The Economic Populist
Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
Most Popular
User login
Recent comments
Poll
The Golden Rule
- 1826161 reads
Will the NY Attorney General Bring Doomsday Charges Against Wall Street? If So, How Long Will He Survive?
- 1216058 reads
New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures
- 949451 reads
How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth?
- 361661 reads
VAT or Value Added Tax is Getting a Look in D.C.
- 345235 reads
U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression
- 320890 reads
The war on the middle class
- 314932 reads
House discusses 401k/IRA confiscation
- 313990 reads
Tax Cuts for the Rich Do Not Generate Jobs
- 279612 reads
.
One point of elaboration. I think that the deal was done before the primaries, that the investment bankers picked him, pushed him, and knew that he would deliver. Even his 'sink or swim' stance is a fraud since he is the ultimate beneficiary of the system, having never held a real job for too long, if at all. He's now on our dole and will be the rest of his life. I believe that Wall Street knew they were headed for a serious fall and they knew that Obama's election would be a major distraction from the heist that they had to perform. President McCain and Vice President Palin would have offered limited distraction value, whereas Obama was given all these chances. He's just Clinton at the wrong time, imho.
That is a variation of the apology for Democrats to their base over the past decades There is all this projection of good will and motives onto the candidate. Aside from economic policy, which is encapsulated by Summers/Geithner, there is national security. Habeas corpus is still in the penalty box, we have a new Patriot Act, and there's electronic spying and the attempts to control the internet and "tag" users for easy observation. They don't disagree with this. They implement the policies and they vote for it because, as you say, they dig it. It's all part of their lust for control.
I remember Perot and his proposals. I also remember that he was decent on social issues as well. He had his flaws and a very mean streak but, on paper, he was probably much closer to reality than the others at that time. Sad, though, we can't get somebody who is both highly competent and of moderate temperament.
In what way did Obama hoodwink his Wall Street supporters?
I think he sure hoodwinked the many small contributors he had who thought he'd clean up the mess created under Bush.
Mostly what we've seen is a lof of willful blindness and a determination not to follow where the facts lead when it comes to the jobless and the economy. He stopped fighting for average working (or unemployed Americans) before the end of 2009.
Since 2010, if you're not a senior or immigrant, you haven't heard any passionate, forceful and determined speaking about your plight. Actually I have to strike "passionate" and "forceful" with regard to seniors; that's only come out consistently in his remarks about immigrants.
He's triaged most Americans with serious problems into "sink or swim on their own" category. I believe he sees us as unfortunate people who he cannot help and will not allow himself to be distracted by.
He is oddly unwilling to be the agent of change that he volunteered to be.
A friend, having been in the food/beverage/hospitality business for many years, opened his own restaurant. It was continually hiring new people, firing the ones that he found wanting or to have made stupid mistakes.
After a while, the personnel became pretty much permanent, and so I said to my friend, "Well, you finally found some good people!"
My friend replied, "Not really. It's just that I used to think, it can't get worse than this! And then I found out: Yes, it can!"
But, IMO, don't we pay too much attention to the presidency? And in the case of the presidency, I don't believe that all the GOP candidates are the same -- most are the usual suspects and completely predictable, but not all. I think Buddy Roemer is different, with what is essentially an anti-corruption campaign. And I cannot equate Mitt Romney with his competition.
Having corporations notorious to offshore outsource jobs, labor arbitrage, in charge of "jobs", is obscene. How can it get any better than that for these MNCs, even with a corrupt Republican in office?
You see this meme a lot: Obama "wants to do the right thing" but can't due to external powers he can't control. Even if this was true (it's not), it's a horrible defense--as it implies Obama is overmatched and not up to the job.
The data on Obama are now there to see, based on his term so far in office. He is doing what he's doing not because he's being forced to. He's doing it because it is what he *wants* to do.
He just hasn't done it. If he really wanted to reform Wall Street corruption, which you say is the end that justifies the means, then he would have a task force of at least 100 attorneys working on financial corruption cases in the Justice Department. It took at least this many lawyers to get 1,000 convictions in the S&L scandal, which was much smaller. Instead, Obama is letting the clock run out on indictments. By the time he is reelected, there will be no opportunity to indict anyone on Wall Street once the statute of limitations comes into play.
Wall Street CEOs are pissed off because Obama called them a few of the more decorous names one hears from the general public on a daily basis. So they are going to give a few hundred millions to Republican candidates, as a hedge. Meanwhile, they will give tens of millions to Obama. It will be less than last year, just to send him a message, but it will do the job. It will keep him in line in case he is reelected, and ensure he appoints Wall Street insiders to all the right cabinet posts.
We may not be able to predict the election, but we sure can predict that Wall Street will win no matter who is elected.
Obama wants to do the right thing but he has to have Wall Street cash to get reelected so he can continue to serve the people. As I see it it is simple economics. You have to get the cash from somewhere to get reelected. I have no problem at all with Obama hoodwinking the "fat cats on Wall Street" as he called them. If they want to give up their money, Let them. It's not hyprocracy it's pragmatism in the first degree. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Especially when theends including reforming Wall Street corruption.
Hold that thought!
"One must tie everything, tax incentives, profits, costs, even being able to operate in the United States at all...to a job, for citizens of this nation." -- Robert Oak
It would require ruthless political pragmatism of the sort practiced by FDR, but first you would need the FDR situation. You would need decisive elections resulting not just in a behind-the-scenes one-party government-as-usual, but in actual up-front and open one-party dominance. Either that, or, you would need a president from neither party who could wield a bully pulpit against them both (the Ross Perot approach, except Perot never reached the White House).
It would mean UN-tying or at least de-prioritizing, everything in the way of the multitude of other ostensible objectives, such as, (to give one major instance) the 'ideal' of 'free' trade, or, (to give one minor instance) the Cuba embargo. To some extent, environmental goals would probably have to be compromised. Every type of economic preference for the sake of social goals, other than full employment, would have to be subject to discard. Strikes could not be tolerated or else would have to be quickly resolved.
Ideologues of all kinds would be angered. The media would howl day and night, systematically misrepresenting all full-employment efforts. The SCOTUS would likely become involved, contributing to a constitutional crisis (just as happened with FDR).
I am not opposing Robert Oak's suggested policy criteria ... just reflecting on the reality of Washington's habit of tying economic policy to every socio-political or ideological goal EXCEPT full employment.
Everything is already 'tied', that is, everything is held hostage to one overriding uncompromisable demand or another.
Everything is tied to altruistic globalism or to 'the national interest' -- in either case, a matter of survival not merely of the nation but of humanity. Or, everything is tied to misguided pseudo-libertarian economic ideology or to moralizing imperatives for social policy -- in any case, principles not subject to compromise.
Tax and budget issues, for example, are all to be fought out on ideological grounds! Never mind that such a thing has never happened in the history of democratic politics.
Underneath the guise of anti-politics politics, there is no principle to be found.
Underneath the supposed unity of a nation fighting a 'War on Terror' or the ultimate Cultural War, saving humanity from itself and leading the 'free world' out of the wilderness, the people are hopelessly divided against themselves.
So, yes, it makes perfect sense -- put the people to work. There's really no sane alternative.
They lock out 3rd parties and there is no doubt a decent one would win hands down at this point. This site has people of all political flavors and you can see just how much people really agree and the corporations who control the country don't want the public to realize this.
I think the legislation needed has been drafted and is there on the shelf if ever Congress would wake up to its collective responsibility to the nation, to the people, to common decency, and, to the past and the future ...
It's enacting sane legislation -- that's the difficulty.
My impression is that the 90s boom was possible only because we still had infrastructure to export. We may someday see another boom, I suppose, (although maybe not in my lifetime!), but it won't be 1990s style.
Residents of San Francisco all complain bitterly, but a hellhole? Nah.
Anonymous: if you think you're in a hellhole there in San Francisco, try Los Angeles ... or Fresno ... or Bakersfield ... or El Paso ... or Denver ... or ...
... a Ross Perot when you need one?
They do domination like some people breathe, it's so natural to them.
They're kidding themselves, the parties. 2006, 2008, and 2010 were all the voting public punishing one party or the other. That's old hat Now what? We'll have Obama versus some really strange Republican (or a 'from no where' candidate like Huntsman). None of it will work. The two party system, really just one, is dead. What's next?
How about Accenture? Didn't they fail on a > $2B contract with the FBI and were offshore outsourcing the work?
Microsoft is a combo, not only have they labor arbitraged their engineers and software developers but their culture, even in the 1990's was more about business bullying than innovation.
Apple, well, say what you will and even if they stole half of it, they at least do innovate much better. We could list a host of companies that innovate better than Microsoft, even Intel innovates better than Microsoft (another company notorious for labor arbitrage).
But the Banksters were bound and determined to keep their credit default swaps and the model is insane, it allows anyone to trade, without any risk or tie in to the underlying asset. Mathematically it's Economic Armageddon waiting to happen, or "Black Swan".
I feel the collective pocket about to be picked -- again.
Can we finally write a law that puts an end to this stupid insurance?
Pages