the People!”  or Gil-Scott Heron’s song saying “The Revolution WILL put you in the driver’s seat” without ever understanding what that really meant.  All vague slogans that stir the emotions without actually offering nuts-and-bolts steps for actually achieving this.

I run into this reality every day “Couldn’t you just program it? I don’t see why it will take so long!”  Because we need to know EXACTLY how you want your data to be processed, what algorithms we must use to select EXACTLY the right datum you need, and how you want it presented.  The saying is “the Devil is in the details”.  Well, every programmer and systems analyst knows the opposite: The TRUTH is in the details.

Report this

By Leisure Suit Larry, November 29, 2008 at 8:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ITW

“For 8 years we have needed changed FROM Bush.  Change BACK to some of Clinton people is still change and far better than Bush.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?”

Because, Change to me is change. not a return to another greedy winner take all time.

Maybe you are misunderstanding me on purpose, and maybe it is because you are taking the short view. 

Re: Maani

“Reagan began it, Bush I continued it, and Clinton finished it.”

Nope….

Carter was the first to deregulate banks with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1979.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2012677/U-S-Bank-Deregulation-in-Historical-Perspective

Carter also deregulated Oil, the Airlines, and the Telecom indrustry.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 29, 2008 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

replying to Stephen Smoliar, November 29 at 4:55 am:

Stephen, it’s not fair to characterize those of us who wanted Obama to make good on his promise of “change” as hotheads braying for “revolution”.

Pointing out Obama’s total failure to reflect this call for change (*his* word) in his choice of personnel is not the same thing as wishing that Obama had undertaken some sort of violent and impetuous upheaval of the status quo.

We are disgusted at Obama’s failure to place in an important position regarding economic, defense, or foreign policy even one single person who represents a point of view dissenting from the disastrous “consensus” which brought us two disastrous wars, constant threats of more and worse wars, and an economic meltdown.

Don’t caricature our completely justified criticism as the whining of disappointed romantic “revolutionaries”.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, November 29, 2008 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

Those with high expectations of change might do well to consider the wisdom of Peter Weiss (MARAT/SADE) on the subject of revolution, an excerpt of which is included in:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/10/dreaming-about-revolution.html

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 29, 2008 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

re:  Inherit The Wind, November 28 at 8:36 pm:

Has there been some report that he might hire Krugman, or is this a complete hypothetical of your own invention?

Hiring Krugman would certainly be a positive sign, but I haven’t heard that anything of the sort is in the offing.

Report this

By cyrena, November 29, 2008 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

Maani,
On this:

•  “ITW also brings up something I’m shocked has not been pointed out ‘til now: that whatever “bad” he did, Clinton was the first president to fully balance the budget, pay down the national debt, and leave the next president with a hefty surplus.  Obviously, whatever Summers and others in the Clinton administration might have done wrong, they got quite a bit right.”

I’m surprised too, even though it’s one of the first things that came to my own mind while reading some of these comments from the malcontents. I didn’t realize that ITW had mentioned it, because I’m really just catching up on the articles and the comments here. (Different set-up for me these days). But, these are important points.

And thanks for the run down on the process of the deregulation that brought about the decline, and that great abyss that we’re staring into now. (others having already been sucked down or pushed over…however ya wanna look at it, with the process still on-going)

Now I hope that run down is helpful to some of those who’ve either forgotten that this shit started with Regan, and only became worse, or just never knew it at all. Then again, with the malcontents, it won’t matter, so they’ll continue to engage in the same delusional pessimism. It’s easy enough to do these days, when folks are unemployed and psychologically stuck between floors on a broken elevator, with no rescue button. (Not sure why they don’t call georgie)

So we wind up with folks like Outraged now designating Larry Summers as the most dangerous person in the world. That’s Richard Cheney’s position/title of course, but I doubt he cares about the ignorance of others who miss that. In fact, he counts on it.

And then there’s the other poster who thinks I have a lot to learn if I don’t know anything about Lawrence Summers. Well, I know what he was in the Clinton Administration, but I also know that while these positions direct and hope to influence policy, (as dictated by the Executive branch) they still can’t shove legislation down the throats of a Congress that doesn’t want it. Clinton had to deal with a majority Republican Congress his entire term.
So the Outraged(s) of the world can whip up all the lynch mob fervor they want, (always in search of a new boogeyman) but it doesn’t change the reality, and it doesn’t provide any one individual with the political capital to force his or her own agenda in defiance of what the Executive and Legislative branches want. And for the poster who thinks I have a lot to learn, that much is true. I’ve made that a constant refrain for myself and those within my routine association. We’re ALL supposed to be life-long learners. I don’t plan to concentrate my education on Larry Summers though. For now at least, I’m perfectly willing to see what this team does in terms of carrying out whatever Obama’s plans require, and I’m willing to admit that they can probably do that better than me.

