The Cost

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 19:35


Right now, it's becoming particularly apparent that there's a real danger of Obama's Administration going really wrong.  I've long been hopeful that the historical logic Mike Lux writes about in his book will take hold, and that Obama will be forced to move to the left, to institute progressive reforms, as has happened at crucial times before.  But what if he doesn't?  What if his current support for Timothy Geithner and his misbegotten plan is the harbinger of all that's to come?  How bad could it get?

What Would Be The Cost?

In my last diary, "Geithner = Warren?", one answer was suggested by limpidglass, writting:

theocratic dictatorship, here we come!
Recipe:
  • A lot of God talk and flag-waving;
  • A lot of railing against the evil Fed and the banking class (which will be conflated with American Jews);
  • A lot of talk about we shouldn't waste money on "wasteful" and "bloated" government social programs, and how we should instead give it directly to the churches so they can help the poor like Jesus told them to do;
  • A little dose of the Dolchstosslegende about how the Democrats pussied out and retreated from Iraq and Afghanistan when those wars could have been won, + a sacred vow to go into the Middle East, wipe out all those "heathens," and take back the oil that belongs to the American people by right;
  • A lot of raving against Muslims (for "being terrorists"), immigrants (for "stealing jobs from honest, decent Americans"), homosexuals (for their "decadent lifestyles"), and liberals (for "hating America");

Bake for four years or so, and you've got yourself an America run by religious fanatics, locked in holy (thermonuclear) wars abroad while engaging in ethnic cleansing at home.

I don't think that's anywhere near guaranteed if Obama fails.  But I certainly think it's a distinct possibility.  And in responding to limpidglass, Master Jack sketched out a different sort of cost--the opportunity cost of what's potentially going to be wasted if we continue in this way:

Paul Rosenberg :: The Cost
What a wasted opportunity.
This banking meltdown COULD have led to a new progressive era -- as previous American economic collapses have done. It could have been a massive, once-in-a-generation teachable moment about the disastrous consequences of unbridled, unregulated capitalism.

And we have a "Democrat" in the White House, as well as "Democratic" majorities in both houses. The mechanism was in place to truly move beyond Reaganism.

The last time the Democrats availed themselves of that teachable moment, they set the stage to dominate American politics for a half-century.

This generation of "Democratic" leaders has used this opportunity to move the country even further to the right.

This will not end well. This is the first time I'm wondering if it would have been better if McCain had won -- he'd be coddling Wall Street just like Obama is now, but at least it would be Republicans he'd be setting up for permanent irrelevancy.

We have to think about these costs very seriously, because they are very serious costs, which are all the more serious because of how oblivious to them Obama and the rest of the Versailles Dems seem to be.  Do I hope that these are both overblown?  Of course!  But hope is not a plan.  We cannot ignore the costs we face if we allow failure to prevail.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Cost | 114 comments
Prescient History Already Documented (0.00 / 0)
"...Bake for four years or so, and you've got yourself an America run by religious fanatics, locked in holy (thermonuclear) wars abroad while engaging in ethnic cleansing at home..."

Welcome to the Republic of Gilead!  That history has already been written.  It does not end well.

There is no bomb in Gilead (4.00 / 2)
Sorry, but somebody just had to....
[ Parent ]
Events have a momentum all their own (4.00 / 7)
It's true that Obama's making things worse than they could be by clinging to the free-market ideology and defending Geithner, but I don't think that anyone standing where Obama is right now could do significantly better than he in halting that momentum. The banking system is so massive and so broken that it's just careering downhill, flattening everyone in its path.

One difference between Obama and FDR is that when FDR came in, the banks had already failed and been shut down. So FDR never had to make the hard choice between continuing to prop them up (which would have been horrible policy, but perhaps wiser politically in the short term) and taking his medicine and shutting them down and having the government sort them out (good policy, but potentially politically untenable).

One thing Obama should do is to push the idea of an actively involved government, to push the idea that the free market cannot be the guardian of the public good.

But he seems to be in thrall to people like Orszag, who are convinced that the dictates of the free market must be followed.

. (4.00 / 2)
The real difference between FDR and Obama is a less hyperactive media. FDR's great depression presidency was trial and error, with huge errors like balancing the budget in 1937, that threatened recovery.

Hell, if blogs were around then, you'd probably have more then a few jackasses on the left calling FDR a corporate stooge for his policy of overpaying [rich] people for gold. While the right screams about communism and property rights.

[ Parent ]
See the movie FEED. (0.00 / 0)
Feed

For a depiction of how much the "news cycle" has tightened. Not so much on content, but focus on the release date. Of course, B. Clinton is an example of a changed media dynamic (culture?) in another way as well, but I'll leave comment on that to the sexual partners and drug buddies of JFK to comment further. I don't need to talk about FDR's wheel-chair, either.

NeonBlack brings up a very valid point as to how big of role the blogosphere has in perpetuating the media frenzy. Now, I tend to see this as a very good thing because it brings a bit of "mob rule" to the virtual world. Distraction is a subjective thing, it is most effective for those with the short attention spans and an either/or mentality.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
It's True (4.00 / 13)
that Obama's taken office at a much earlier stage.

But it's also true that he has the benefit of all of FDR's experience to draw on, in order to avoid the same mistakes (though, of course, new ones will be inevitable).  And he's not doing that.

The primary question here is not about the momentum of the financial collapse, but about who you protect first and foremost.  It's possible that even if you protect the right people, that won't be enough to help right the whole system, but it's still what ought to be done.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
. (4.00 / 1)
Who we protect? We already have social security, we already have great society programs and the stimulus expanded many welfare benefits for people in hardtimes.

Let's not equate getting pissy about nationalization being on the outs with Obama somehow doing nothing in the average american's interest. And that says nothing about the fact he's still going foward with healthcare reform and EFCA.

[ Parent ]
This country is so retro at this point (4.00 / 10)
it's embarrassing. No, forget that. It's humiliating to me to think that anyone could observe this society in its current state and think that we are anything but proto-fascist. That is exactly what we are. For anyone living in a 21st century civilization to even ask the question, "Are living wages, universal healthcare, public education, social security and civil liberties rights or privileges?" is to be forever stuck in Bonanza-land.

We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future. Suburbia lives imaginatively in Bonanza-land. --Marshall McLuhan  

[ Parent ]
Just as Ayn Rand predicted (4.00 / 1)
in the lucid moments that most on the "left" ignore. Don't get me wrong, Ms. Rand was a flaming idiot (in the sense of my signature line's source) in many, many ways, but there are some nuggets among the shit, IMHO. Avoidance of moochers and those that inherit wealth or gain it by manipulating "markets", for example, are not bad criteria to apply.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
It's Just Like Stiglitz Said (4.00 / 11)
Obama is confusing saving the banks with saving the bankers.

Banks are "nationalized" every day.  It's just not the big ones.  And if we're not willing to treat them all the same way, then what we have is simply a form of dangerous and irrational favoratism.

So is that your position, then?  In favor of dangerous and irrational favoratism?  I'm just trying to get clear on what you stand for here.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
. (4.00 / 1)
I'm not an economist and my pretentiousness only extends to movies and music. So I'm pretty deferential about how TARP should be handled.

I'm aware that I'm copping out but it's the truth.

[ Parent ]
And you don't think that being deferential... (4.00 / 7)
... could be part of the problem?

Wouldn't it be better to educate yourself and become an informed citizen, rather than deferring to authority?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Kudos! (0.00 / 0)
Such non-egotism should be applauded, especially after complementing Ayn Rand, the Egoist (not egotist).


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Sir you have a point (4.00 / 3)
one thing that leftist should not borrow from libertarians is their dread of inflation.

Inflation is a destroyer of stored wealth and can be a boon to people who actually produce; a kind of Marxist invisible hand.

But the "nationalization" debate is about something else. It is about not saving the very power centers that have been destroying our republic. "Nationalization" is merely a government assisted bankruptcy, where assets controlled by the Bad Guys are parceled out to smaller, regional banks so that America can be America again.

If that requires Helicopter Ben to screw the Chinese et al., so be it. Like a "friend" who loaned you money to get a couple more gin and tonics at the club; they have no right to come to your hospital bed to demand payment after you wrapped your car around a tree.

It's called oious debt, and the Chinese have been in bed with the Nixonian wing of the Republican party (a.k.a. fascists) for far too long. I don't feel the need to repay fascist debt. Do you?

Let Uncle Ben print away - and here is the key for Progressives - as long as average people are getting checks to offset the pain of inflation!!!

I have to repeat it because it is so key: inflate while giving the little guy an antidote in the form of monthly checks.

This economic chemotherapy will cure the body of the cancer that has metastasized from Wall Street.

Geithner thinks we have the flu...

[ Parent ]
Smoke and mirrors. (4.00 / 3)
doing nothing in the average american's interest. And that says nothing about the fact he's still going foward with healthcare reform and EFCA.

While they puff about EFCA, they creamed the UAW for being successful at exactly what they say EFCA will do for "Americans". They forced them to open contracts, take cuts in pay and healthcare for both current and retired workers. They made them match the compensation of transplants.

Obama isn't going to do healthcare reform.  He is going to do mandated insurance. The insurance companies are delighted.  It will so compliment the prescription plan that can't negotiate cost.

He is also going to screw around with entitlements, including social security.  WS wants, and with this crowd will get, mandated saving accounts.  

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/ca...

When it comes to money, Democrats and Republicans are just opposite sides of the same coin. If Obama continues, he will waste this (the peoples) opportunity just like Clinton wasted his (ours).  And the real bitch is that Republicans will make damned sure that "libruls" and their "socialist" ways will take the blame for Obama's center right and corporate governance.

Adding insult to injury in all of this is how much Obama panders and gets away with it.  

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
You aren't going to get single payer out of this congress. You will get a public option. The fact you call EFCA puff, just shows that you can't even think about the big picture. What's america's unionzation rate? And you wonder why UAW has no pull with the public or congress? EFCA will help usher in an era of union power where we dont' have to make these compromises.

You can either whine that you didn't get everything you wanted now, or you can build for the future.

[ Parent ]
"Let's think what would happen..." (3.00 / 4)
But what if he doesn't?  What if his current support for Timothy Geithner and his misbegotten plan is the harbinger of all that's to come?  How bad could it get?

Paul, welcome to the punditocracy.

Hey, I got quoted! (4.00 / 5)

 And now all I can do is hope I'm as wrong about Obama as the neocons were about flowers from the "liberated" Iraqis greeting American troops.

 As facile as it might be to blame this all on the corrupting influence of the DLC element, it's hard to think of any other source for the Democrats' fecklessness and aversion to exercising power in the face of the most extraordinary opportunities to permanently seize control of the national narrative.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

the dlc is a symptom (4.00 / 4)
wall st is the cause. both parties have been bought and paid for by the same masters.
[ Parent ]
It's not fecklessness, it's ideology (0.00 / 0)
The Dems are acting this way because acting this way reflects their underlying beliefs and their sense of their own interests.  It's not spinelessness.  They're full of spine.  They just happen to like the status quo ante WRT the American economy and WRT power structures in DC, and would like to return there.

3 or 4 percent of the French population recently hit the streets to protest Sarko's response to the economic crisis.  And that wasn't a Saturday protest in the empty capital -- it was on a weekday.  Folks blew off work in the millions to make this point.

We'll have a chance when Americans act the same way.

[ Parent ]
You'd think they'd want to get elected (0.00 / 0)

  If the economy completely collapses, the Democrats are going to get wiped out across the board in 2010 and 2012.

  Pursuing Summers/Geithner neoliberalism is a surefire path down that road.

  But they'd really rather get voted out than do anything to question and challenge The System.

  That's seriously twisted. But it at least proves Ayn Rand wrong -- people will NOT automatically act out of self-interest every time given the opportunity.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
It's not necessarily twisted (0.00 / 0)
if they think that they're putting a Greater Good before their own self-interest.

My inference is that these folks genuinely believe that the American way of structuring society and distributing power is the best thing in the world.  They genuinely believe that French society, for instance -- with a much, much bigger public sector and a very active and unruly citizenry -- is objectively worse.

Fundamental change to the system is the result of external threats to the very existence of the system itself, not from reforms from within.  Even Britain's Glorious Revolution only took place after a monarch had had his head chopped off and an unruly mob (from the elites' perspective) had run the country as a Protectorate/Dictatorship for decades.

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 9)
There are times when I wonder if we'd be better off if McCain had won, too.

But then I remember Sarah Palin.

That puts an end to that particular line of speculation every time.

Heh (4.00 / 3)

  Palin would have been completely rolled by the Wall Street crowd.

  Good thing that's not happening now.

  Snark aside, Palin would have botched everything else, too, so yes, it would have been worse...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
My personal entry: (4.00 / 2)
1) We'll limp along.
2) Some things will get better.
3) Other things will get worse.
4) By June, we'll be chasing a completely different soccer ball.

That Would Be Great! (4.00 / 5)
If we're not worrying about economic collapse come June, that will be excellent news.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Oh, we'll still be worrying about economic (4.00 / 1)
collapse; that just won't be the topic we're most enthusiastically chasing. Just like we're still worried about global warming today.

[ Parent ]
Chasing that ball (0.00 / 0)
up hill or down? That's that rub.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
. (4.00 / 1)
Well, failure by any real metric means Obama reaching a point where he doesn't scare moderate senate republicans. Unless Obama's agenda magically fuckin changed while I wasn't looking when Paul was writing this entry. But assuming that Obama's agenda is exactly what he says it is, the only thing that will change it is Obama losing popularity with the middle. You think Bayh's a pain in the ass now? If Obama loses popularity, the most progressive legislation you can pass will be what Bayh thinks is good.
which middle? (4.00 / 3)
Middle as defined in the House?  In the Senate? By the media? Or, by Americans, themselves?  It's been clear for awhile that center don't mean the same thing to all of these groups.
[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
worse than any of those. as defined by swing state constituents.
[ Parent ]
I was one of those swing state voters (4.00 / 1)
I'm also registered as unaffiliated/independent voter.  

Glenn Greenwald** has done a masterful job demonstrating time and again, the degree to which our elected representatives, our media, and - in many instances - Obama himself has acted contrary to voter preferences.  Those are polls of all voters.  When you stratify the polls for party affiliation, the degree to which elected Democrats and Obama are out of step with Democratic voters gets even wider.

**That's not to take away, or diminish, what I assume has been the same work done by the folks here at Open Left.  If someone demanded cites, I think I'd have a bit better luck digging them out of Glenn's archive, although there are writers here I think I'd be equally successful searching.

[ Parent ]
. (4.00 / 1)
Well, if you vote for Arlen Spector, then it doesn't really matter how progressive you are on a survey.
[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
n/t
[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
My point is that it doesn't really matter how citizens respond in a poll if a state consistently votes for someone like Snowe or Bayh or Specter
[ Parent ]
Probably the best post here in a while; reminds me of the post 2004 soul-searching phase (4.00 / 5)
There is another possibility, and that is that Obama is waiting for his budget to pass before he embarks on the tough stuff.

Unfortunately, that is more likely psychological projection by leftists.

A more sober analysis of Obama is that his shtick has always been a Red + Blue = Purple kind of guy. Flash back to the disappointing losses of 2004: to those of us in the know, America was under the control of a genuine fascist cabal, headed toward economic disaster and The People didn't look like they were going to snap out of it any time soon.

Obama hearkened back to the triangulating 90s and thought what we need is to shed some of the social issues that kill Democrats with the conservative poor and focus on revving up the trickle down economy.

In other words, Ben Nelson in Harold Ford Jr.'s body.

By primary season "we" knew that whoever won the Democratic Primary would win the election courtesy of the Worst. President. Ever.

"We" also knew that unless there was an anybody but Clinton, then we would be right back to the triangulating 90s.

It was going to be either Obama or Edwards, and after his 1st place finish in the Iowa Caucuses, the natural anti-Clinton was Obama.

"We" forgot that Obama was a Clintonite while Obama portrayed himself as a way to simultaneously change AND go back to the 90s!!!

"We" had no choice because McCain, if he lived, would have launched WWIII, and him not living was even worse.

So, in short, with "our" backs to the wall "we" did the things that would put another triangulator back into the White House.

*we and our are in quotes because there is no cohesive spiritual or intellectual core on the left, until we get one there will only be the never ending defense against fascism and civilizational breakdown

I am reminded of this scene from <i>The Dead Zone</i> (4.00 / 1)

I feel we are in Christopher Walken's position, and with even less ability to get through to the people who are in a position to do something about it.

If Obama goes down (0.00 / 0)
maybe we "Old New Dealers," need to morph back into " Lafollett Republicans" run a candidate as a republican and vote for him in the republican primary!  

We also need to hit the streets with a general strike like the french and the icelanders.

My blog  

I would love to see a general strike (4.00 / 3)
as much as anybody, but the odds against are it. On this issue, comparisons to workers in the U.S and Europe just don't hold water. U.S workers are far too afraid (and not without reason!) to risk it.

The percentage of workers here who belong to a union (and therefore have some job protection) is near minuscule. Plus, U.S workers don't have anywhere near the social safety net (health care, unemployment pay, child care, etc.) that most European workers enjoy. Then pile all that on top of  an environment of high unemployment and extreme job insecurity.

It's just another reason we really need to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed, and passed without compromises.

[ Parent ]
It's not that easy (4.00 / 1)
The French go on strike at the drop of a hat, and the Icelanders are more or less all on first name terms with one another. And I mean the second half of that quite literally.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Springing off what limpidglass said (4.00 / 6)
Bake for four years or so, and you've got yourself an America run by religious fanatics, locked in holy (thermonuclear) wars abroad while engaging in ethnic cleansing at home.

Indeed - religious fanatics leading us right into a totalitarian police state. As I've expressed before, my biggest concern is that our leaders continue to merely try to tweak the current system and refuse to face the fact that only a major overhaul and new direction can pull us from the brink.  

Below I've posted part of an interview with Chris Hedges from Breakroom Live that addresses the cost of maintaining our illusions:


...already the walls are falling around us, and yet we cling to this illusion. And my fear is that when things finally crumble to such an extent that we can't ignore it, we have, in effect, by clinging to illusion, remained in a state of childishness. And we will then reach out for saints, for demagogues to save us because we've never grown up. We've never confronted the reality around us.

I like this guy, thanks for the intro. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Cool (0.00 / 0)
Breakroom Live is sponsored by Air America. Sam Seder and Marc Maron bring a lot of good insights to the table, and last week they had on Juan Cole and Laura Flanders. Sadly, it's only available on the internet (don't even get me started on what awful programming decisions Air America makes). Anyway, it'd be great if folks threw their support behind to the show (listen live or to the replay, support the sponsor, tell AAR you like the show, etc.) so at least it will remain on the internet.  
[ Parent ]
I have a dream (0.00 / 0)
Bring it on.

Maybe that should be the slogan: "Confront Reality". Latest in the "Question Authority" line.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
What I want to see and that I am not seeing is a sense of urgency (4.00 / 7)
on behalf of the vast majority of the public.

Greenwald and Jane Hamsher and the excellent piece by Matt Taibbi shine a light on the populist anger that is percolating and they are correct to call the 'insiders' on the days spent telling the rest of us in effect to 'chill out'.....even Obama in that inimitable way he has of saying 'yes, but..' said IIRC,:"I share your anger, but it must be channeled"

Why must it be channelled?

Seems to me people want major reform and that they are paying attention, are 'engaged with their government'...

The anger is at the bonuses, at the rotten system that enriched the few at the expense of the many, at how the insiders can't lose when they refuse to do what is known to work:the Swedish plan.

Where is the urgency?

They've got the President on Leno, picking his b-ball bracket and it is a weird disconnect from people getting laid off, local and state budgets being cut, and people GET that THEIR TAX MONEY as well as their KIDS' TAX MONEY is going to people who wrecked the economy and for some reason we are being told that 'the system must be preserved' and they are getting p.o'd at being ignored and berated for their anger.

He's marshaling the forces of government action for the wrong group...those at the top of the economic pile and the vast majority of people in turn will turn against government because of disillusionment.

What a waste


So Where's The Channelling, Then? (4.00 / 8)
even Obama in that inimitable way he has of saying 'yes, but..' said IIRC,:"I share your anger, but it must be channeled"

Really?  Isn't that what political leadership is supposed to do? Provide channeling for political energy--including anger--into productive actions?  So who better than the President to actually do the channeling of that anger?

And that's precisely the problem:  the anger's there, it's all that's needed to produce major, and quite necessary change.  But nothing's happening.

Why?  Because Obama thinks that trying to pass a requirement for non-binding votes on executive pay is a highlight example of corporate accountability.

In brief: he doesn't have a fricken clue.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
When I heard him say that I thought everything that people are (4.00 / 2)
'angry' about requires action by our elected representatives but he just reacted like Clinton:'I share your pain" just a blah statement

It's not enough.

It makes me reflect back to the wish expressed early by the administration that the Stimulus bill would/might pass by 80 votes.....as if that were the be all, end all in and of itself.

The priorities  as revealed by language, and actions that I described above are all screwy in light of what is actually transpiring.

[ Parent ]
How very true (4.00 / 3)
It's yet another Clintonian flashback. He ran as a "progressive" and then spent most of his admin time gleefully kissing GOP buttocks, while telling his public supporters, "It just isnt' possible to do X." I remember very well when he punted Campaign Finance Reform to congress right off the start--I worked as a manager on a campaign in '90 which made that issue Ground Zero, so I remember that episode all too bitterly well. Obama is doing the same with Healthcare Deform, which doesn't make me feel too good about it. That's them thar Lobbyist Countree, yessiree.

In the end we have to recognize who it really is that butters Obama's bread each night at dinner. It ain't us. It's the folks that run the wankerific culture that is the District of Columbia.

This country has spent the last 30 years marching towards the Great Neo-Liberal Disaster of Ought Eight/Nine. It's going to take a while to uproot three decades of rot. Sadly, it seems Obama isn't going to be of much help in that department.

He really has started out rather badly. In many areas. In order to keep his natural enemies pacified (as if that was possible), he's alienating his real base. Not too smart, methinks.

So now he's going to get it from both sides. Fucking brilliant!  

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
Yet Obama's the only democrat to channel anything in a long time. Certainly in my lifetime. Which is where the real disconnect is. Organizing for America is out right now going door to door, and people are worried about what Obama said on fucking Leno? People seem so ridiculously dependent on the media for their cues that they can't even get off their own asses and organize. Yelling at the TV provides more immediate satisfaction I guess.
[ Parent ]
I read Taibbi last night and had been asked to canvass today (4.00 / 5)
after that article and what I have seen so far from Geithner and Summers and statements from Obama?

I raked my lawn.

Give me something to cheer about so I can go knock on a stragers door; I was in no mood to knock on anyone's door after that article

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Have fun with your temper tantrum.
[ Parent ]
A temper tantrum because I took information from a (4.00 / 9)
terrific writer,Matt Taibbi, weighed it against what I was asked to do - knock on strangers doors to ask them to support President Obama's budget, and then when the news came out this morning that TRILLIONS are going to Wall St zombie banks and nearly every economist I read today who I admire are giving it 2 thumbs down I should just ignore that as well?

Uh, maybe you could but I can't

I want REAL reform.

[ Parent ]
My small amount of hope for Obama (4.00 / 1)
and this was the main reason for my preferring him over Clinton, was the outside chance that his campaign organization would go off-program and go after all of Washington -- including Obama -- after the election.

The campaign trained tens of thousands of organizers.  Those key organizers know people in their communities, have phone and email lists, and minds of their own.

David Plouffe wants you to canvass to support Obama's budget.  What if you and 20 other people canvas for something else?

[ Parent ]
Your Superior Attitude Has Yet To Be Paid For (4.00 / 6)
with any sort of rational argument about what you're defending.

Why, exactly is blind faith in something you can't explain a noble stance?  And why is justifiable skepticism derided as a "temper tantrum"?

This sounds remarkably like a replay of the BushCo true believers ragging on the DFHs over Saddam's WMDs back in 2002/2003.  

Democracy runs on trust, not faith.  There's a big difference.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
Why, exactly is blind faith in something you can't explain a noble stance?  And why is justifiable skepticism derided as a "temper tantrum"?

Because she didn't do anything about it except write about it in a comments section. Maybe i'm just not used to the netroots way of getting things done.

[ Parent ]
Excuse me, but (4.00 / 7)
how the fuck would you know that? Yarrow sticks? Remote viewing? Or is it your presumption that because you can't walk and chew gum at the same, no one else here can either?
[ Parent ]
I like your attitude (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Yeah, it's not like any of us need health care... (0.00 / 0)
...or anything....

Thanks for that... or not...

You read an article from someone with their own opinion and suddenly everything else flies out the door?

In this crisis NO ONE knows who is going to be right or who is going to be wrong... let's not kid ourselves here... economics is a very imprecise science... even the super experts get it wrong a lot...

There's other stuff on the agenda, too... very important, necessary stuff, we could use your help on... come on... snap out of it!  None of this stuff was ever going to be easy...

After all, if the GOP wins then there won't even be a meager CHANCE of reform!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I'm Mystified. What's Your Point? (4.00 / 4)
People are out knocking on doors doing what, exactly?  And how does that magically make an insanely wrong-headed policy into a good one?  And why is it irrelevant what the President says, particularly if he's the awesomest Democrat ever?

None of this makes the least bit of sense to me, so please explain.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
OFA, the new group to keep the grassroots alive from Obama for America (4.00 / 1)
sent out a directive to canvass neighborhoods ( wherever you could like the Post Office and malls) and get people to sign  that they suppoted Obama's budget/agenda.

I was emailed last night and asked to do it, right after reading Taibbi's article, I said no.

This morning I read Krugman and Jamie Galbraith and some other economic blogsites about the leaked Geithner plan...no way could I canvass today...maybe others could

Your diaries today sum up my mood

[ Parent ]
threads! (4.00 / 1)
The structure of these threads make my bifocal-ed eyes cross.  I could be wrong, because the offsets are hard for me to follow as the thread spools out, but I think Paul was responding to NeonBlack.  Regardless, I appreciate the information because I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by canvassing.  Thanks for clarifying that for me.
[ Parent ]
And where does this data get sent to? .. (0.00 / 0)
someone must be reporting it back to Alexrod/Emanuel .. what do they do with it?
[ Parent ]
I don't know, but I did get an email tonight that said (4.00 / 1)
'while the number of canvasses was impressive, the turnout has not been high' which I translate to mean that more signed up to do it than actually did

[ Parent ]
. (4.00 / 1)
People are out knocking on doors doing what, exactly?

I believe people in the industry call it grassroots.

And how does that magically make an insanely wrong-headed policy into a good one?

Well for one, because your preferred policy isn't even the end game. Does nationalizing banks really put us in a more progressive society? No it doesn't. Only regulation will do that, otherwise we just end up selling these banks back into the same bullshit we rescued them from. Maybe it's a better plan as far as immediately getting the economy on track, maybe it isn't but it sort of strikes me as somewhat hilarious to develop a populist movement around a wonky policy approach.

For two, it's the simple fact that Obama's budget is the signal for whether or not he can do anything with his presidency. And there is grassroots support for that. People want to throw temper tantrums and rake leaves, whatever. But the battles are certainly out there being fought.

[ Parent ]
And just how many doors did YOU knock on hmmm? (4.00 / 1)
Or you just here to belittle the concern  people have for the direction the country is taking with bailing out zombie banks?

Did you mock the homeowners who voiced anger about bounuses and lecture them that they are being 'distracted'?

If you did, trust me, you came across as an elitist twit.

[ Parent ]
The Problem Here Seems To Be (4.00 / 2)
that we are barely even engaged in related conversations, much less the same one.  There are simply far too many ambiguous terms, like trying to solve a system of 2 equations with 10 unknown variables.

But getting down to brass tacks in one place where that seems possible, you appear to have made a cluster of assumptions that are just simply false:

Well for one, because your preferred policy isn't even the end game. Does nationalizing banks really put us in a more progressive society? No it doesn't. Only regulation will do that, otherwise we just end up selling these banks back into the same bullshit we rescued them from.

But, of course, I never said that my preferred policy was nationalizing banks, period.  You've just created this strawman position, assigned it to me, and dismissed it as inadequate, without a chance for me to get a word in edgewise.  So long as you proceed like that, it's unlikely that we can have any sort of rational or productive discussion, as you're not really engaged with me at all, only with an imagined version of me. And I am similarly in the dark about you, too.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
Well, you seem to be asking just what and where this political anger and be focused into political action. I give you an example of grassroots action towards major progressive change, and your response is basically "so the fuck what?"

So from that I can only conclude that your linchpin in this entire presidential term so far is whether or not Obama nationalizes the banks. And that's a position I find beyond ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
Not really (4.00 / 6)
There's an organising effort towards giving Obama a blank cheque of support. There's no nuance to the thing at all - you either sign on to all his priorities, even on things like education, or you don't sign the petition.

Nuance is difficult to do in a big campaign, yes, but there's a large question as to whether the OFA model is actually that helpful anyway. Outside progressive groups are generally fairly good at mobilising support for legislation and improving all the time. What's needed is more extra-governmental power on the left, because putting all our energy into one channel and one man just means that when Obama makes a mistake, it's that much harder for it to be corrected.

The fundamental disconnect here between our positions is that we want pressure independent of the administration, and you want pressure in support of it.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
A possibly aprocryphal quotation from Huey Long (4.00 / 3)
I swear to God I heard this anecdote on a PBS documentary about the Kingfish a number of years ago, but can't find any reference to it anywhere else.

The story is that Long was giving a speech from the floor of the US Senate, and said something like the following:

"Right now, outside this Capitol, there are crowds of people banging on the doors just waiting to come in here and tar and feather the lot of us!

"And what I'm wondering is, whether to help bar the door or go out there and join 'em!"

Obama is inside the Forbidden City -- in fact, he's in charge of it.  He can tinker with the way things work inside it, but it's impossible for him to call for the walls to be breached and let the peasantry run things.

The Oval Office is on the wrong side of the barricades from us.  Doesn't matter whose butt is in the Presidential swivel chair.

[ Parent ]
channeling (0.00 / 0)
I see it as giving it a useful place to go.  We needed something as simple to explain as the bonuses, to get people's attention.  You don't need to be an expert in trading derivatives to get that there is a fundamental unfairness between the UAW having their contracts renegotiated, and being told that AIGFP contracts are sacrosanct.

But, outrage is a limited resource.  I, anyway, cannot stay outraged for long.  The emotional cost is too high.  But, give me a place to take my outrage of the moment and I can act on it.

In Galbraith's piece at FDL earlier today, he suggested that,

If I were a member of Congress, I would offer a resolution blocking Treasury from making the low-cost loans it expects to offer the PPIPs, until GAO or the FDIC has conducted an INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE LOAN TAPES underlying each class of securitized assets, and reported on the prevalence of missing documentation, misrepresentation, and signs of fraud. In the absence of a credible rating, this is the minimum due diligence that any private investor would require.

It would/will take a massive effort to get Congress to act on this.  Ian Welsh has pointed out that Geithner's TALF plan is organized to circumvent Congress.

...What's fascinating about this to me is less what they're doing (we knew the general details earlier) than the fact that they're completely bypassing Congress, and yet spending huge amounts of money. Bear in mind that there is only about $350 billion or so of Paulson's TARP money left. The treasury portion of the FDIC plan, assuming full loaning, is about $120 billion. The rest of the money will be used for parts 2 and 3 of the plan - a dollar-for-dollar match with a few securities firms to buy up trash, and the remainder to be used in combination with the Fed to expand lending on some types of securities.

What this means is that $850 billion is coming from the FDIC. The FDIC hasn't been given $850 billion in new money by Congress, last I heard.

And this week, the Fed announced that it would spend $1.15 trillion - $300 billion to buy treasuries, $750 billion to buy mortgage backed securities guaranteed by Freddie and Fannie, and a $100 billion of Freddie and Fannie debt.

So, $2 trillion of new spending, none of it approved of by Congress... [emphasis mine]

One target at which the outrage could be effectively directed is to get Congress to exercise some fiscal authority.  We cannot continue with only two branches of government.

[ Parent ]
'our' target by which WE act...real grassroots action bypassing the grassroots elected (4.00 / 4)
President

By siding with Geithner and Summers Obama has chosen his which side he is on......

Wall  Street insiders

[ Parent ]
yes. unfortunately, yes. (4.00 / 1)
You've said it well.  I think that's where we are.
[ Parent ]
speaking of cost (4.00 / 3)
Someone elsewhere, working off Ian Welsh's numbers at FDL has just estimated that,

$850 Billion from FDIC puts my earlier total at $5.7T + $0.85T = $6.55T. Six Trillion Five Hundred Fifty Billion dollars totally going to bailout, not a penny to a stimulus or a job. That beats the $6.3T figure that is the cost of all wars fought by the United States of America since its inception, in constant dollars*.
[...]
*American Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Civil War (both sides), Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghanistan. Source (pdf)

I can't attest to the veracity of the numbers, but the individual is an otherwise capable and conscientious writer.

 

Would you canvass for the President's agenda after reading this???? (4.00 / 1)
Combine it with the information in Taibbi's article and I feel slighlty sick just trying to absorb it....

[ Parent ]
Truthfully, No. (4.00 / 8)
Susan, I want to be fair.  At the beginning of the crash '08, I think rank cash infusions made sense until a better understanding of what we were dealing with could be achieved.  Looking back to the 1930s for guidance wasn't unwarranted.  And, backstopping what might have been a bank liquidity problem with helicopter money made sense.

As it became clear that this was a bank insolvency problem, NOT a liquidity problem, injecting cash makes increasingly less sense.  Why Obama and his Fed/Treasury team want to persist in treating this like a liquidity problem - at least, ostensibly, is beyond me.  Everything I can come up with which would defend the approach this administration is taking looks worse and worse for We The People and better, and better for the financial elite.

That's why I think Galbraith's demand to EXAMINE THE TAPES makes so much sense.  They need to realistically price these assets.  I'm not willing to take their word for it any longer.

[ Parent ]
In Sept. it was all about the LIBOR rate (4.00 / 2)
when that stabilized, I thought ( reading those economists whose names we all know here) okay wait till Jan and we'll see about real reform

Guess not

[ Parent ]
That's being a bit melodramatic... (4.00 / 1)
Everyone just absolutely assumes that the Geithner plan will fail and the world as we know it will end.

I don't buy that one bit... it may cost more... people we don't like may benefit... and it may work in an end around fashion, but there is no guarantee that it's going to fail disastrously.

In fact, the fed's actions this week alone may be enough to get the economy moving, make these "toxic assets" less toxic, and start the process rolling.  Geithner's greatest weakness may be that he's a wall street insider, but that's also his greatest strength in selling off the shit that needs to be sold to get credit flowing again...

The man is intelligent... He just doesn't view the banks as evil, and quite frankly, they've only been as evil as we've allowed them to be (i.e. deregulation).  Yeah, they buy private jets and remodel offices and it seems all so unseemly with their businesses going under, but that's shit that goes on everywhere... As long as the end result is increased credit, that's all that a former Fed governor is going to ask...  That's where he's coming from, and I'm not convinced, yet, that it's the wrong place to be.

Everyone's upset that the banks aren't being punished enough.... I don't give a damn about punishment.  I want jobs, and I'll quite literally look the other way on their crimes if we can get it moving.  Unfortunately, it's very difficult to get the middle class more money without making the rich richer as well....  OK, fine... have the cash... I'll pay the ransom... now deliver on the jobs!  That's my focus.

The fact is, there is no mandate to do something positive.  Most of the country wants to see the banks go bankrupt and dissolve... that sounds great, except the costs of doing so are horrendous in terms of job losses and the economy contracting at a frightening rate with no money flowing. That's not an option for the president.  Nationalization is a great buzzword, but it might cost $4 trillion and we'd end up with the same fiasco's that AIG has with their new, government installed management... Ask Nancy Pelosi how she feels about shelling out $4 trillion to own the banks?

There are no good solutions, and the miserable politics slim the options even further.  Geithner's had to create something that is an end around, but, I think it can work and work well... we have no choice but to give it a chance at this point.

I know that Krugman et al doesn't like it, but they all have an agenda... They, like us, would love to see nationalization and a complete rework of the financial system.  That was always unlikely.  In the 30's you could do it 'cos the stock market was irrelevant.  Now, people's 401k's matter, and you can't just pummel investors willy nilly without a revolt of the near retirees.  Nothing is as simple as it seems.  The administration has to do an incredible balancing act to keep everybody content, and yet move forward at the same time.

I like the plan... I do.  I didn't expect to at all.  I thought he'd come up with something terribly shitty.   I wasn't a fan of Geithner coming into yesterday, but I like what I'm seeing.  I didn't win a nobel prize in economics, but I did graduate magna cum laude in the field.  It's not like I'm totally ignorant on the subject.  I think that Geither can make it work... his connections will make it work, and yes, some people we don't like will win... but, if they win, we win, too.... so, I'm willing to take it.  The purpose of the Obama presidency is to get the the economy back on track, no matter what the cost.... This is what we've got... let's roll!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we gave every citizen whatever this equals (4.00 / 3)
in an equal share...say 40,000 - 60,000 dollars...that would revive the economy too.

With this Geithner plan we are cementing the corrupt system in place.

In NEON LIGHTS we are saying YES, SOME ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL

We are at a fork in the road and the debate should be how we get out of it realising that HUGE sums are involved...by preserving the status quo ante or by instituting real reform and major structural change

[ Parent ]
But how can that be done... (0.00 / 0)
...without ruining millions of people's retirements in the process.  Our biggest obstacle isn't wall street or their friends, it's those damn 401K's that make everyone hostage to Wall Street.  Even Obama has admitted that some of their timidity in regards to banking reform is the worry of people's retirements being more wiped out than they currently are...

Wall Street is holding us hostage here...  We can try to destroy and rebuild it, but there will be a lot of casualties... enough that it would be politically untenable...

The Obama administration has decided to work within the system... I'm OK with that as long as it works...  We shall see...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
yeah, Krugman (4.00 / 2)
And, Galbraith, and Simon, and Baker, and Stiglitz...
[ Parent ]
L'apertura a sinistra (4.00 / 6)
The consensus on the left, lord_mike, at least as I understand it, comes in two parts:

1) Obama appears to believe that the current system can be fixed without any radical changes in its structure, its goals, or the status of the elites currently running it. This is almost certainly wrong. What's significant here is not what Krugman doesn't like, or Paul doesn't like, or what any of Obama's other critics on the left don't like, but rather what will happen if we allow him to stay in his comfort zone.

2) We're facing a major inflection point, the first in several generations. If Obama allies himself with the left, the art of the possible can preside over a far more impressive set of possibilities than conventional wisdom has yet recognized. If he doesn't, the American experiment may well be over, or at least greatly diminished.

You don't believe this. If you're right, no harm will come to you or anyone else from us nattering nabobs and DFH nay-sayers. If you're wrong, we'll all be far to busy to remind you of your error.

Doesn't that seem fair?

[ Parent ]
I'm not criticising the naysayers.... (4.00 / 2)
I recognize and appreciate that a lot of the discontent and disappointment of Geithner et al. is the loss of number 2.  The goal is no longer transforming the financial economic landscape, but merely to repair it.

Hey, I kindof feel disappointed, too... But, I'm a realist, also... I'm not sure that such a transformation would ever be totally possible...

The tools that he is using are mostly traditional... mainly, pumping money into the system.  Period.  That's historically the tools that are used to fight a financial crisis such as this one.  The method is different, but the goal is the same.  That's what central bankers do and have done for ages.  Anything else would be completely untested and untried...

I'm not going to argue that nationalizing the banks wouldn't be better than this.  It probably would be, but the fact is it's still a huge unknown.  AIG was nationalized, it's executives replaced by the government, and we still have scandal and inefficiency...

The fact is, Geithner knows more about it than I do, and I have to defer to him, even though I worry (like everyone else here) that he's the wrong man for the job.  It certainly isn't in his or Obama's best interest to fail, so I have to imagine that his proposal works on at least some level.

And I'm not omniscient, nor do I say that I'm right and you're wrong...  I fully concede that I may be completely wrong, and I do not doubt that you guys are probably completely right...

But, it's not black or white... There are always several approaches to a problem, and quite frankly, at this point, I don't know really what to think.  I hope the guys up top know what they are doing.  I'm willing to give them a chance... and I'm willing to concede a lot for positive gains.  'Cos it's everyone's well being that is being affected, even if some rich folks get too much in the bargain.  I'm OK with it... it's the price of being in a free-market, capitalist system... it sucks, but that's the United States.

Can we make it better... yeah, I think we can... but, I'll settle for stopping the bleeding and stabilizing the patient at this point.  If Geithner can make this work, and I think he can, then I'll be satisfied, regardless of the process.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I'm Afraid There's Two Things You Don't Realize, Mike (4.00 / 5)
The tools that he is using are mostly traditional... mainly, pumping money into the system.  Period.  That's historically the tools that are used to fight a financial crisis such as this one.  The method is different, but the goal is the same.  That's what central bankers do and have done for ages.  Anything else would be completely untested and untried...

(1) This is not a traditional crisis.

(2) Most of the commentators here know that it's not a traditional crisis.

And we've read half a dozen or more different economists explain different aspects of why this is so.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I completely agree Paul... (4.00 / 1)
I'm hoping for the best...  I think it certainly can work... I don't know if it will, but, I sure hope it does... 'cos we are stuck with it, it seems...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
I don't see why we are 'stuck with it' (4.00 / 1)
At the very least, some in Congress should demand an inquiry about why they are being bypassed and what the implications are for our system of government because of that bypass

[ Parent ]
I actually disagree with you (4.00 / 1)
but you certainly deserve a recommend on those posts.

It's possible Geithner will save things. We have a lot of bad debts that somebody has to pay for. The amount is unclear. Geithner might be able to shovel out enough to save the system, which will "work" although the government will end up saddled with a huge, painful debt. That's not a good outcome for progressives politically, but it's not catastrophe.

Of course the big problem is if Geithner can't shovel enough - due to losses too large, or international losses, or the CDS tangle pulling everybody down together - then we do get catastrophe. And it will be a particularly tragic catastrophe, because it was so avoidable. The FDIC-like receivership system we need to fix the banks properly could also be used to sweep up the entire financial system in the case of one of these catastrophes and keep everything go. It would be really inexcusable if, a year after Bear went down, we went into a depression because two successive administrations refused to develop that tool.


[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
I didn't win a nobel prize in economics, but I did graduate magna cum laude in the field.

If I had to characterize these two quotes:

(1)

If you're right, no harm will come to you or anyone else from us nattering nabobs and DFH nay-sayers. If you're wrong, we'll all be far to busy to remind you of your error.

(2)

Everyone just absolutely assumes that the Geithner plan will fail and the world as we know it will end.

I don't buy that one bit... it may cost more... people we don't like may benefit... and it may work in an end around fashion, but there is no guarantee that it's going to fail disastrously.

in terms of what sort of person wrote each, I would pick #1 as coming from the magna cum laude in economics, not #2.

It just seems to embody a more sober prudential outlook.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That came out badly... (0.00 / 0)
I admit it was a long time ago (we were still using GNP back then)... and I will be the first to tell you that I'm no super expert... I do know more than the average guy on the street (or the typical republican who took one econ class and thinks he knows everything), but that might mean knowing just enough to be dangerous. :-)

It's just an opinion, like millions of other opinions...  My personal gut feeling is that the Geithner plan has merit.  Will it be enough... well, I guess we shall see...  I am an optimist... I just can't believe that the folks up there are idiots, even if they are ideologues...

I only hope I'm right for the good of the country... I could care less about my ego in this matter...  We're in uncharted waters... Godspeed to our leaders... I hope they do the right thing!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I've never done this before - apologies if it blows up (4.00 / 1)

Geitner is the one that allowed (4.00 / 1)
them to be unregulated and still allowing it, by not tacking on strings.

My blog  
Prioritizing to save Obama from himself (4.00 / 1)
I'm not an economic genius, so bear that in mind when you read the following. I get rather blunt, which doesn't make me uncomfortable, per se, but in light of the fact that I'm not a Paul Krugman, it's conceivable that I'm being too hard on Obama. Since Krugman recently pronounced Geithner's plan likely to fail, though, I don't feel like my convictions are misplaced, even if they're not expertly reasoned.

I read a book in the 80's about how to prioritize your time. It had a title like "How to get control of your time and your life." We need to apply a roughly similar outlook to saving the country from banksters, and Obama from his poor judgement.

I personally am not very ideological, so I don't look at this so much as "pushing Obama to the left". Rather, I look at this as saving the country from financial armegeddon, which will directly relate to the ability of the United States to lead the world to a greener, planet-saving future.

We can't afford to waste yet another 8 years, which could be well spent moving the planet to a sustainable future. To me, this has nothing to do with ideology. If the sea level is rising, water resources are getting stressed, arable farm land is being lost, and we are still hooked on burning hydrocarbons, 8 years from now, your ideology isn't going to make a fig of difference when it inevitably becomes your turn to suffer drought, lung cancer, hunger, and poverty.

I'm really starting to get angry at Obama. He seems like a likeable enough guy, but that's simply not good enough. I didn't vote for him because I want to sit down and have a beer - or even a latte, which I like much better - with him. If he helps the banksters financially rape the US of A, he's not going to have the $$$ he needs to push forward a major, planetary saving ecological agenda. I don't care how likeable he is, and while I'm happy that he's so much smarter than Bush, that isn't good enough, either.

IMO, we should be prioritizing correcting Obama's bone-headed choices of his Wall Street chums for his financial team. That should be priority #1, since failing here puts the most important ecological initiatives in jeopardy. (As well as the more ideological concerns that lefties have, that require $$, and/or people who don't put Wall Street greed above the welfare of the country.)

We need to make Obama OWN his stupid decisions on bank bailouts and economic advisors. To be fair to Obama, we will not blame him for creating the mess, but he needs to understand that we are going to blame him for not fixing it in a patriotic, responsible manner.

If Obama enables financial rapists, does that not make him a financial rapist, himself? He needs to be asked this question, often enough and loudly enough, until he also realizes that being a charming, eloquent man, with some good intentions, is not enough.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

I Agree With Everything You Say Here (4.00 / 5)
except for your bizarre insistence that "this has nothing to do with ideology":

I personally am not very ideological, so I don't look at this so much as "pushing Obama to the left". Rather, I look at this as saving the country from financial armegeddon, which will directly relate to the ability of the United States to lead the world to a greener, planet-saving future.

We can't afford to waste yet another 8 years, which could be well spent moving the planet to a sustainable future. To me, this has nothing to do with ideology. If the sea level is rising, water resources are getting stressed, arable farm land is being lost, and we are still hooked on burning hydrocarbons, 8 years from now, your ideology isn't going to make a fig of difference when it inevitably becomes your turn to suffer drought, lung cancer, hunger, and poverty.

The essence of ideology is how one parses the world--not just the physical world, but the moral and conceptual world as well.  So the connections you make in this passage are your ideology made manifest.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Paul, you're such a smarty (0.00 / 0)
You're such a smarty that writing a post that you mostly agree with gives me a rush. :-)

Question: What can we do to make Obama own the problem? I suggest you write a front page diary, soliciting ideas. I don't have any that I'm particularly enthused about, but I'll take a stab at it.

bystander quotes Galbraith above, calling for GAO or FDIC independent examination of the loan tapes. Since the public will ultimately be liable for any dunderheaded moves by Obama appointees, such as Geithner, which sacrifice the public good at the altar of Wall Street greed, I suggest we focus on associating the "cash for trash" with (future) taxes (on our children, no less than us), and rally to the motto "No taxation without GAO examination." We really need the whole country to get on a populist, economically accountable message, which I believe is quite possible. This won't be possible if we say "Obama needs the money to fight global warming", but it will be possible if we just focus on the universal desire (excepting Wall Street, plutocrats, etc.) not to allow the public to get financially raped.

In a way, this is a propitious time to do that, since the public is aroused by the bonuses. The bonuses are truly miniscule compared to the whole bailout totals, but, as was noted on an OpenLeft diary or two, have helped to keep attention focussed on the economic mess.

Another factor in our favor is famous economists who have spoken out against what's going on. Maybe they can be talked into serving on a "People's Committee" to provide a joint critique on what the hell's going on, with weekly reports to the public. Obama may not want Krugman, et. al., to have a seat at the table, but that doesn't mean that We the People don't want them to have a prominent seat at some table where they can exert collective influence.

(BTW, everybody should take a look at the recent The Real New segment Parties All The Time. Members of Congress now spend 1/4 to 1/3 of their time raising money. There's about 20-40 fund-raising events, per day.)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
The Cost | 114 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox