EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
They Go or Obama Goes
Barack Obama and the Democrats he led to a stunning victory two years ago are going down hard in the face of an economic crisis that he did nothing to create but which he has failed to solve. That is somewhat unfair because the basic blame belongs to his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who let the bulls of Wall Street run wild in the streets where ordinary folks lived. And there was universal Republican support in Congress for the radical deregulation of the financial industry that produced this debacle.
The core issue for the economy is the continued cost of a housing bubble made possible only after what Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers back then trumpeted as necessary "legal certainty" was provided to derivative packages made up of suspect Alt-A and subprime mortgages. It was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Senate Republican Phil Gramm drafted and which Clinton signed into law, that made legal the trafficking in packages of dubious home mortgages. In any decent society the creation of such untenable mortgages and the securitization of risk irrationally associated with it would have been judged a criminal scam. But no such judgment was possible because thanks to Wall Street's sway under Clinton and Bush the bankers got to rewrite the laws to sanction their treachery.
It is Obama's continued deference to the sensibilities of the financiers and his relative indifference to the suffering of ordinary people that threaten his legacy, not to mention the nation's economic well-being. There have been more than 300,000 foreclosure filings every single month that Obama has been president, and as The New York Times editorialized, "Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the Obama administration's efforts to address the foreclosure problem will make an appreciable dent." The Times noted that the administration's main program has been a bust, with only $321 million of the $30 billion allocated to the program having been spent to help folks stay in their homes.
The ugly reality that only 398,198 mortgages have been modified to make the payments more reasonable can be traced to the program being based on the hope that the banks would do the right thing. While Obama continued the Bush practice of showering the banks with bailout money, he did not demand a moratorium on foreclosures or call for increasing the power of bankruptcy courts to force the banks, which created the problem, to now help distressed homeowners.
The subject of housing foreclosures is inherently boring unless you happen to own a home being foreclosed, in which case your family's life has just been turned disastrously upside down. But few of the well-paid pundits on television are in such a position, and as a result the tragedy that has hit 4 million families in the past two years has received scant notice.
But even that highly privileged group of commentators must now be aware that those foreclosures are behind Tuesday's news that U.S. home sales reached their lowest point in 15 years and that there is unlikely to be an economic recovery without a dramatic turnabout in the housing market. The stock market tanked Tuesday on reports that U.S. home sales had dropped 25.5 percent below the year-ago level.
When homes are foreclosed in a neighborhood the equity of those in the area who have faithfully paid their mortgages is slashed. And when the banks dump those foreclosed properties back on the market, prices drop even lower. Yet the administration has offered the most tepid of responses to stanch the fierce bleeding of home equity worth. A paltry $4.1 billion has been committed to efforts by the states to help the unemployed and other distressed borrowers stay in their homes. Compare that with the trillions spent on making the financial industry super-profitable once again.
There is no way that Obama can begin to seriously reverse this course without shedding the economic team led by the Clinton-era "experts" like Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who got us into this mess in the first place. They are spooked by one overwhelmingly crippling idea-don't rattle the financial titans whom we must rely on for investment. But when it comes to keeping people in their homes, it is precisely the big banks that must be rattled into doing the right thing.
Obama gained credibility through sacking Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making untoward remarks. Why not sack Summers and Geithner for untoward policies that have inflicted such misery on the general public?
Click here to check out Robert Scheer's new book, "The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
122 Comments so far
Show All"Why not sack Summers and Geithner for untoward policies that have inflicted such misery on the general public ?"
hmmmm, never bite the hand that feeds your campaign.
--------
Barack Obama (D) - Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
--------
...peace...
Why not explain what you mean?
Jill: I agree! Robert Sheer is a smart guy -- I have heard him speak, and I have watched interviews with him. However, he is stuck, literally, in the two-party system. He knows the system is the problem, but he just can't bring himself to name it, and to claim it -- instead, he criticizes the Democrats, albeit ever so lightly, and then, he turns around and supports Obama and the system, with a blind loyalty. If only some of these so-called liberal writers could break with the Democratic Party and look at other possibilities -- 3rd Parties, for instance.
On another, but similar issue -- The other night, I watched Channel One -- NYC news. Two anchors were talking about the upcoming primaries and elections. Both of our so-called Democratic Senators -- Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand (appointed by Governor Paterson to fill Clinton's seat) are up for reelection. The two male anchors talked on and on about Schumer and Gillibrand, and stated that three people were running against Schumer and two people were running against Gillibrand. However, throughout the segment of news, both anchors continued to refer to the candidates as unknowns, with no hope of winning the primary, etc. Since the anchors mentioned the unknowns, I kept listening, waiting to hear the names of the candidates. Instead, they ended the segment stating that it was too bad that no one would ever know who the candidates are, never once uttering the names of the candidates. Such is the current state of M$M -- continuing to support the status quo. The so-called journalists had an opportunity to inform the citizens of NYC, and to name the unknowns, to offer a short bio of the unknowns, and to even interview the unknowns, but instead, chose to support the system, and to keep their audiences in the dark.
Thanks, Jill!
This entire article is "Scheer" Madness!
It is the vomit emitted by someone who is much too comfortable to be a real "Progressive", much less a true Leftist (class warfare).
Although Scheer pretends to be upset with certain Democrat Party policy decisions, he is, in the end, a suporter nonetheless.
Scheer uses the tactics of most "Gatekeepers" of the status quo... complain like hell, but in the end come to the conclusion that "holding their feet to the fire" while continuing to support them is the best we can hope for.(In other words... you will get more of the same, but you may retain "HOPE™".
Scheers job would appear to be to sympathise with the outraged liberals/progressives while at the same time keeping them firmly within the Dem Party orbit - heaven forbid they should really wise up and bolt.
"he criticizes the Democrats, albeit ever so lightly, and then, he turns around and supports Obama and the system, with a blind loyalty."
Don't you worry, Sheer will denounce Obama. How do I know this? Listen to his interview with Ralph Nader, hosted by the Nation Magazine. Nader asked him: Where will you draw the line on your support for Obama? Sheer's response: the war.
Maybe Sheer can weasel his way out of this hypocrisy by claiming he meant the Iraq war - which really isn't over anyway, is it? - and not the other ones.
If you listen to that debate and then read Sheer today, it is plain to see what kind of "thinker" he is. If this were 1968, Sheer would be writing for Time Magazine.
It's time for We the People to learn to take some control of this deteriorating system, and we can't do it by taking seriously these suckered, compromised columnists who have a stake in the status quo.
The Democratic Party - the duopoly - is coming out in full force. Elections coming! Sorry, but yes, we are going to be subjected to this crap from die hard Democrats for a while now.
You have nailed it many times over, Jill. Had Obama had any desire to undo this mess, he had the political capital to do it. We the People would have been right behind him and he knew it. Instead, he chose to further the Bush agenda. Obama is either a hopeless coward or he's working for big $$ and knows it.
It's clear, Robert Sheer is a Democratic Party shill. His job is to convince progressives to, again, put their support and energy behind the party. It's a winning strategy! uh ... if you ignore the past.
i've always enjoyed this quote/scene from the film 'american beauty'. i believe it's applicable to many writers coping with the reality we're facing.
--------
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/037/037381p1.html
{"Never underestimate the power of denial," Ricky tells Lester while selling him a bag of weed. For me that was the most important line in the film. It underlines all the characters' actions, until a point comes where each character frees him and herself from the denial they're in. It makes for a potent and powerful story, with fantastic performances and unexpected humor along the way.}
------
...peace...
When will somebody find a remedy for the nationwide epidemic of terminal denial syndrome that has afflicted most Americans ?
Most Americans still believe we are in a recession or depression and deny the existence of the paradigm change that has taken over their lives.
I belive I read somewhere were only three missed meals from change. The problem is nobody has missed all three meals yet.. Just wait till they do!
Otherwise Americans will putup with anything being scaned on the way into the movies. having the new deep scan pictures from the airport scanners put up on the internet. Anything.
Privacy, respect, trust, have long since gone by the wayside. It's a brave new world.
>^^<
Makes me wish the Cylons, or sombody would attack. I don't see anyother way to get this mob called humanity togther.
The answer is just as iowablackbird stated.
As Tip O'Neil famously stated: "You dance with who brung ya."
The U.S. has not been a representative democracy for a long time, and is now blatantly an oligarchy. Anyone who doesn't realize this is either stupid or not paying attention. There will be no returning to democracy. We are far, far too far down the road of corporatocracy to regain our government without a literal violent revolution, which in this country of apathetic morons will simply never, ever happen.
I don't know about you, but I'm saving every dime I can to move the hell out of this spiralling cesspool as soon as possible.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
They just stopped representing the sheeple. It's much more profitable to represent the Corporations.
>^^<
It's way past time to dump all of the invertebrates!
::: LEAVE MY SPINE OUT OF THIS!! :::
lolz. I got it.
>^^<
"Most people are finally waking up."
I hope you are correct, but I've been hoping for that for some time and been perpetually disappointed.
I voted independent in '96 because of NAFTA. Clinton proceeded with more garbage - Iraq sanctions and bombings, DOMA, financial deregulation, etc. In '99 Seattle with Big Labor in attendance. Hurrah! I said, then Labor sided with free trader Gore in '00. I voted independent again. By '04, with the war atrocities in full swing, Bushes lies, jobs hemorrhaging, etc, and the Dem sounding as or more hawkish and still free trade, the indy did no better in the polls than before (I voted indy again) Then '08, and in spite of the red flags all over the place, it seems that for liberals, progressives, whatever, electing the first black Pres. was more important than anything else, like what he actually stood for - free trade, war in Afghanistan, bailing out Wall St. etc - and the indy did poorly again (I voted indy). Each and every time I keep thinking "Well America will surely have woken up by now!" and each time I am disappointed.
So if the Dems get trounced at the polls it will be by Reps, and if the Reps then get trounced it will be by Dems because people have consigned themselves to being ducks in a shooting gallery - the duck swims to one end of the track and gets shot so he swims to the other end and gets shot then he swims back again. It never occurs to the duck to jump off the track and swim away altogether.
As I said, I hope you are correct, but I am not optimistic. I will continue to support and vote indy, but i am afraid there are still too many like those i have had lengthy conversations with on other threads who continue to vote Dem because !) they believe the Party can be reformed from within 2) they will do anything to beat the Reps 3) they themselves have not personally suffered under Dem. rule or perhaps have benefitted from a Dem crumb or 2 and don't want to upset their apple cart, no matter how many rotten apples are in it - or any combination/permutation of the 3.
So I don't know what it will take to get even the ducks who get shot under either party to jump off the track, let alone those who perceive that their own personal best interests lie by staying at the Dem end of the pond (or cesspool). Apparently the stink hasn't reached their nostrils yet or their smellers are just shot. I am perpetually amazed at what folks will put up with ......
Voting third party is not jumping of the track. It is true that it would be a significant event if a majority voted third party. But the only way that could happen would be as a reflection of massive social and political upheaval and change that had already occurred. In other words, people would have already jumped off the track before that could happen. People deciding to vote third party is but one symptom of people having jumped off the track, and it is an effect and can never be a cause.
Saying that the two parties are fundamentally the same and that neither serve the working class people, and that the solution is to vote third party does not get people off the track. To the contrary it suggests that in most ways they can stay on the track and that there is a relatively simple and painless way to get the needed results.
Millions are already of the track, and that has nothing to do with their electoral political preferences.
Voting third part is not the antidote to the "duopoly," and the duopoly is more of a symptom than a root cause of the problems. Steering people to a certain electoral choice dos not radicalize them, nor knock them off the track.
Most people continue to vote for one of the two parties not because they think it is in "their own personal best interests," nor because they believe "the party can be reformed from within" nor because "they will do anything to beat the Reps" nor that "they themselves have not personally suffered under Dem. rule" nor because they "have benefited from a Dem crumb or don't want to upset their apple cart."
Most people think they don't have much of a choice. They are right. Most people think it doesn't much matter how they vote. They are right. Most people don't vote at all. Of those who do vote, about half vote Democratic. Of those who vote Democratic maybe 10% use the thought process you are using here to argue for a third party vote. That 10% is mostly relatively upscale and white - academics, intellectuals and professionals. For the rest of the population, these arguments will never be seen as relevant or important. They are not looking for the perfect platform, they are not agonizing over their personal values and personal choices, they know that the struggle goes on every day and that voting has about as much impact on or relevance to that struggle as the relative amount of time it takes to actually cast the ballot, they are not looking for ways to work within the system or make the system work. They are fighting to survive, and they want to see the system smashed up, not restored, justified, rationalized or improved.
Whatever ...
You and I have been down this road before, why do it again ...
You don't like the duopoly, but you don't like indys either, so why vote at all - isn't that your point? Fine, don't vote, the machine will be very happy ...
I would gladly support a third party, as I have in the past. But I've become convinced that such a candidate/party would never get anywhere given the current cultural and media environment. I've watched things go downhill since the 60's, and at this point it seems totally unrealistic to expect anything from a third party. Maybe the situation will change in a decade or so, but for 2012 and 2016, which will be pivotal, it just seems impossible.
I don't know exactly what this "duopoly" idea refers to, but I assume it's the (false) equivalence between democrats and republicans that's so pervasive on commondreams. As I've said before, the idea that democrats and republicans are equivalent is inaccurate and dangerous. Why is it so hard to understand that people are different? Even if they are generally wrong, some people are still better/worse than others. Value is relative rather than absolute. In this particular situation, given the cultural climate and the impossibility of third party progress, liberals who do not vote are supporting the worse of two evils and will only makes things much worse (though it might make them feel more self-righteous);
Aquifer is on the right track with his reasons people continue to vote democrat: " !) they believe the Party can be reformed from within 2) they will do anything to beat the Reps 3) they themselves have not personally suffered under Dem." The first two points seem reasonable, though they need to be elaborated. I would just add regarding point 2) that many liberals view the republicans as extremely dangerous, way, way beyond the danger inherent in the democrats. Regarding point 1) most liberals understand that democrats vary along the liberal-conservative continuum, and that the party can be improved by strategically supporting and joining forces with the more liberal democrats. This is fairly simple common sense - I can't say for sure that I'm right, but for me it's the only game in town (combination of points 1 and 2). But I am convinced that it's better than the false equivalence framework, which eliminates all viable options (besides being irrational).
Regarding pt.3, I doubt that it's very relevant because most liberals are empathic (to varying degrees) and will respond to the suffering of others. It doesn't have to be personal. This is another example of a false equivalence between liberals (empathic) and conservatives (not empathic).
I should also add that progress in reforming the democrats (and republicans) requires a legitimate media, something we have not had for decades.
"Of those who vote Democratic maybe 10% use the thought process you are using here to argue for a third party vote. That 10% is mostly relatively upscale and white - academics, intellectuals and professionals." - twoamericas
I think you illustrate the point nicely.
Not following you. How so?
on edit - never mind, upon re-reading the thread I understand what you are saying.
Regarding point three, you say that "liberals are empathic (to varying degrees) and will respond to the suffering of others. It doesn't have to be personal. This is another example of a false equivalence between liberals (empathic) and conservatives (not empathic)."
There is some truth to that. Liberals and conservatives do differ in their preferred approach to their presumed inferiors, and that is analogous to the way they look at their pets. Conservatives think pets are best managed with discipline and far, liberals think that pets are best managed with affection and treats. For many liberals and progressives, this difference in approaches is a reflection of a difference in some interior state of being. They see themselves as vastly better that conservatives, as morally superior, because of their loving and caring nature which is a product of their interior feelings and closely allied with their self identity and feelings of self-worth. This then is expressed in their approach to their pets, and self-expression is seen as the most valid form of political activity.
What conservatives and liberals share, however, is far more important than the differences between their approaches, their styles. Whether they treat people with affection and treats or with fear and discipline, they both see themselves as masters and others - minorities, poc, and poor people - as pets rather than as equals.
In fact, in liberal circles pets may be more highly valued than less fortunate people. Discussions about pets in distress always elicit much sympathy and support while discussions about people in trouble never get quite the same consensus and outpouring of support and sympathy. The difference between the two is reliable, consistent and it is quite stark.
Huh? I vote, and will vote, and will vote third party. I just will not kid myself about that or indulge in any childish fantasies about the system or "democracy."
What does that have to do with insisting that we all see voting as a cause of political and social change, and what does that have to do with using one's personal beliefs as some sort of important determining political factor?
I am not telling anyone not to vote, or not to vote third party. I am telling people to stop pushing voting as a meaningful or powerful political action, as any sort of response to the crisis we face.
I don't think what I like and don't like has much to do with anything or is of any interest to anyone, anymore than whether or not I ride a bike or recycle or eat local and but organic would be.
Yet you present this as follows: either a person must like the duopoly, or else they must like independents, or else they must be opposed to voting, and therefore are the enemy helping or enabling the machine. I object to that extremely limited and shallow political analysis being presented ads the prime way to look at all things political. That is a call for people to accept the system, it is being used as an attack on those criticizing the system. That makes it reactionary.
I'd have written in Louis Farakan, before I tuched the switch for that poser tom, Obama. I'd least I'd be voting for something. Paranoid as I am I still can't belive how bad bummer is.
>^^<
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
Hello redwriteman,
There are more sheep dissatisfied with the dumbocratic party then with the rethuglican party. If this holds for the 2010 and 2012 erections as the Chinese proverb states "may you live in interesting times." Or "quea sera sera". My crystal or mccrystal ball is broken so I am guided by the past. What my vision is makes a quick trip to Hades feel like a walk in the park. As I see it when we look up it is Hell that I see.
I am doing all I can to defeat Jane "AIPAC" Harman in November.
I am actually going to vote for her Republican challenger, Mattie Fein.
I may even put a bumpersticker on my car.
I wouldn't care if every single Democrat lost in November.
It couldn't happen to a more rotten party.
They are just a bunch of corporate shills, "going along to get along" with their corporate/military industrial/AIPAC masters. They have ignored us long enough.
"Impeachment is off the table"?!
Pfffttt!
"I am actually going to vote for her Republican challenger, Mattie Fein."
What about write-ins if there is no third party candidate on the ballot? Republican or Democrat, it's a lose-lose.
Amen to lose-lose. I hear going back, and all I think of is Ceasar at the Senate, on the floor bleeding. That bit of reform took awile too if history is to be belived. Althought it was too little too late.
>^^<
Mr. Robert, I don't remember you spewing such Scheer apologist nonsense during your Ramparts Days or did you?
Millions of voters MUST vote Third Party by 2012; that is, if the electoral process has any actual validity by 2012--for the ruling kleptocracy to pay any attention!......
ON THE OTHER HAND..the reempowerment of Tea-bag rehearsed Repug dead-enders into a ruling 2012 cabal might ultimately force the by-then-massive unemployed and underemployed,the angry independents, the home dispossesed, the progressives, the Social Security endangered seniors, the visionaries, the Latinos,offended Muslims and all the many other Left Outs to coalesce into a united front that JUST WON'T TAKE ANY MORE and even prove it by hitting the streets on Inaugural Day 2013, despite batons, stun guns or worse!!!
This is not going to happen, unfortunately. I was convinced that something along these lines would occur following the Bush fiasco, but it didn't come close. The media would control the flow of information such that very few of these "left out" people would even know what hit them.
Clear back to JFK really. although I expect to get flamed good for letting that bit of light into the room. :)
>^^<
Good analysis. Thanks.
"Obama gained credibility through sacking Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making untoward remarks. " -- Robert Sheer
Obama gained NO credibility with me. I have been protesting the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., prior to the bombs raining down with "shock and awe." Obama campaigned on the intent to escalate the war in Afghanistan -- one reason, but only one reason WHY I did NOT vote for him. Add his FISA vote, and his BAILOUT vote, among a host of other reasons.
Does anyone really think that Obama will fire Summers and Geithner? And, how about Robert Rubin, who lurks behind the scenes? Not to mention countless other Golden Sacks employees, et. al., who line the various governmental agencies -- appointed by Obama.
Jill: I agree with you 100%!
And this is just one area where OilyBomber is horrible, we still have the Horrendous Foriegn/ Military and Environmental Policies.
Have good day paying engorged corporations to kill babies.
Please vote third party only a consciencelessness fool would show support for this OilyBomber.
"Well" - Under the Reagan-Bush administrations (ha), the first wave of Priapic Burglars stole everything that was not nailed down. In the Clinton years, wave two of PBs removed all legislative nails, then happily stole everything that WAS tied down. The 21st century wave of Priapic Burglars swept inside and found nothing left but the floors, walls, and ceilings.
Undaunted, the assholes used legal crowbars to steal those. By August 2008, enough floorboards had been ripped up for much of humankind to fall right through to the basement. In the last two years, trillions of dollars have been borrowed to get us some replacement floorboards. That's all. We still have no floor, and from here to eternity the work output of our species will not replace the stuff stolen by the first two waves of Priapic Burglars. They stole both Dream and Future.
"Why not sack Summers and Geithner for untoward policies that have inflicted such misery on the general public?"
Sack them? They need to be put on parallel bicycle frames with chains that drive generators. The generators should produce enough electricity for a magnet to hold aloft the blade of a guillotine. But, if both men cannot pedal hard enough, or both men stop pedaling - - - - -
Even before this year's November elections Barack Obama is a lame duck. Worse, if you tap the outside of that duck it goes BONK, BONK, BONK because it is hollow. There is no substance inside. It does not, frankly, require substance to get through Harvard Law, but in God's name, Community Organization surely does. What befell those poor Chicago Disorganized?
Just go and look, but to be safe use a webcam, Chitowns still not the safeist place on earth. Especially after dark.
>^^<
The elite pundits are just as out of touch as their hero. Scherer asserts Oboma's "threatened legacy" as if we should prostrate ourselves and pay homage to it. Legacy? You mean a for Profit Health model? Or recent reports of Social Security diminishment. Or interminable war and occupation? Rendition and torture via proxy states? Mountain top removal permits and oil drilling permits?
Wake up Scherer becuase you are completely clueless.
Scheer sez;
"The core issue for the economy is the continued cost of a housing bubble..."
Aren't there millions of folks who are unemployed and more losing their work every single day?
Also, is Scheer still hoping that Oilbomber will do the right thing?
Clinton, Bush and Obama are three of a kind and that is a tough hand to beat. Fortunately the old law of supply and demand is kicking in. When too much of the money supply is accumulated in too few hands demand dies and the wheels fall off the economic train. Until wealth is redistributed and put back into the hands of consumers the economy can not recover. A great depression every few generations is good for the soul, call it the time of the Jubilee. What is really disgusting is what has happened on the political front. An elite governing class supported by we the corporations, arising not out of a dictatorship or authoritarian government form, but a democracy. Now that is a new twist in the age-old story. I hear people saying “we need campaign finance reform or term limits” this does not sound progressive to me. Sounds like another group of people wanting a better chance at a turn to feed at the public trough. The cancer that has corrupted the democratic process can not be cured with Band-Aids. The real progressives are the 50% of the people who refuse to play the stupid game, they do not vote. Progressives should start a “hell no we won’t vote campaign”, let the elite people and the corporations rule the day. Just show the rest of the world that the government in Washington is not legitimate. Shine that spot light on them and watch the cockroaches scurry for the woodwork. Unfortunately, that is a too progressive for progressives, so we will let GD II save us from ourselves.
solrev yours is a non strategy 50% of everyone already do not vote.
The corporate Monsters would be happy if the voters atrophied even more.
Vote third Party to show where your heart and mind are.
Eventually you may have third party power.
And spoilers can gain disproportionate power instantly.
True, as of today the Wall St types are simply cooking the books. Hoping to be out the door on their golden parachutes brfore anyone relizes, That paper isn't worth paper. Then things will get interesting.
Todays news had at the same time in the same parsgraph, that houseing sales were worst in decades, yet the two largest street listed home buliders had for the first time in two years turned a profit!. How I couldn't guess, sold their familys souls to the devil for a onetime writeup?
Just my guess!
>^^<
"Barack Obama and the Democrats he led to a stunning victory two years ago are going down hard in the face of an economic crisis that he did nothing to create but which he has failed to solve."
The article starts with how Obama - Goldman Sachs right-hand man - had nothing to do with destroying the American economy. Thing is, if it wasn't Goldman Sachs lobbying for less rules, then who was it?
Did GW Bush force the banks to accept his own deregulation, or did the banks (Obama's string-masters) ask for this?
The entire article is a "don't blame my Obama" rant, and because of this, it's not very credible or useful.
qatzelok,
Not only is Scheer's defense of Obama not credible or useful, as you say, but stating that the Greatest Depression (in progress) is "...an economic crisis that he...has failed to solve" is 'scheer' obfuscation by gross understatement. Obama unequivocally cast his lot and his vaunted "legacy" with TPTB, aiding and abetting this engineered dispossession of the middle class---since even before the election, as joecool noted above, with FISA, support for bailouts, and unfunded war funding.
The post-inauguration record is now so long and abysmal that many of the "professional left" have gone beyond willful blindness in extending Obama any benefit of doubt. Witting or not, they are now part of the game, and Scheer thus assists the briar patch strategy: cloak Obama in wool while flipping Congress to the (fellow) wolves. Stealth scheering of the middle class and Social Security will then accelerate --- all under adequate cover to enable his re-election. And finally, with the people thus utterly disempowered, Wall Street and Neocon war-lust can proceed unopposed. War on Iran can proceed in 2012, with the compliant assistance of "the professional left" ... followed by Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Somalia, et cetera.
This disastrous imperial playbook seems inalterable ... and history, inevitable. But... somehow, I’ll wager, 2012 may bring many unexpected surprises.
Greenspan deserves at least equal blame with his there's no housing bubble bs and poor interest rate management.
Sheer on a talk show failed to contradict his fellow commentators who said Iran had the bomb.
Only yesterday John Boehner, the King of Slime Republican House minority leader, called for exactly the same thing Scheer is calling for in this piece: the resignation of Summers and Geithner, for their failure to do anything to fix this broken economy. If course it's pure cynicism on Boehner's part, since he eats that for breakfast, and Biden immediately came to the defense of the crakerjack economic team imported from the Bush and Clinton administrations and Wall Street. So here's Scheer the liberal pundit saying exactly the same thing as one of the worst rightwing assholes in Congress, which was contradicted by Biden, who had to defend Obama's economic wizards who are destroying the economy while endlessly preening and boasting about what a great job they're doing (for no one but Wall Street, which is the only economy they know or care about).
The cognitive dissonance would be exhilarating if it weren't so depressing.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
Hello Ephraim,
People have been calling for the heads of the "economic disaster team" for a long time. Whether the slime "boner" and the rest of the rethugs get on the bandwagon doesn't matter. Even with a new team the problem has lasted a long time and the treatment must be multi-generational. Step one shock treatment reduce the power of money and increase people power. If this doesn't happen then "the ballgame" (to coin a phrase) is over. In that case it is better for the virus to run its course as the patient will not survive. Any treatment given will only prolong the misery. To the elite that is the goal. Keep it going forever!
For Democrats to be successful there people have to trust that government can make things better. Part of establishing that trust means investigating the wrongs of the past. No matter which party that affects. The failure of Obama to appoint an independent prosecuters to look at misdeeds done by the previous administration was a huge breach of the people's trust in govt. Clinton quashed investigations into the previous administration of George H. W. Bush that, had they played out, may have tainted the Bush name to the point where a run for president by Bush 43 would not have been successful. The american people need desperately to hear the truth spoke plainly. The problem is that the right wing has dominated the airwaves with misinformation for the last 20-30 years. Most of these efforts have been to erode trust in govt. This is part of the reason for the rise in libertarianism. These people are just disgusted with the two parties they to choose from every election.
I am about the same age as the President. In my life there have been several reincarnations of "the best and the brightest." From Robert McNamara(Vietnam War) to Arthur Laffer (Supply Side Economics) to Alan Greenspan (irrational exuberance) to Donald Rumsfeld (Afganistan/Iraq) to now the "Axis of Wall Street" Geithner, Summers and Bernanke. Failures all. I can understand the president needing people around him who he trusts implicitly, but right now the country needs him to step outside his comfort level. None of his economic team saw the problems in the economy developing and therefore their suggestions for fixing the economy have been off the mark. Further they have actively worked to weaken the voices of those, Shiela Bair, Joseph Stiglitz, and Paul Volker among others, who predicted the problems and can provide the best advice for righting our economy. The president would do well to change his economic team at the earliest possible time. It would show the public that he is serious about fixing the economy and getting people back to work. The Clinton "Wall Street friendly" model the democrats have adopted wins elections but will destroy our economy only slightly slower than any republican plans.
The president needs to dust off the bully pulpit and lay out facts for the public. His efforts need to be buttressed by a coordinated push by the DNC and progressive groups to change the public's perception on a few major issues, economics, energy, and social security for starters. He needs to stop organizing his administration around the 2012 election and take care of business now or he will join the ranks of the unemployed around Jan. 2013.
True and I call Bullshit that Obama had nothing to do with this mess. He voted for Fisa and the bank bailout and all the other deals he made with everyone if he would just get to be President. To say he and the Dems had nothing to do with this crisis is such bull. When they were the minority, they could only vote no. When they are the majority, they can't get bills passed. With the thugs the minority, they hold up every bill they can, when they were the majority, they rammed things through while the dems said, get us the votes and we will change things. First thing they did was to help change the torture rules, and the spying rules and every other unconstitutional thing Bush did.
They are all just a bunch of rich corporate whores who do not serve the people.
But now they are asking for our money and our votes again and using scare tactics like you don't want the repubs back in power. Look what they did before.
To a certain extent you are right. There are things he could not do as a candidate and still get elected. But he is president now and that changes things. It would show a tremendous amount of political courage for a politician to tell the truth. That is why you see it so rarely. You are also right that many people may not have been paying close enough attention to the person they elected. it is very hard to separate the myth created about candidates by their campaigns from the person. I became disillusioned enough to change my registration from democrat to unaffiliated prior to the election. But I sure as hell don't think that McCain would have been an improvement. I do not believe it is too late for Obama to reign in the privacy abuses and war crime actions initiated, in the name of national security, by the Bush administration and carried forward by this administration.
Financial crimes...by the administration...get serious, it's only insiders doing what insiders do best which is why I say replace the Axis of Wall Street.