I also agree that there may be some of the ‘enemy of my enemy’ being my friend element in your response to the post from Louise. But you also acknowledged what I’ve said many times myself, even in reference to the Hilary comment. It’s true that if she had won the democratic nomination, I would have voted for her, just because I’m a realist.

Report this

By cyrena, November 29, 2008 at 4:36 am Link to this comment

2 of 2
That said though, I’ve actually been dismayed by the selection of her for Sec . of State, so I can at least semi-comprehend the distorted thinking from so many of the others on the economic team selection of people like Summers and Rubin.  My reasons for not wanting Hilary as Secretary of State are based on what I always perceived as a hawkish stance, and her gung-ho willingness to engage in aggressive and illegal wars, and her long ago statement about Obama being ‘naïve’ in his willingness to talk to ‘enemy’ states without preconditions.

Well, that’s EXACTLY why I was equally gung ho that HE should be president, and not HER!! SHE’S the one who said that the invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein never did anything unless he was forced to. (like via military pressure and sanctions that drastically affected the population…like killing them off).  So, based on THAT,  my own ‘take’ is that she would NOT be a good SoS, and that Obama should have found other work for her, if in fact he thought it prudent to include her. I’m not saying Hilary doesn’t have some useful skills and talents, because she does. Besides that, if I remember correctly, it was the same debate where she accused Obama of being naïve, that HE said he was planning to include her in his administration. I remember the comment, because I chuckled at the time.

Well, I got off track, but my point was that if I narrowed my opinion of Hillary to just that instance alone, or even her campaign rhetoric alone, I would be dismissing the fact that she DOES have these skills and experience, as long as she doesn’t go all rouge on us, or try to follow her own agenda. If she does that, Obama can dump her just as easily as her husband dumped Lani Guinier after initially appointing her as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

Since I don’t expect Obama to do this with Hillary, I’ve accepted her as his selection, and he must assume that the Senate will as well. I still think she’d be better at something else..health and human services maybe? But hey…those world leaders know her better than they do me, and I’m retired anyway. (she can always call me for consultation.) wink

Speaking of which, this was a good question (and advice) that you directed to troublesum:

•  “..Are you DELIBERATELY dense, or do you just enjoy being contrary?  What makes YOU - in all your clearly obvious economic brilliance and expertise - think that a plan could be conceived which would create all 6 million of those jobs?  Do YOU have such a plan?  Have you READ of any such plans from ANY economists? You really need to take your meds.  LOL.”

I think you answered your own questions here, with the medication recommendation. Multiple posts from troublesum over the past year (give or take) have convinced me that meds are the only hope, and of course those who can most benefit from them are the ones who refuse to take them. On the other hand, some people *ARE* SELECTIVELY dense, and they *DO* enjoy being contrary. Leefeller pointed that out with troublesum some time ago. I remember when he specifically said that “when the argument becomes about the argument instead of about the topic, then there is no right or wrong.” That’s why troublesum can’t possibly come up with the answers, or even the name of an economist that has them. She can only distract with rhetoric as opposed to hard facts. Makes it all a waste of time and energy in my own estimation, but some folks apparently have a lot of both on their hands, and feel that it is far more self-indulgent to spend those resources (time and energy) on destruction instead of progressive thinking. They are among those determined to let no good deed go unpunished. What can I say?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 29, 2008 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

Re: Cyrena

Glad to help out.  Your comment: “So, Rubin and Summers make two good patsies and scapegoats for those who simply must have something to bitch and moan about. Now of course these same people rarely if ever make any suggestions for who might be better than these two, was an outlandish statement given the track record of Summers and others Obama has chosen.

However, when this track record is taken into consideration, these individuals certainly make this comment, impossible to qualify.

“Now of course Obama does pay attention to what ‘we the people’ say, even if he doesn’t always make decisions based on what some members of a very clueless public might demand. That would be because he’s NOT stupid, and probably sees more sides to an issue than the narrow minded and clueless do.”

It seems you can’t be bothered with pertinent facts and simply accept what is handed to you, no questions asked. Like these comments:

Lindsy Gramm was actually one of the main people involved in the decades of deregulation, though certainly he wasn’t alone. In fact, anyone that has taken the time to really research this deregulation, (and Scheer has) knows this perfectly well.”

....“Before this campaign, I’d never even heard of either one of them, so I’m having trouble blaming this on what they did in the Clinton Admin. That was over a decade ago.”

I agree, if you had “taken the time to really do the research” you’d know that it was Phil Gramm, and you’d also know that Summers was involved during the Reagan deregulation effort.  You’d “have heard” of Rubin and Summers, and understand that things that happened “a decade ago” are relevant to things that happen today.

Then, you claim “Lindsey”(Phil) Gramm was involved in deregulation for decades, as if it is relevant, then flip-flop and claim that what happened during Clinton’s administration you have “trouble blaming this on” since it was a decade ago.

Report this

By cyrena, November 29, 2008 at 2:11 am Link to this comment

By MAR
•  “..The problem with this site is that its writers and its frequent posters really want a revolution but you folks already did that once - or was it twice when the South resisted the obvious need to change?..”

Oh MAR..
I love it. Especially the part about resisting the obvious need to change. The irony of these same frequent posters wanting a revolution does not escape me.  Clearly they do NOT want a revolution, and just as obviously, they wouldn’t recognize a revolution if it bit ‘em in the ass and tore out a few chunks.  We’re in the midst of a revolution, and they don’t even see that.

The reason? Only THEIR worldview counts, and it’s all determined by their political geography, and where they ‘think’ they’re located, and where they ‘think’ everyone else is located. I think they need a better compass or other navigational system, because the way things are set-up here, we ALL suffer from pockets of ignorance and misperception, in a collective type way.

These people aren’t a “majority” and that’s a good thing, because the mindset is REACTIONARY, which is really no different than the Dick Bush admin that we have now. When have we EVER seen the current admin do ANYTHING that might be considered ‘pro-active’ or even preventive, in terms of avoiding this meltdown, despite seeing it coming, (or knowing it was coming because they created it in the Grand Heist plans to begin with)? Nope. Never. Nothing. Nada.

Instead, George the puppet only REACTS when he’s forced to. The thing with extending unemployment insurance benefits for millions is just one recent example. George refused. He was finally forced to give in to an extension of unemployment benefits, after being forced by political pressure. Still, that’s my point.

Many of the writers and posters here are just as ‘reactionary’ both literally and figuratively.  They are wedded to a past that no longer exists, and want to return to it, even where no progressive connection exists, because even while they claim a so-called left or liberal ideology, they are clearly NOT ‘progressive’.  (They just want the good old days back) And for the most part, it’s the same ones who REACT to everything, based on that same constipated mentality. They are REACTING to Obama, so it wouldn’t make any difference who he selected for his Cabinet or other Agency/Department heads.  They’d STILL find something wrong, and they’d be really creative about it. There’s no way to clue them in, because they’re stuck on low gear, (or in reverse) and they can’t change, even if they wanted to.  (rest assured however, that they don’t.) 
Reactionaries never want change, unless it’s to go in ideological reverse of whatever progress is made. That’s why they aren’t real revolutionaries. They might WANT a revolution, but they could never pull one off. Real revolutions never result from folks just sitting around bitching about what other people do, without getting off of their own asses.  And like I said, this crowd is ‘reacting’ to Obama, when the big picture isn’t about Obama. It’s *supposed* to be about US!! They don’t get that either. Thank God or whomever or whatever, Obama DOES get it, and that he’s committed to getting it right, to the extent that reality allows.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 29, 2008 at 1:37 am Link to this comment

Re: Maani

Your comment: “ Reagan began it, Bush I continued it, and Clinton finished it.”

The only fact you forgot to mention is that Summers was ALSO there from the beginning (check my previous post).  Yet, Obama chose Summers among other suspects who were instrumental in the current economic meltdown and the legislation which led to it.

Clinton was also instrumental, he signed the legislation.  To downplay that premise is disingenous, to put it nicely.  Maybe this will shed some light on your assertion.

“Billionaire Sanford I. Weill, who according to Louis Uchitelle made “Citigroup into the most powerful financial institution since the House of Morgan a century ago,” has what I call the Wall of Me leading to his office, which he has decorated with tributes to him, including a dozen framed magazine covers. A major trophy is the pen Bill Clinton used to sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a move which allowed Weill to create Citigroup. Fittingly, Citigroup is a major contributor to guess which current Democratic Presidential candidate?

A Frontline report on the repeal of Glass-Steagall shows how those with money end up with pens from the President of the United States on their walls.

Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill’s chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, “You’re buying the government?”
When Bill Clinton gave that pen to Sanford Weill, it symbolized the ending of the twentieth century Democratic Party that had created the New Deal. Although the 1999 law did not repeal all of the banking Act of 1933, retaining the FDIC, it did once again allow banks to enter the securities business, becoming what some term “whole banks.”

The repeal of one of the most important pieces of legislation in this nation’s history came about as a result of another Clinton “triangulation,” the wobbling attempt to find the middle of the road that has somehow managed to pass for a philosophy with many Democrats for over two decades.”

http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2007/11/bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html

Thanks troublesum.

Report this

By cyrena, November 29, 2008 at 12:53 am Link to this comment

Outraged writes:

Ridiculous.  “Patsies and scapegoats”.....LOL…you forgot “centrists”.  Aside from that no one around here can supercede yourself in the “bitch and moan” department so it couldn’t be that either.

~~~~

Me too Outraged…LOL that is. smile

You don’t seem to have ever ‘registered’ how I feel about the political compass. I save ‘directions’ like right, left, and center for more geographical information descriptives, since a central point from which all else can be measured is already determined and accepted as the general consensus. (like where “North” is). So as far as I’m concerned, a “Centrist” is somebody who lives in the middle of the country. Or maybe centrists are people who part their hair down the middle instead of on the left or the right sides of their heads. Oh my!!! I just realized…that’s probably EXACTLY who you’re talking about!!!

Meantime, I’ll tell all my fans that I now have a new specialty to add to all of my other ‘talents’. I’ll tell them all, (might even be worth a formal announcement) that according to the registered Outraged, (they won’t know or care who you are so don’t get all paranoid on that)I have superseded everyone else ‘around here’ in the “bitch and moan” department. They’ll love it. The younger crew will be especially delighted at something to giggle and gaff about. They need only know me to appreciate the irony in that, and turn it into satire.

Thanks for the chuckles..wink

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 29, 2008 at 12:40 am Link to this comment

Larry Summers is dangerous for America.  From Alternet, by Mark Ames:

He worked for 10 months as a top analyst in President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers when his mentor, Martin S. Feldstein, was running it, and his colleagues don’t recall him venting anti-Reagan heresies then ....

....In 1990, Lithuania, a restive Soviet republic seeking independence, hired Summers to advise on that country’s economic transformation. Poor Lithuania had no idea what it got itself into. This was Summers’s first opportunity to tackle a country in economic crisis and put his wunderkind theories into practice. The results were literally suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania’s suicide rate was 26.1 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers got his hands on Lithuania’s economy, life became so unbearable under the economic transition that the suicide rate nearly doubled to 45.6 per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in transition. In fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting something particularly harsh and brutal about the economic transition in that country as opposed to the others, where suffering and pain were common….

...Summers’s other favorite man in Russia was Anatoly Chubais—who consistently ranks at the top of Russia’s ” most hated man” polls. Chubais was executor of the Russian government’s privatization program, in which state companies worth tens of billions of dollars were handed over to insiders for a fraction of their worth in blatantly rigged auctions.

Unbelieveably, there’s more in the article.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106553/keep_larry_summers_as_far_as_possible_from_the_u.s._treasury/?comments=view&cID=1056189&pID=1055698

Summers has ALWAYS endorsed and fought to defend privitization and free-market ideologies.  Very dangerous man.

Report this

By Maani, November 28, 2008 at 11:30 pm Link to this comment

troublesum:

“Nearly 2 million jobs were lost this year and next year is expected to be worse and approximately 2 million new job seekers enter the job market every year.  That means on the conservative side we would need 6 million jobs next year to make up for the losses plus the new workers, but Obama’s plan calls for the creation of only 2.5 million new jobs.  Do you see how inadequate his plans are for main street?”

Are you DELIBERATELY dense, or do you just enjoy being contrary?  What makes YOU - in all your clearly obvious economic brilliance and expertise - think that a plan could be conceived which would create all 6 million of those jobs?  Do YOU have such a plan?  Have you READ of any such plans from ANY economists?

You really need to take your meds.  LOL.

Peace.

Report this

By Anar-peace, November 28, 2008 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, November 28

Let’s take “all debts forgiven” Does that mean we demand that China, England, Japan and the Oil sheiks immediately forgive the half-trillion they have lent us for the last 6 or 7 years?  Do you know how much they would lend us after that? After they seized all US property in their territory?

____________________________________

I don’t own a car; and they never personally lent me any money, from the reaserch I did they only lent the money, so they would be able to leverage the markets (manipulate our market for their advantage, not mine).

To me thats just fraud, so yes—all that would be forgiven.

______________________________


Or do you mean that ALL banks must forgive all debts.  So…my bank, where I keep all my hard-earned savings, will not only go under, but I’ll lose all my money…and it’s to be replaced by the Federal Government, which means the tax payers, which means….ME! BTW, if a bank forgives a loan, like a mortgage, the IRS IMMEDIATELY CONSIDERS THAT INCOME AND TAXES IT!

________________________________________


Yes, the banks would close their doors, but the people would be able to withdraw their money first, or have the FDIC return lost funds, for whatever amount lost.

Then they (the people) would have to buy a safe.

It might be good for the stock market; as well,  because with no cash in the electronic makets; the theives on Wall Street won’t be able to steal it, with hedge funds.

Report this

By troublesum, November 28, 2008 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment

Nearly 2 million jobs were lost this year and next year is expected to be worse and approximately 2 million new job seekers enter the job market every year.  That means on the conservative side we would need 6 million jobs next year to make up for the losses plus the new workers, but Obama’s plan calls for the creation of only 2.5 million new jobs.  Do you see how inadequate his plans are for main street?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2008 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, November 28 at 8:21 pm #

ITW writes: “If he did all that stupid, thoughtless s**t, he’d be Ralph Nader!”

This response has nothing to do with what I wrote.

The phrase “all that…” implies that I listed a bunch of things Obama ought to have done.

I didn’t. I only said he should have at least one progressive in his administration. The only “stupid, thoughtless s**t” here is ITW’s response.
******************************************

Yeah. OK. I’ve seen who is called a “progressive” here—like Nader and Kucinich (of the two I can tolerate DK a whole lot better).

Maybe he’ll hire Paul Krugman, too. I’d support that.  Or do you consider Krugman no different than a neo-con, too?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2008 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

Anar-peace, November 28 at 5:34 pm #

By Inherit The Wind

What more do you expect?

____________________________

Good question. Thank you, I appreciate, not having to respond to a sort of question that was created by some advertising public relations propaganda expert.

Well, if I was the person to bring about a powerful change, I would use my team to shut down the Federal Reserve.

I would have the all debts forgiven; both internationally and domestically.

The dollar would be guaranteed by gold.

Private corporations would be outlawed.

The military is way to large; that should be cut by 95%

The CIA should be shut down; they are way to involved in the economic corruption.

I would have ultra liberals on my staff, to create peace and prosperity policies.

All wars would be outlawed.

I would have in my administration people like Ralph Nader, Howard Dean, Kucinich, Waxman, Gore, RFK Jr., Dean Baker.

I could go on and on; but basically I would have a ultra liberal administration to bring about revolutionary changes—not and Obama like administration that is to afraid of the world liberal.

Why? Liberals have been—and always be—the people, that bring about change in the world, that seeks a true democratic and prosperous society.
**************************************

This is a satire, right? It’s what the most soft-in-the-head of us Liberals would say as a routine on an SNL skit, right?

Because it reflects such a level of ignorance and naivete that (thankfully) nobody that ridiculous would ever be elected.

Let’s take “all debts forgiven”  Does that mean we demand that China, England, Japan and the Oil sheiks immediately forgive the half-trillion they have lent us for the last 6 or 7 years?  Do you know how much they would lend us after that? After they seized all US property in their territory?

Or do you mean that ALL banks must forgive all debts.  So…my bank, where I keep all my hard-earned savings, will not only go under, but I’ll lose all my money…and it’s to be replaced by the Federal Government, which means the tax payers, which means….ME! BTW, if a bank forgives a loan, like a mortgage, the IRS IMMEDIATELY CONSIDERS THAT INCOME AND TAXES IT!

Businesses big and small will collapse.  Even now as “commercial paper” dries up, otherwise perfectly sound businesses are forced to close their doors. They have lots of orders, lots of money due in Accounts Receivable, greater than their obligations, but they cannot make payroll because they don’t have cash on hand and can’t get the usual short-term revolving credit they need.  Why? No money to lend.

“All wars would be outlawed.”  Yeah. Right. Sure. I suggest you research something called the Kellogg-Briand Pact of the 1920’s. It was a treaty to outlaw war by branding nations who made war outlaws.  Mussolini signed it.  Fat lot of good that did.

Back the money with gold.  Create instant deflation.  We’ve had a just a TASTE of deflation these last few months. It would be far, far worse. Today gold sells for about $820/ounce.  But that’s a phony price. If you actually try to BUY an ounce of gold you will find that it costs between $60 to $120 more per ounce—figure true price at $900/ounce.  But most people don’t buy gold.  But supposing now not only would they want it, but the Federal Government would be competing with them for it—the price SKYROCKETS—it will easily hit $3000-$5000/ounce almost overnight.  Or do we make ownership of gold illegal again and set an artificial price?  Then what’s the point of backing it with gold if you cannot get gold?  Either way, massive deflation because gold is SCARCE.  BTW, Silver’s worse—the markup from the spot price to true price is between 40-50%.
Gold is a commodity, like anything else, and people invest in it as such.

I could continue to go on and on. But I’ll say I’m really thankful Obama was elected to be our next President and not you.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 28, 2008 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment

ITW writes: “If he did all that stupid, thoughtless s**t, he’d be Ralph Nader!”

This response has nothing to do with what I wrote.

The phrase “all that…” implies that I listed a bunch of things Obama ought to have done.

I didn’t. I only said he should have at least one progressive in his administration. The only “stupid, thoughtless s**t” here is ITW’s response.

Report this

By Juanjo, November 28, 2008 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

Robert Scheer,

Suppose that instead of trying out for a writing desk at the New York Post, you name those who the President Elect should chose in order to suit your selfish agenda.

Your attempt at getting attention is really pathetic.
Take some time off and go study the mating habits of the Polynesian butterfly.

Report this

By Maani, November 28, 2008 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment

troublesum:

You can say it til you turn blue in the face, but saying it doesn’t make it true.  The Glass-Steagall Act was undermined in three successive administrations.  Reagan began it, Bush I continued it, and Clinton finished it.  To continue to blame Clinton exclusively for it - or even for the majority of the damage - is simply not historically correct.

Peace.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2008 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment

“Ed Harges, November 28 at 5:59 pm #

Obama keeps trying to defend himself by saying, “We need people who know how to get stuff done in DC, and that means I have to have people from previous administrations. It would have been irresponsible to reject this reservoir of experience.”

Mr. Obama, please stop arguing against a straw man! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE HIRED AN ADMINISTRATION CONSISTING *ENTIRELY* OF LEFT-LEANING OUTSIDERS!!!!

But there is no excuse for the fact that progressives are not represented by even ONE SINGLE PERSON whom Obama has given any responsibility for either economic or foreign policy.

Every single appointee is either a deregulator from the Wall Street-first crowd, a military-industrialist hawk, an unswerving servant of the Israel-first crowd, or some combination of the three. “

*******************************************

If he did all that stupid, thoughtless shit, he’d be Ralph Nader!

(BTW, Nader didn’t win, Obama did.)

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 28, 2008 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Obama keeps trying to defend himself by saying, “We need people who know how to get stuff done in DC, and that means I have to have people from previous administrations. It would have been irresponsible to reject this reservoir of experience.”

Mr. Obama, please stop arguing against a straw man! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE HIRED AN ADMINISTRATION CONSISTING *ENTIRELY* OF LEFT-LEANING OUTSIDERS!!!!

But there is no excuse for the fact that progressives are not represented by even ONE SINGLE PERSON whom Obama has given any responsibility for either economic or foreign policy.

Every single appointee is either a deregulator from the Wall Street-first crowd, a military-industrialist hawk, an unswerving servant of the Israel-first crowd, or some combination of the three.

Report this

By troublesum, November 28, 2008 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

Understand?  Phil Graham couldn’t get the repeal of glass-steagall through the senate so he turned to Clinton and Rubin for help.  They lobbied democratic senators hard and the repeal went through.  This was the beginning of the financial disaster the country is now in.  The repeal of glass-steagall also enabled the creation of giant financial institutions like citicorp.  After helping to get the repeal through congress, Rubin took a job with citicorp and now he’s Obama’s chief economic advisor.  As cyrena likes to say, “connect the dots.”

Report this

By Maani, November 28, 2008 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment

troublesum:

“Maani, ITW: Maybe you’ve heard of the Glass-Steagall Act.”

If you’d actually bothered reading my posts, you wouild have seen that I have mentioned it numerous times.  But I mentioned the history of its evisceration in the order in which it actually occurred: Reagan began it, Bush I continued it, and Clinton put the final nail in the coffin.

But Clinton was NOT the first, nor even the most egregious.

Peace.

Report this

By Anar-peace, November 28, 2008 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind

What more do you expect?

____________________________


Good question. Thank you, I appreciate, not having to respond to a sort of question that was created by some advertising public relations propaganda expert.

Well, if I was the person to bring about a powerful change, I would use my team to shut down the Federal Reserve.

I would have the all debts forgiven; both internationally and domestically.

The dollar would be guaranteed by gold.

Private corporations would be outlawed.

The military is way to large; that should be cut by 95%

The CIA should be shut down; they are way to involved in the economic corruption.

I would have ultra liberals on my staff, to create peace and prosperity policies.

All wars would be outlawed.

I would have in my administration people like Ralph Nader, Howard Dean, Kucinich, Waxman, Gore, RFK Jr., Dean Baker.

I could go on and on; but basically I would have a ultra liberal administration to bring about revolutionary changes—not and Obama like administration that is to afraid of the world liberal.

Why? Liberals have been—and always be—the people, that bring about change in the world, that seeks a true democratic and prosperous society.

Report this

By troublesum, November 28, 2008 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Maani, ITW
Maybe you’ve heard of the Glass-Steagall Act.
http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2007/11/bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2008 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

Anar-peace, November 28 at 3:24 pm #

By Inherit The Wind,

Failures? Corruption? In the Obama camp????  Where do you get this stuff—just make it up?

_______________________

The news about the stock market—and the facts about the economy; not in the news, if read between the lines shows the corruption.

Corruption in the stock market—is simply mistakes that are conveniently timed.

For example, in a true democracy; and open and fair discussion would take place, as to why the economy is failing.  The way to check to see if that is taking place is to see; what the politicians (Obama and his people) say—with what reality says.

The facts are that the stock market and—the economy—are about to fall big time.

Obama, and the Congressional Dems and Repugs know this, but they are not making it public. Why?

Because, they are protecting themselves and the interests of corrupt hedge fund managers, bankers, politicians, generals (MIC) etc.., rather then the interests of the public.
******************************************

Are you living in a bubble, or on an island?  The problem isn’t too little information about the economy, it’s that there’s too much.  EVERYTHING you want to know is out there, but you have to work to understand it—I don’t claim to understand it, but it’s there.

Nobody’s hiding anything because it’s like trying to hide a hippo under a handkerchief. It’s fitting together the 10 million pieces that’s the problem.

If you think anything about the economy is being hidden it’s because YOU haven’t been paying attention.  I’ve been paying attention since 1981, so there have been very few surprises.  I KNEW economic collapse was likely when Bush turned the surplus into a deficit in 2001, before 9/11.  I KNEW it was inevitable when I saw him running deficits of 400 to 500 billion a year.  When we renegotiated our mortgage a few years ago, the brokers begged, pleaded, bribed, lied, and tried to change documents to get us to take an ARM. I said “no—old-fashioned fixed rates are running in the fives—that’s good enough and SAFE!”

A builder built a spec house not far me that came in with the insane price of $2.9 million, well before the sub-prime crisis….and it sat for over two years and just sold a few months ago, for around 1.8.  Yeah, I can’t even dream about buying that without a winning lottery ticket, but it was clear THEN that the housing boom was softening, therefore nearly over.  Yet the sub-prime market hadn’t collapsed.

When it did, LOTS of smart economists advised that it was only the first step, that the regular mortgages were next.  Well, if you didn’t listen THEN, it ain’t my fault.  Don’t say you weren’t warned, there have been warning signs for the entire abortion called the Bush Administration.

There’s an old joke about a man of faith who, in the face of a rising flood says “I’m not worried: God will take care of me.”  A rowboat comes by, he won’t get in saying “No, God will take care of me”. 

The water is now up to the 2nd floor and a police motorboat comes by, but the man of faith says the same thing.

Then it’s to the roof and police chopper comes by and ...same story.

So the man drowns and gets up to St. Peter and says “Why didn’t God save me?” And St. Peter says “We sent you a rowboat, a motorboat, and a chopper.  What MORE did you expect?????”

What more do you expect?

Report this

By Anar-peace, November 28, 2008 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind,

Failures? Corruption? In the Obama camp????  Where do you get this stuff—just make it up?

_______________________


The news about the stock market—and the facts about the economy; not in the news, if read between the lines shows the corruption.

Corruption in the stock market—is simply mistakes that are conveniently timed. 

For example, in a true democracy; and open and fair discussion would take place, as to why the economy is failing.  The way to check to see if that is taking place is to see; what the politicians (Obama and his people) say—with what reality says.

The facts are that the stock market and—the economy—are about to fall big time.

Obama, and the Congressional Dems and Repugs know this, but they are not making it public. Why?

Because,  they are protecting themselves and the interests of corrupt hedge fund managers, bankers, politicians, generals (MIC) etc.., rather then the interests of the public.

Report this

By Miro Kovacevich, November 28, 2008 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

But please, please! Can we start stoppimgthis noisy, perpetual deification of Clinton and his buddy Reagan - incompetent beneficiaries of software and hardware revolution and consequent job creation/budget balancing miracles that they and their “Masters of the Universe” performed. Not such luck this time around (unless O has sudden epiphany and ditches them fast and aggressively goes New Energy - Fair Sharing. Hot-wiring the Treasury with bailouts makes it urgent for Obama to consult Mugabe about exciting experiences with hyperinflation. Rubin, Summers and other boys certainly will not be around then (2011-2012).

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2008 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

Anar-peace, November 28 at 1:46 pm #

By Inherit The Wind, November 28 at 1:02 pm #

LSL:

Why does change HAVE to mean change to people who never served in the government before???

For 8 years we have needed changed FROM Bush.  Change BACK to some of Clinton people is still change and far better than Bush.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

_________________________________________

Because the people; I guess want a revolutionary change, a radical change that is powerful in their lives.

The Obama team is filled with failures, trying to justify—corrupt policies—that did not work; and will never work.

*********************************************

What is this, the 60’s anti-war movement??? WHAT people want revolutionary change? Not the 66 million who voted for Obama.  He never promised revolutionary change.  Just change from the obvious total incompetent screwup that is George Bush.

Failures? Corruption? In the Obama camp????  Where do you get this stuff—just make it up?

Report this

By Maani, November 28, 2008 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

truedigger:

“Summer was Secretary of the Treasury before Rubin.
He is known to be a deregulation fanatic and also
having a low opinion about womens’ abilities in science.”

Summers was NOT a deregulation “fanatic”; he supported it in some cases, and did not support it in others.  And yes, he made a stupid sexist comment.  I suppose you’ve never made any stupid comments for which you would not want to be judged.

“Rubin and Graham were the prime movers to completely deregulate the financial markets in 1999 during the time of your beloved Clinton.”

Wrong again.  The financial markets were already largely deregulated by the time Clinton took office, and the investment firms were already public, and thus subject to the vagaries of the market.  Although both Rubin and Graham supported Clinton’s passage of the final nail in the coffin of Glass-Steagall, as noted Clinton did not really have much choice in the matter, since he had very little political capital by that point on which to trade.

Try making statements instead of overstatements - and with less bombast.

Peace.

Report this

By Anar-peace, November 28, 2008 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, November 28 at 1:02 pm #

LSL:

Why does change HAVE to mean change to people who never served in the government before???

For 8 years we have needed changed FROM Bush.  Change BACK to some of Clinton people is still change and far better than Bush.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

_________________________________________

Because the people; I guess want a revolutionary change, a radical change that is powerful in their lives.

The Obama team is filled with failures, trying to justify—corrupt policies—that did not work; and will never work.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2008 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

LSL:

Why does change HAVE to mean change to people who never served in the government before???

For 8 years we have needed changed FROM Bush.  Change BACK to some of Clinton people is still change and far better than Bush.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2008 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

troublesum, November 28 at 12:54 pm #

ITW
Sorry to upset your little world but I voted for Obiden and now like many, many others I am sorry for it.

***************************************

Ok, that’s one assumption I made that was wrong. It happens once in a while Now comes the obvious—what the hell did you expect???  And WHAT about Obama ever led you to expect it?  Wishful thinking?  Or did you not listen to him throughout the campaign and figured he was Notclinton and that was good enough?

Report this

By troublesum, November 28, 2008 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

ITW
Sorry to upset your little world but I voted for Obiden and now like many, many others I am sorry for it.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook