The Great Disconnect
Would someone please explain to me the disconnect between the nation's general approval of Obama and the supposed progressive posters on this blog, who seem to have nothing but conspiratorial contempt for our President? Is this some ritual suicide trope that the left is condemned to play out whenever liberals get into power? Is success an anathema to our side?
It's not that I mind being called an Obamabot by many of you or even the incredible more visceral hate mail I have received in my USC email box (I make not attempt to hide my email address) for the last 14 months from supposed progressives. Most of it started from the Hillary supporters who called me out for my early endorsement of Barack, but I must say, some version of that same narrative ("Obama Butt Boy" seems to be the favorite imprecation) has continued since the election.
WTF?
Here's the explanation.
As long as the people are kept in the dark, they have nothing but tribal loyalties to go on.
April 7, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I am generally persuaded by the Krugman side of this argument, let's face a couple of facts here. First, no one at this time knows whether the Obama plan will work or not. And, whether it works or not, we will not know if Obama chose this solution because he's in the pocket of Wall Street, has outsourced the heavy intellectual lifting to Cabinet members in the pocket of Wall Street, or feels this is the best he can do under the circumstances.
I don't object to arguments against his preferred program here. It's the certainty that he is intentionally rewarding obscenely rich financial executives at the expense of regular folks that I find annoying. It's just as likely that he honestly believes his solution is one most likely to get the economy working for the majority of Americans.
And I defy you to make a plausible argument in favor of any other mainstream politician enacting the solutions you propose. Anyone far enough to the left to agree with you will not get within a mile of the nomination in our current political climate.
April 7, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
April 7, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, brewmn61, and you, too, cube3u appear to have given up on demanding that your rights as citizens of this country be respected.
I don't know why you have. Perhaps, you simply don't believe there is any way that you could understand Geithner and Summers' explanation of why their plan is the best possible -- if they deigned to give it.
But Jeffrey Sachs probably has the education and experience to understand their explanation and he'd like one, too.
April 8, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saddened by the absence of citizens demanding their rights. In my family there is a nasty split on this very thing. I'm very vocal about how citizens are apparently being railroaded while others are apathetic to the whole affair.
At the very least the administration has an obligation to provide a detailed answer to the the charges of all the critics. Especially where there exist basic conflicts in the approach, staffing and availability of financial sector data, the public deserves an answer.
There is also the devisement of the social contract via the creation of the 401K retirement vehicle where persons within 7-10 years of retirement stand little chance of recovering losses. It can be argued those losses are largely attributable to the rather extreme failures of our regulatory agencies. This result is light years distant from the proposed outcome and one that has proven to hold significant risk for persons who don't have incomes that permit participation in that risk category. As originally specified and sold to the public the risk was supposed to have been very low to non-existent. In only one generation there is now a looming catastrophe for participants. If I replace a ten year old vehicle I very properly expect the new one to perform at least equally if not better than the one I replaced. We instead find ourselves in the ditch, broken down and driving a lemon the manufacturer can't even fix for all the problems.
April 8, 2009 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's laughable that you think by posting comments on a blog you are "demanding that your rights be respected."
And Geithner/Summers have done plenty of explaining of their plan. You're just convinced that it won't work. There are economists who disagree with you. Since I'm not a trained economist, and can't see into the future, I'm stuck with hoping they are doing the right thing.
Again, it comes down to whether you trust their motives or not. You obviously don't. Until their plan clearly fails, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
April 8, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
Everything you support relies totally on a coverup by this administration. I disagree with that basic premise.
Even Elizabeth Warren's report concedes there is a slight improvement under Geithner. I also see little discussion of the devastation that would be casued by major institutions going into receivership with a public and a government no ready to manage it.
I am exercising my rights as a citizen to disagree with your eyeball. :)
April 8, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right to be respected? Is that enumerated or implied?
I thought respect was earned.
I've read objections from Sachs, Stiglitz and others. I agree with you that the current admin has done an incredibly poor job of making the case for their plan. Perhaps the worst consequence of the failure to make a case is that it leaves plenty of room for speculation about malevolent motivations.
Even so, as was pointed out above, we don't really know what the true motivations are. I say this as no fan of Geithner, Summers or Rubin. As much as detest the wide application of Hanlon's Razor, as it leaves plenty of room for "mistakes were made", jumping to a conclusion of deviousness gets me no closer to the truth.
For now, I remain skeptical.
April 8, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, why isn't that Hidegard Knef's right eye in your gravatar? I'd recognise that iris anywhere!
April 8, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fans of Hildegard Knef's irises can look here.
April 8, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no proof of a cover up on bank finances, Ellen. This is what you and Black need to prove first. Prove it.
April 8, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is quite true.
However, you can make a strong case for stupidity.
April 8, 2009 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
April 8, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the 'tribe' is made up of boomers who, between snarls and whimpers, are children playing at adult life.
April 8, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This explains it all. Thanks.
April 9, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Success? Standing with the NSA on unconstitutional wiretapping? Success? Paying trillions in tribute to the folks who looted the global casino? Success? Staying in Iraq. Success? Escalation in Afghanistan? Success? A big fat defense budget. Success? Lukewarm "support" for EFCA, i.e., the kind that will let it die. That kind of success? How much success can we stand in 100 days!
Wait till we get to "reform entitlements".
April 7, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Bell said.
April 7, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What tankard said.
April 7, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Don Key said.
April 8, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with bluebell and blueface.
April 8, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, but all of the things Bluebell mentions give me great pause. At the same time, I think we liberals need to show a bit more patience with our three-month President. Two things--both positive I think--seem to explain the course we're seeing Obama take:
1. He is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Obama isn't wedded to liberal (or conservative) ideas. He wants to do what works on a practical level. And his pragmatism is both in policy and politics, so the policy he'll choose on any issue is the one he believes is likely to produce the desired results and is also likely to get through congress. Many of his policies, therefore, are bound to disappoint those who want more ideologically-motivated decision-making.
2. While Obama has shown the ability to act decisively and dramatically, he seems in general to be cautious. He's not going to overturn long-standing (or even short-standing) policies too quickly. His "change" mantra wasn't a lie, but those who expected sudden, dramatic change will be disappointed. As he said in one of his press conferences, he doesn't like to talk about an issue until he understands it. Similarly, he won't act on an issue until he feels he understands the issue-and the likely ramifications of any proposed action--thoroughly. An exception may be made when urgent action is necessary (e.g., on the economy), but even then, it's clear he'll eschew radical solutions and instead go with more cautious, pragmatic, and politically palatable approaches.
There's a lot about this approach I like. It's mature, balanced, and (I hope) likely to be effective. It will however disappoint those of us who would like to see more radical reform--at least in the short term. Maybe there'll come a point where Obama sees the radical solution as the pragmatic solution. Or maybe his sense of what's right and wrong -- which I believe is both strong and accurate -- will predominate over his pragmatism. But given his generally cautious nature, I'd expect the "change" Obama promised to advance slowly at first and then (I hope) accelerate as Obama gains confidence that he's moving the country in the right direction.
April 8, 2009 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't have said it better. I was tempted to comment after Rutabaga and say "what the vegetable said," but the idea was so shocking to me that I kept reading.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still a BIG supporter of the President, but I'm finding more and more often that I'm having to swallow hard and not pay a lot of attention to keep from feeling disappointed. The wiretap issue, in particular, has made me very uncomfortable.
I understand that things are said in a campaign, then when you actually take over, the brutal realities of the office set in and you realize it is a different game than you thought it was. And perhaps if this was a typical Presidency where not much happens right off the bat, we wouldn't be facing this situation where there are so many disappointments one on top of the other.
I'm trying to look at it like a big puzzle being put together, things happening on different parts of the board, and eventually they will all connect up and make a coherent picture. I still have enormous faith in him, but I have to admit it is being tested at the moment.
April 8, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Purple State! Chill out folks
April 8, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
April 9, 2009 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
There does seem to be a pattern. And it differs more than a little from expectations.
April 8, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably nobody's ever said it more succinctly than Aristotle. A virtue is the mean between two vices.
April 7, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aristotle also said women have less teeth than men.
Aristotle could have avoided the mistakes of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. Bertrand Russell
Quoted because I've always liked it.
April 7, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Bertrand Russell believed children should be taken from their parents and raised in orphanages by professionals.
April 7, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
give him a break, he had a tough childhood.
April 7, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that too very much.
April 7, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem was that Aristotle probably preferred that Mrs. Aristotle keep her mouth shut.
This may have been his loss.
April 8, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"moderation in principle is always a vice" Thomas Paine.
April 8, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear!!
Best quote on this thread (and there are some other very good ones).
Where are the true Patriots now? Where is our Thomas Paine??
-- ARG
April 8, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
64% of Americans approved of military action against Iraq in January 2003. I wasn't a part of that clueless follow the leader majority either.
April 7, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're oversimplifying and conveniently forgetting the the psychohistorical factors surrounding American support for blowing a Muslim nation up. Think 9-11 9-11 9-11. Not to mention the mushroom cloud meme -- and last but not least Judith Miller's sterling reporting in the Times.
Even many on the left who were dubious were afraid to come out flat footed against the War, and many simply capitulated -- such as the candidate you so very much favored, Hillary Clinton, who figured very prominently among "clueless follow the leader majority."
But currently, we've got a very different situation. The Times (via Mr. Krugman et al) is blasting Obama, the left is calling him a traitor and the right is calling him satan and a socialist. But the people, ah yes the people, seem to like him all the same. In spite of rather than because of.
So is it Magic? Moonshine? Dirty tricks?
Or is it just that a great many of us are just tired ideologues who shout.
April 7, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loves Hillary. I disagreed with her vehemently on the Iraq War & I went to anti-war protests. So I am consistent. So don't mistake me as someone who turns over my faith to a political leader and surrenders my capacity for independent thought.
Obama is personally popular, but how long will that last if unemployment continues to rise, people get fed up with him (and Geithner) turning the Democratic party into the defenders of Wall Street. What's going to happen in the midterms 2010? Progressives who believe he's going down the wrong path should be speaking up NOW.
And if we were talking about President Hillary and Geithner was in her admin with the same exact policies, methinks your view of things would be very different.
April 7, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it wouldn't and I have no idea on what basis you'd make that assumption.
April 7, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but I forgot your other question, dijamo.
You asked how long will Obama's popularity last if unemployment continues to rise and the financial situation gets worse?
Well...how long would anybody's last?
But if you mean to say it won't last because he's taking the wrong road (and he's picked Geithner to lead him), then I just have to say no comment. I've lived long enough to know there's nothing you can say to someone whose mind is already made up and who's got nothing but a pitchfork waiting for any and all opposing points of view.
April 7, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes the responses write themselves.
April 8, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well put together, I couldn't have said something like that better myself.
April 7, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo, we may be about to enter into a period that exposes a very dark-side to equities traders, and that is when a corporation's stock value increases in a direct relationship with the percentage of employee positions they eliminate. In effect, bad employment news is good news to Wall Street, at least in specific instances. In fact, equities traders have in the past coined interesting depictions of massive layoffs by publicly traded corporations, like: trimming the fat, getting in fighting shape for the global economy, becoming lean and mean, etc.
April 8, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really doubt you disagreed with her on Iraq. I think you probably disagreed with what people SAID her stance was.
Look at the youtube of her speech about voting yes. She was doing it to slow Bush down and head off a war. It was the only choice to stop the head long rush to war. Bush didn't need that vote to rush in to war, WE needed it to slow him down and let inspectors do their job. If more people had listened to her and followed her lead, forcing bush to follow the dictates of the bill there may not have been a war at all.
April 8, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagreed strongly with Hillary's vote (and that of a long list of other democrats) for authorization for use of military force then, as I do now. So whatever her intentions were, I never believed GWB had any intention of using it as bargaining leverage to get inspectors in. And while I would have loved to have been wrong, my fears were justified.
That doesn't mean that I don't see that many people take the vote out of context. Or hold Hillary fully accountable while excusing Dems (Kerry, Edwards, Biden etc etc etc) who voted the same way. And I still believe if Obama was a Senator at the time he would have voted for the Authorization bill. The whole Telecom Immunity flip-flop convinced me of that.
This whole stop thinking and just support Obama meme is so disturbing on so many levels. It's sad that some folks think Obama is so incapable of countering honest criticism that they adopt the Britney Spears approach to political debate (and attack others who dare to question his positions).
April 8, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
so, you are just another of the He man Hillary Haters club who never bothered to watch her explanation of her vote? Go look and see if you can figure out where she really stood...hint, it wasn't for the war like John Edwards was.
April 8, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
me either. I knew when bush got elected in 2000 we were descending into hell.
April 8, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
GOPers hate to lose more than they love America.
April 7, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This country came to a fork in the road and the Democrats chose to step on the gas and drive straight ahead. Feels great till you go over the cliff.
April 7, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
you wrote a lot of great stuff but this is the best line i've ever heard from you
April 7, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
April 8, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan, people shouldn't be filling your USC box with vitriol but... come on: it's your progressive credentials that our at issue here. You've taken politically conservative positions (demonizing short sellers, opposing mark-to-market) and you've attacked some very progressive commentators like Paul Krugman.
I think it's easy for you to dismiss your critics here as simply people who call you "Obama's Butt Boy," but it might well be that people here reasonably (though not always respectfully, and yeah, I'm guilty of that) take issue with your own brand of progressivism.
And yeah, I support Obama. But I don't support the huge transfer of public money to Wall St, AIG and foreign banks and I don't support his continued support for the use of the state secrets doctrine to prevent citizens from using the court to push back against the federal government on domestic spying.
He's way better than Bush but... we don't need to fall in line behind him, we need to push him in the right direction.
April 7, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am confused; why is "demonizing short sellers" a "politically conservative position". There are some very strong data points indicating that well-timed massive short-sell positions, often allowed to be obtained naked, was in reality, market manipulation involving colluding parties including major fund managers, and market touts, which resulted in destablising companies' stock prices on rumour and temporary artificial expansion of shares outstanding far above what had been actually issued by the companies.
If you were ever stupid enough to play this game on your bookie in an attempt to middle the spread, using his extended credit, you'd likely end up kneecapped with a ball-peen hammer for it.
Am I to understand then, that it is a progressive position to defend conspiratorial manipulation of the market?
April 7, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Short sellers have traditionally been activists in the market for better corporate governance, transparency and shareholder rights. They are, in the end, the enemies of the conservative and self-interested denizens of the board rooms and C-level suites of America's corporations. The people who tend to rail against them are the kinds of entrenched power players who make up the conservative establishment.
April 7, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transparency? Is that what you call The DTCC operating The DTC, The NSCC and The FICC? I call that a racket.
Transparency? Is that what you call a T+3 tripwire for Fail To Delivers? I call that a 3-day window for 0-margin short selling.
Transparency? Is that what you call The NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement System? I call that changing the names to protect the guilty.
Transparency? Is that what you call The NSCC's Stock Borrow Program? That's Fuzzy Bunny Accounting practises.
I don't have problems with the concept of short-selling, but manipulating stock prices of short and mid cap corporations through organised collusion is a criminal act, and there are strong data points that indicate this has been done many times in the past.
April 8, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there are problems with share delivery. But most of the companies I know of that claim to be victims of "bear raids" were hiding something or had executives who acted in a shady manner. Go back and read Taplin's posts -- he thinks the large financial firms are victims of the shorts. It's laughable. These firms were shorted for a simple reason -- management overstated the value of the assets they were holding. The shorts got it right.
April 8, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
victims of the shorts
As near as I can tell there was *some way that you could work a risk free arb play combining naked shorts and being on one side or another of a credit default swap where the short position hedged your reliance on the seller's deep pockets but I can't remember which side of the cds you're supposed to be on...anyway, Ellen will explain it when she comes around...
*It comes from Ellen, so right away you know I only understood 35-40% tops
April 8, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's difficult for me to see how any short-sell conspiracy would be able to wreak havoc on IBM. My knowledge of this comes from a weird angle, and admittedly is a bit biased because of it. I'm nothing close to an expert on how the stock market works, and in fact, believe that publicly traded companies are in many ways antithetical to free-markets. A quick gloss of a significant reason is: trading intitial capitalistion for vested in perpetuity ownership in the form of fungible instruments, is a form of eternal indenture of the company's actual creators of value. Equities leech off the true value of the work produced, which results in under-compensation to those who produced it. Capital given and used for the furtherance of a business should receive a profit for its use, but it should be a debt, and not ownership.
I first ran into this topic of naked shorts at The Register in an article about Patrick Byrne and Gary Weiss. Yeah I know, Byrne is a bit of a geekish loon (disclosure-so am i...), but Weiss is a flea, proven to be a sock-puppet at Wikipedia and on stock forum boards. Why is Weiss still a reputable stock tout journo for this? He should be a lucky camper doing obits for a free weekly down in Bikoxi. When I see Byrne criticised for his used of the phrase "Sith Lords" in a phone interview, I'm rolling on the floor laughing. He is after all, a geek, and any real geek understands the analogy without thinking it is looney.
Another part of my background that gives me an unusual perspective about this, is that I was born and grew up in Las Vegas. I sense seconds being pitched out from the bottom of the deck instinctively. Some of the data I've seen presented reek of a game being run. Your assertion that most companies who claim they have been the victim of short-selling collusion "were hiding something or had executives who acted in a shady manner", has strong validity, and in at least some cases, that is all there is to it. Yet remember the old adage, "you can't cheat a honest man", because it has relevance here in a different context. The fact that a company has an heretofore unknown bit of bad data in the closet is what makes it a target by parties who engage in short-sell collusion. Equities traders get advance notice from a stock tout about an soon to be published article detailing the impropriety. They load up on the short-side, unconcerned about FTDs, because they are going to clear their positions in less than 3 days. Other parties in the scam, who have created multiple membership accounts on heavy traffic stock forums are tipped, and ready to start slamming the targeted company, as soon as the article gets published. It's a goldmine guaranteed scam, and won't even show up as an observable blimp if handled right, plus any shorts FTD'ed and cleared in under 3-days were 0-margin. In effect it was creating profit out of no material for them. Man, this is evil, and true voodoo economics.
April 8, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here Here. I hope your explanation does not go unnoticed.
April 7, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This trait is a primary reason that:
Democrats Are the Lamer Of Two Evils...
I for one have never referred to you as "Obamabot" or OBB; so why do you insult by calling me a progressive or liberal?
April 7, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're scared of this pacified and docile Left? I'm sorry they spammed your in-box, but come on. Our left hasn't taken to the streets, taken Vikram Pandit hostage or made anyone even a teency bit scared of jail or being caught for fraud.
Sir Standford was inconvenienced by having to take his shoes off on a commercial jet security checkpoint today. That's about how much we bother them.
April 7, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly
April 8, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a theory that many libertarians pose as progressives to gum up the works. The whole point is to undermine Obama. On this reading there really isn't much to economic libertarianism but rather libertarianism today is a lifestyle where a libertarian 'elite' win the prize after jousts while others fall by the wayside. I am not saying there are a lot of these people ten thousand or so but I think these libertarians have a presence on the Web. There is no pretence by these people about having a plan for the nation but rather libertarianinsm is a lifestyle that these peole find satisfactory and if the nation has to pay a heavy price so be it. Take Grover Norquist. Grover has no workable plan for the US. Grover just likes what Grover is doing, flying to Angola one year, plotting the overthrow of an island nation another year attempting to destroy the Federal government another. Grover's libertarianism ia a lifestyle. It obviously isn't a viable governmental plan. I think there are people living the libertarian lifestyle who pose on the Web as progressives and probably as conservatives too and are just having fun at the expense of the nation.
April 7, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please to not be defaming me with this odious, false and slanderous association to Grover Norquist. Norquist is not a libertarian, nor is he a real conservative either. He's a New-Righty poseur who disguises his manifest evil under the mantle of conservatism's skinned-alive hide. This is almost as fatuous, as claiming concurrently to be a libertarian and a Randroid. As a True Objectionist, I must protest this vile misrepresentation.
April 7, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "True Objectionist"?
So, you're just against everything??
-- ARG
April 8, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice. The answer though is no, not everything, just irrationality, and the association of Grover Norquist and Ayn Rand with libertarianism is irrational.
April 8, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zed-You are correct. The fifth column of progressive blogs is libertarians pretending they are liberals. All this "Obama is a tool of Wall Street financiers" is exactly what Right wing Kook Alex Jones is spinning.
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/obdedvd.html
If the left wants to believe every historical setback has been a conspiracy since the assassination of JFK, then the left will stay powerless--dazed and confused. For those of us old enough to have "gone through this movie before"--we know where conspiracy theories can lead you--into nihilism and passivity.
Barack is a man of good will who is as smart a President as we have had the privilege to be served by in the last half century. He held his own last week in Europe and represented us well. He's trying to change direction on an aircraft carrier. It's hard.
April 7, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But why does he continue to support the use of "states secrets" arguments against abuses of federal power that, as a liberal, he should oppose?
Why is his administration continuing the policies of Hank Paulson with only cosmetic changes?
None of this is to paint Obama as a villain but we on the left have legitimate complaints that we should air.
April 7, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the folks here "on the left" standing here in TPM stood in the primary with the war hawks flying in the US Senate and were naive enough to believe the "I was lied" to BS. This continues to amaze me.
April 8, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on, cube. Obama isn't exactly anti-war in practice, is he? His withdrawal from Iraq will leave a massive garrison behind and the troops that do leave will find themselves in Afghanistan.
April 8, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has always been against dumb wars. Anyone around with Vietnam knew that extricating ourselves would be very, very difficult. Too bad our hawk boomers in the Senate didn't get that particular memo. And that should have told their supporters just how clued in these folks were.
As a boomer, I have been extremely disappointed in my fellow boomers when it has come to political leadership. Now the baton as passed.
Get over it already. The pessimism reminds me of damned rightwing nut jobs. It's petty and ridiculous.
April 8, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a boomer.
April 8, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he is not. His mother-in-law is; Hillary is; Bill is; previous prez was. Obama is not.
April 8, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm his age, we're Jonsers, but Jonsers are a subset of the boomers.
You are both right.
April 8, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Depends whether you're talking generations, or strict demographics.
I'm also of the Jones Generation -- a year younger than Obama. Late boomers, we.
-- ARG
April 9, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US is lucky to have Obama.
April 7, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, yeah, yeah...I supported Obama since early '08 so he could get in power because I felt he was the right candidate at the right time. Just so when he did beat all the odds and ascend to the presidency I could pounce and undermine him. Makes sense...
Let me make this as clear as I can...he was wrong on FISA, and I believe he and his team of merry financial insiders are wrong on the economy...and the reason I say all of this is because I want to see him succeed. I don't want him to make the wrong decisions. I want to see him do the right thing and get elected for a second term.
I see a Bush/GOP style orthodoxy trying to be imposed on the left by Obama supporters...and it stinks!!! I can fully support the man and still criticize him if I think he has made the wrong choice(s)...those aren't incompatible positions believe it or not.
April 8, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not in Taplin's mind you can't.
April 8, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, Jon.
Like it or not, over the past twenty years we've all become "tools of Wall Street financiers." A generation of irrational exuberance has created a financial sector that exerts economic influence far in excess of the real value it creates.
This tired "punish the bankers" meme is a load of populist crap that flies in the face of reality. As rhetorically satisfying as it may be, exacting retribution from Wall Street will do absolutely nothing to address either the near-term crisis or the long-term economic imbalance.
Rebalancing the economy will take time and patience. It will take swallowing hard and making galling concessions to economic pirates in the short term while we work to create a sustainable, rational and progressive economy going forward.
I have plenty of issues with Obama on the margins. But on the whole, his vision is pragmatic, positive and progressive.
April 9, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the entirety of your post the other day after the WH was forced to release Summers’ 2008 finances ($5 mil from hedge fund, almost $3 mil from Wall St. "speaking fees"). There's nothing wrong in supporting the administration, even blindly, but it should be done honestly and openly. This is no more than a modest, though propagandist, apologia:
Larry Summers Locked Out
The news that Larry Summers was paid more than $5 Million by the hedge fund D.E. Shaw in the year before he joined the Obama Administration is not that surprising. What is good news is that he will be barred from any involvement in the decisions over how hedge funds will be regulated. According to the White House,
While Treasury Secretary for Bill Clinton, Summers fought to keep hedge funds from being regulated. Now that must change and they should be as transparent as mutual funds in their disclosures. The notion that Summers will be locked out of the room as these regulations are formulated is a relief.
Enough said.
April 7, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don- Why don't you look at some of my writing, before you pigeon-hole me.
http://jontaplin.com/america-30rebooting-after-the-crash/
April 7, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, he cited you. I even commented to ask if you were snarking on that one because if it was a straight post it seems a bit naive.
April 7, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I will (and did read some pieces some time ago and agreed). I was not pigeon-holing you personally, but a piece that you posted here in answer to your rhetorical question- "WTF?" This is a question I ask myself daily. I'd ask you to re-read your description of your critics in this post. It is a bit of top-notch pigeon-holing itself, isn't it (again no personal aspersions intended)?
April 7, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez. Thanks, and be quiet.
April 7, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with the chicken!
April 8, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm proud that I've never looked down on interspecies couples. Much happiness to you both.
April 9, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with the chicken
That has to be the punch line for a joke writing contest.
April 15, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon, understanding the political dynamics is not aided at all by perpetuating the dumbed-down myth that the complex Democratic electoral coalition is composed on one overarching political type, variously called "liberals" or "progressives". This has little basis is political reality. There has always been a wide and intense gap between different schools of left-wing thought, on the one hand, and neoliberals like Clinton, Obama, Rubin, Geithner and Summers. Those on the left are not nearly so likely to see the mere election of Obama and the replacement of Republican policies with Rubinite policies, and the replacement of Texas oilmen with Wall Street money men, as a "success". Why should this suddenly seem surprising, Jon?
The poll numbers above seem intentionally designed to obscure these divisions. If a leftist is opposed to a very large number of Obama's economics and national security decisions, but would be even more strenuously opposed to the decisions made by a Republican congress, then of course they are going to answer "Obama" to the two questions above. That doesn't signify a ringing endorsement.
Obama himself has said he sees himself as standing between The elite business class and the people with pitchforks. Why should the folks with pitchforks feel happy about that? The left in America has almost always felt itself captive. They haven't had a major seat at the table since FDR. There is no socialist or labor party movement to speak of in the USA. Nothing fundamental has changed in that regard with the Obama election.
There is a fundamental suspicion and frustration in this country that our government serves great wealth and its interests, and that there is nothing we can do to change that. We see that domination going on right now. Not even a depression can change it. As some sort of apparently very successful financial sector and entertainment industry wheeler-dealer, the domination of our politics by the very wealthy perhaps doesn't disturb you so much. I assume you will land on some pretty well-shod feet no matter how things shake out.
Personally, I have been more supportive of Obama's policies than most. I tend to think the financial bosses have us by the nuts, and there is not much we can do but play ball with them. I'm morosely practical, and tend to oppose what I see as merely feel-good populist policies which will extract some short-term class vengeance, but not help anything in the long run, and likely make things worse. But I remain as frustrated as many that we can't get a genuinely left-wing movement off the ground in the US, no matter how bad things get economically, and that both parties are dominated by different factions of the moneyed classes.
It amazes me that many people can spend a substantial portion of their lives pursuing a material fortune, luxuriating in the exploitative whorehouses of finance, but remain convinced that no matter how much money they pile up, others will still see them as "progressives" if their heart is in the right place.
April 7, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan- I opposed the Clinton Restoration on the very grounds you cite of Rubinomics. I just think that the Stimulus Bill was a damn progressive piece of legislation--the most progressive since the New Deal.
We have to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
April 7, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the stimulus bill was pretty good stuff as well. But you have to admit that despite the hopes for a turn away from Rubinomics, it has come back with a vengeance. Obama and his transition consigliere Podesta brought all the usual suspects back. C'mon. Lawrence Summers? We just can't break the back of the global neoliberal mafia.
But I don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. I try to suck it up and be politically realistic, to the best I can figure out what realism dictates. I am resigned to the fact that I am almost certainly never going to see the kind of profoundly egalitarian, polity-directed, social democratic system I would prefer to have in America, at least not in my lifetime. But a stoic acceptance of necessity is not much ground for excitement and hope. I was just trying to explain why lots of people with similar attitudes haven't climbed onto the Obama happy train.
April 7, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comments, DanK, and very well stated (mostly).
And I don't mean to detract from the seriousness of your statements, with which I very much agree. However, I found this one mixed metaphor quite amusing, and couldn't help myself from commenting:
-- ARG
April 8, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's interesting is that I first wrote that the have us by the balls, and then changed that word to avoid the awkward repetition of "ball". I think I should have changed "play ball" instead.
April 8, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
the "Clinton restoration" is a lovely bit of sexism.
April 8, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon, many are heartbroken and horrified to the point of despair by Obama's continuation of Bush's policies. The bailouts and the rampant militarism are insane.
Obama pulled a bait and switch scam on the American people. It's hard to be polite when we're enraged.
April 7, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't bait and switch. He campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan.
And he voted for Paulson's program.
So...what is it exactly that made you expect the October Revolution?
April 7, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I don't categorise WRoss as being a true-believer, but instead with the false flag coalition, but the member is relatively new at TPM, so this is just a quick intuitive guess.
April 8, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pseudo: True believer in what? I don't believe for one second that ANY government can fix the mess we're in.
Obama came into office at the perfect time to let positive change happen all by itself -- he didn't even have to do anything or spend any money. All he had to do was let the financial sector parasites die, and stop wasting money playing GI Joe in the Middle East. Then, little by little, honest American workers who PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT WE NEED would have brought us back to better health.
April 8, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
bit of an inside joke, related to a spate of bad actors who recently became new members, which has seemed to level out quite a bit over the last few weeks. Do us all a favor, including yourself, and follow somebody, anybody. J.M Marshall is a safe choice. go to the page linked, and click "Follow Me". It's not a bad idea to compose a blog post, even if it's just a quick hello to TPM. by doing these things, you fully activate you TPM account, making it easier for other members to see what you've been posting/recommending/commenting.
April 8, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pseudo, thanks for your hospitality and for your constructive advice, which I will follow. Happy Spring!
April 9, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Anna. I was naive enough to hope that Obama's pre-election Paulson/Afghanistan support was intended just to get him elected. I hoped that once in office he would become a fair and practical leader.
April 8, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here's what Obama said last September:
. . . the power to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money cannot be left to the discretion of one man, no matter who he is or which party he is from. I have great respect for Secretary Paulson, but he cannot act alone. We should set up an independent board that includes some of the most respected figures in our country, chosen by Democrats and Republicans, to provide oversight and accountability at every step of the way.
So, where's the "independent board" overseeing Geithner's give away?
April 8, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth Warren's group perhaps?
April 8, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that, perhaps, some context might help.
For instance: I would like Mr. Taplin to point out, say, three of "...the supposed progressive posters on this blog, who seem to have nothing but conspiratorial contempt for our President..." and we can, possibly, ignore the wriggle room around the caveat "seem".
I'd also like Mr. Taplin, if he would, to say something about the label he would place on contemporary Republican behavior (where contemporary is defined as the last ten years) if we stipulate the current behavior he decries is "...some ritual suicide trope...the left is condemned to play out whenever liberals get into power..."
I'm pretty sure no one would describe the New Deal as the result of ritual suicide. And if it was, will someone please hand me the wakizashi?
Because I'm all up for a New Economy; no matter what it takes.
How could a New Economy possibly be worse? Now all I have to do is sit back while some "realist" tries to tell me how it could be worse or how and why it can't be done; along with labelling me as a "fake populist" expressing "cheap outrage" at...pretty much everything that's been shat into our lives by Republicans over the last quarter century.
Seriously, Mr. Taplin: how much more pain must we endure before grievances become a long train of abuse?
I wonder if I can predict your reply:
"It takes time; just be patient."
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was...watching the days go by.
April 7, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Into the Blue again,
After the money's gone,
Once in a Lifetime
April 8, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon I am heartened by those polls and also by those polls that show Americans are more optimistic about the economy today than they have been for the past three years. To the extent that our economic woes can be cured by optimism, this is good news.
I happen to believe that the problems are not psychological but systemic -- namely too much debt that cannot be serviced by current income streams. We will not begin to recover until that debt can be written down. That means letting the failing banks fail. Transferring that bad debt to the taxpayers and allowing those same banks responsible for the bad loans to continue running our finances is not going to work, IMHO.
Hope I am wrong and Obama's plan works. But if it does not something else will have to tried. We lefty progressives will be here pushing for alternative approaches if these plans do in fact fail. I backed Obama during the primaries. One reason I was enthusiatic about him was not that he would come into office on day one and do the right thing but because I felt our opposition to incorrect policies would receive consideration.
April 7, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't give up hope, syvanen. We hear so much about Sweden Sweden Sweden, but the bank failures in the early 90's were pan-Nordic and pan-Scandinavian, including Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
They all approached the crisis differently, but Geithner's plan, though different is ome significant ways, in many details is similar to the Finnish plan -- which had at its core a very aggressive recapitilization of banks -- and it worked pretty damned well for the Finns.
April 7, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's been the leader of the free world for what? Less than four months?
What a failure!
I'm tired as well about all this whining and disconnect. I agree with the statement above; that the most vocal are really libertarians foistiung themselves off as progressives.
What seems to be lost in these whiners complaints, is the acknowledgement of the practical and the tactical; that the new administration has a lot on its plate.
In addition to the problems with the economy, there's a DOJ filled with Burrowed Bushies; in fact, there are former Bush appointees burrowed throughout the Civil Service; there is a DOD and Pentagon with Bush/Cheney loyalists, an NSA with the same. He is meeting resistance and dealing with each as deftly as possible.
Because Obama has not dealt with these issues in the accelerated time frame the Obama bashers deemed necessary; he is deemed a failure.
As far as I'm concerned, Obama has eight years to make a dent in the BushCo fiasco that he inherited.
I'm making sure he gets those eight years.
April 7, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
April 7, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
April 8, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
A better synopsis of Parkinson's Law one could not hope to ask for. Yes, by all means let work expand to fill the time allotted for its completion. Yes, indeed. Give President Obama eight years to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and after seven years we will still hear him predicting a "tipping point" somewhere ahead in the not-too-distant future when -- after consultation with his General Motors generals (who can never ever FINISH anything) -- Americans will finally get to learn how a "point" "tips."
I served a year-and-a-half in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972) and I can tell you precisely what giving more time and money to a war-addled president (meaning damn near every one of them) will get you: namely, nothing but more and more and more stalling and Newspeak. (The foreign native refugees, of course, will get the living shit bombed out of them.)
Demand results. Demand them yesterday. Fuck patience. And never stop demanding results until President Obama starts speaking of his accomplishments in the past tense instead of the future subjunctive mood. Like, for example: "I withdrew the last of America's military forces from the territory and airspace of Iraq as of yesterday, August the 30th, 2009." Until we hear that what we want has already happened, it hasn't happened, and yet more empty promises -- no matter how mellifluosly mumbled -- will never prove acceptable.
The antidote slogan for endless bureaucratic stalling: i.e., Parkinson's Law, goes something like this: "Nothing concentrates the mind like an imminent hanging." Or, as the village sheriff said in the movie Young Frankenstein: "A riot is an ugly thing. And I think it is about time that we had one!" Fuck patience. Deputy Dubya and Sheriff Dick already exhausted the last of that perishible commodity.
April 8, 2009 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
True dat, JP.
Far too many, here and elsewhere, expected instantaneous change. They lack the necessary depth of vision to understand that a system of this size does not transform overnight, but rather b degree over the passage of time.
Put another way: Are we closer to a better nation than we were a year ago? Are we closer than we were six months ago? Two months ago?
Many "progressives" have the patience of four-year-olds.
April 8, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grouch, please understand that I am angry not because I am impatient for Obama to do anything in particular, but because I want him to stop doing what he's doing.
Ironically, Barack has in fact produced instantaneous change, by massive escalation of Bush's policies.
My positive feelings and hope are for citizens, not for the parasites in Washington and Wall Street. Get out of our way and let us work!
April 8, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has to be a reason that Obama has surrounded himself with the very people that have allowed this financial train wreck to take place.
Anyone who skips reading this article will have no excuse when they wake up one day to find our financial system in complete control of the 5 big banks who control Wall Street and our Government:
"At the time Summers was busy opening the floodgates of financial abuse for the Wall Street Money Trust, his assistant was none other than Tim Geithner, the man who today is US Treasury Secretary, while Geithner's old boss, the self-same Summers, is President Obama's chief economic adviser as head of the White House Economic Council. To have Geithner and Summers responsible for cleaning up the financial mess is tantamount to putting the proverbial fox in to guard the henhouse."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KD03Dj02.html
Banks Use Bailout Bucks To Pay Off Dot Com Boom-Bust IPO Lawsuit"
Anyone still question whether or not our system is fraudulent and corrupt to the core? This situation is the equivalent of Geithner, Summers and Obama saying: "take THAT you dumb-ass taxpayers." The folks who still believe that Obama is here to save us are the same people who will become a part of, as Warren Buffet stated so eloquently about 2 years ago, "a nation of serfs."
This news release sums it all up. What it fails to mention is that you can seek shelter from the coming collapse with direct ownership of gold and silver bullion.
"Since many of the defendants, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, are still funded with billions of taxpayer dollars, the US taxpayer has effectively been made to pay for the case"
http://www.businessinsider.com/banks-use-bailout-
bucks-to-pay-off-dot-com-boom-bust-ipo-lawsuit-2009-4
April 7, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prof. Taplin, I could not agree more emphatically.
April 7, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama's been great on many issues but on others not so much. The toxics asset plan is one that I'm not sold on because I don't think it makes sense for our future.
April 8, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
By all means put down all the criticism of Obama. Who would keep our politicians honest? One can only assume you are happy to look the other way while Obama allows the US treasury to be looted by elites. Say good bye to public education, social security, and humane health care. Obama has basically conceded major ground to conservative's most ruinous ideals. And you are a snooty jerk about it Taplin. After all have you already won. That make you much like the republicans, sore winners. Well, you're wrong, justice does matter.
April 8, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
JT,
It seems as if I have to keep repeating the same mantra:
If 'We, the People' continue to engage in negative reaction instead of positive action, our society's problems will only get worse, not better.
Those who choose to only enter into the former, ever spewing negatives and critiques, seldom spend their time and energy on solutions/resolutions - much less assuming personal responsibility and putting forth informed actions.
Those who resort to ad hominem attacks, utilizing sarcasm, personal insults and derision - do so because they are unable to respond with facts and their own documented success story of being correct about their hypothesis. Lots of assumptions and presumptions - but no direct knowledge.
What's really amazing is all this time I believed Obama to be more intelligent and able to see the entire landscape better than most. And yet, here are so many who are asserting they know best and are smarter and can make better decisions. Wow! What a brain trust we have here.
Mr. Taplin, I support your stance. I know that Obama is privy to information and data that none here have access to or would/could take on the responsibility to solve the myriad of problems Obama et al. must confront every minute of every day.
If anyone has a substantive alternative option to Obama's actions based on facts (not some pundit's or columnist's assertions)from documented sources which provide proof of positive results dealing with the same issues - then stand up, speak out - but do so respectfully.
And may you run for office or enter public service! We need those with all the answers who are able to rebuke the naysayers who seem to be able to spout only doom and gloom!
JT - keep on goin' on - we need you. Please and thank you.
April 8, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that Obama is privy to . . . .
Naivete; thy name is Aunt Sam.
April 8, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Naivete
I know, E., that you say that with the greatest respect.
April 8, 2009 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, (and I mean that with the greatest respect), you've got me LOL tonight. Note to JR: this comment could have been inserted in several places...
April 8, 2009 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign, JR is once again on a roll. Its a joy.
April 8, 2009 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
on a roll
Well, I was moved by Aunt Sam's injunction that we offer our solution plans "respectfully". And, well, you know, Ellen...sometimes ummm she...you know...
April 8, 2009 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
several places...
I want to be clear that the Better Know a Bureaucrat feature is useful--I offered my thanks without irony, although I would still rather have the four hour hard on.
April 8, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If 'We, the People' continue to engage in negative reaction instead of positive action, our society's problems will only get worse, not better."
Sam, I don't really accept the assumptions behind your framing in terms of 'negative' and 'positive' action. Advocating more progressive policy than Obama is offering isn't negative in the sense that it prevents the best possible policy from getting implemented. Advocating for single-payer in health care helps put drive the debate towards better health care policy, advocating for a cap-and-trade regime without corporate give-aways in climate change moves the debate towards better polution policy, advocating for a bigger infrastructure chunk in stimulus spending moves that debate in a better direction, advocating for transparency about bank balance sheets moves that debate. It is progressives voicing their views loudly that CREATE the political possibilities for Obama to move in this direction. I count that as positive action.
If on the other hand you like the centrist agenda that is currently the only politically viable one, then we can have an entirely different debate. But if you're telling progressives to shut up for the sake of the progressive agenda, that is something I believe to be STRATEGICALLY wrong. Just my thoughts, auntie, which I propose - as you know - with the greatest respect.
;0)
April 8, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If 'We, the People' continue to engage in negative reaction instead of positive action, our society's problems will only get worse, not better."
Obey, my point was that if there is only critiquing and ad hominem attacks without factual basis - this is negative reaction.
I do not know how you could have taken the following from my post:
'But if you're telling progressives to shut up for the sake of the progressive agenda, that is something I believe to be STRATEGICALLY wrong.'
I believe being cognizant of processes and policies being proferred is ideal. I endorse debate and constructive criticism armed with factual basis. However, so much of the critiques and attacks are not based on facts or knowledge. Just cheap shots loaded with assumptions and presumptions.
I repeat:
If anyone has a substantive alternative option to Obama's actions based on facts (not some pundit's or columnist's assertions)from documented sources which provide proof of positive results dealing with the same issues - then stand up, speak out - but do so respectfully.
Obey, always good to see ya. Appreciate.
April 8, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
My Omniscience Meter isn't functioning well, and the last time I tried walking on water my shoes filled with water and my cuffs were wet to above mid-calf. The water I tried to turn into wine didn't even develop a decent fizz--tasted kind of flat and chlorinated after the experiment.
So I guess I'll leave it to Obama and his brains trust to struggle with this mess, ably assisted by the knowlier than thou who post here from time to time...Their Nobels in Peace and Economics and especially the Nobel for "anything you can do I can do better" are surely at the engravers now, and will be delivered forthwith.
April 8, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
AMike, many children told their parents they were abused by priests, and their parents said, "Stop lying, you know a priest would never do a thing like that."
April 8, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm dense today. You'll have to parse this response more clearly so I can see how it applies. Perhaps my original comment was oblique. Let me be direct. There are significant numbers of persons posting comments here whose primary bone fides are indignation and outrage. I can respect that indignation and outrage. But...on the basis of that outrage, plus a reading of whatever news source is also expressing outrage, they vent as elegantly or vigorously as they know how. To quote the Bard, "they are full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." http://shakespeare.mit.edu/macbeth/macbeth.5.5.html
But until they present some evidence that they are qualified by experience, training, or a coherent argument, logically presented and supported by evidence, I don't feel any particular reason to support them in their criticism of a man who has held the Office of President less than four months, particularly when the tenor of that criticism is to call defenders of the president Butt Boys. And I wouldn't expect anyone to support me if I spoke beyond my range of expertise so self-assuredly and with such hubris.
April 8, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike, where is your "coherent argument, logically presented and supported by evidence" in support of Obama's economic policies?
In my long life I have learned not to trust any person who calls himself an expert, or whom society calls an expert.
April 8, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, deflection once again.
amike stated,"So I guess I'll leave it to Obama and his brains trust to struggle with this mess, ably assisted by the knowlier than thou who post here from time to time...Their Nobels in Peace and Economics and especially the Nobel for "anything you can do I can do better" are surely at the engravers now, and will be delivered forthwith."
He isn't claiming bona fides, but is (as others here) asking for factual basis and credentials for those who critique and denigrate another's stance, without facts - which you have yet to proffer. This only substantiates the basis of posts here who assert here that most who employ this action are assuming, presuming and blathering.
You know best? Then convince us with facts, sources (again, not columnists or pundits proclamations) and your credentials of expertise.
April 8, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam, I will let time be the judge of Obama's policies.
April 8, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't take a lot of qualifications to recognize a rotten result.
Nor does it show a great deal of sense to retain persons who are and have been major contributors to gross failure. And if I happen to make an investment that goes sour I would be very hard pressed to double down on it while those same persons who lost my money the first go around are still dealing. Doing so is the mark of an idiot.
April 8, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I guess I'll leave it to Obama and his brains trust to struggle with this mess, ably assisted by the knowlier than thou who post here from time to time...
Amike assumes a classical conservative position. Obey because the government must know best. I opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 even though I knew that the people making the decision were much more knowledgeable than I in making war and they were advised by a military men who knew even more. But I opposed them, because I saw that they were being driven more by ideology than any critical analysis of the problem at hand. And I was right, what we predicted would happen did happen.
Now with respect to Obama's economic advisors I see a similar problem. He has surrounded himself with people who have made many tens of millions of dollars as investment bankers -- this include Emanuel, Summers, Rubin and lesser souls. They also helped design the laws that broke down the barriers between investment banking, commercial banking and insurance and that left the derivatives market unregulated. These men both helped create our current problem and profited mightily from it. They also raised huge amounts of cash for the Obama campaign. I am not being paranoid to distrust these men. Even though I admit that their knowledge of investment banking and economics is superior to mine, I see them more being driven by ideology and not on what is in the best interests of the American people (I know, I know, it is part of their ideology that what is best for Wall Street, is best for the American people. But Bush was surrounded by similar ideologues that believed they represented the best interests of the American people).
Why do I think they are wrong? We are in a crisis that is caused by excessive debt that cannot be serviced by existing income streams. The solution is to write down that debt, not create more or to transfer it to the taxpayers. It seems logical. If I am in too much debt, the solution is not get more loans to pay off that debt, but to either renegotiate loan terms or declare bankruptcy.
April 8, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reaganism extended to the foolish extreme of Bush is dead. It failed us all. The Republican establishment was built on mouthing some of the things Reagan said. It profited form K Street and corporations getting fat on the US government no bid contracts. That establishment cannot believe the ship sunk. Hey it worked for a quarter century. The new political world is so out of kilter with what they experienced and percieved they can only fall back on demonizing every aspect and every one, starting with President Obama. Eventually there will be a thoughtful, loyal oppostition to balance the new political power structure. But from the look of things it will be years away, and the Republican party may die first.
April 8, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Reaganism extended to the foolish extreme of Bush is dead."
It looks to me like we now have Reaganism further extended to the foolish extreme of Obama.
April 8, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon: I hardly come to TPM anymore because it has become a refuge for resoundingly negative people who don't understand government and think they know more than they do. Obama is not a dictator--we have three branches of government, one of which would oppose him on most measures (USSC) and the other where his party has a very narrow margin and weak leadership. Too many people at TPM sit in their comfy ergonomic chairs tapping on the keys in anger about what Obama hasn't done for them lately. What? It all ended election day? We citizens can go back to making demands and doing nothing but complain? I think the oddity in the poll numbers you provided reflects the fact that people are wary of unchecked power. We had that for 6 out of 8 years of the Bush/Cheney Reign of Terror. As for the constant banging of the "Obama is not better than Bush" drum, I'm tired of it and usually go elsewhere now for my news and discussion. I live and work in the DC area and although the federal workforce is nervous and tired (the economy, budget pressures, 8 years of abuse from the previous administration), there is actually a lot of hard work and hope going into trying to turn this massive freighter around.
April 8, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah KateO. We are not all nay sayers. I am so glad we have this New President representing us before the world stage. I am now proud of my country.
My negative blog on rush turned into a positive blog with comments on how good things are and will be without the forces of evil running things.
We do not have an oil man running the EPA.
The head of the Civil Rights Division is not emailing all his employees racist jokes.
So much on the President's plate, but he keeps fighting the good fight. And I am proud of our Speaker and have been for over two years. And we finally have a real majority in the Senate.
Wonderful blogs here. Sometimes you have to look for them. I miss your comments. Hope you are doing well.
April 8, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Dick: I did not mean to sweep you into the negativity box. You are one of the few bloggers I regularly read here because you are so damn clever and funny. Clever and funny are good in these darkish days. Fury without purpose? Not so much. Kate
April 8, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I live and work in the DC area and although the federal workforce is nervous and tired (the economy, budget pressures, 8 years of abuse from the previous administration), there is actually a lot of hard work and hope going into trying to turn this massive freighter around."
Few Washingtonians know the difference between activity and productivity in any real-world sense.
Kate, here is a positive suggestion to our government, in all seriousness: send most of those "hard workers" home, let failed businesses fail, and get off the backs of real workers.
I know how government works. When government makes a mess, it works hard to cover up the mess, making more messes in the process, and hiring more and more of its friends to pretend to help.
April 8, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making my initial case for me. Send me a list of government services/protections you receive and let's have a chat sometime. But not now, I have work to do.
April 8, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kate, I understand the dilemma of good people in a bad system, and I know government is extremely difficult. I don't expect perfect government or anything close to it. But we are right now in a cycle of escalating governmental abuse way beyond any reasonable degree.
I am angry now because I made the mistake of letting myself hope for positive change after the recent election.
Government services/protections I receive:
1)Infrastructure (falling apart)
2)Defense (whose primary purpose is to further enrich the rich at taxpayer expense)
April 8, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just after Bill Clinton left office I discovered I supported him more as a way of defending a Democrat from attacks from the right wing and the endless "hearings du jour" in the Republican controlled Congress, along with the myriad Independent Counsels, ala Ken Starr etc. and other investigations by those outside Government, as in Richard Mellon Scaife, then I did for what he was doing as President.
As time passed I gradually discovered things about Clinton's Presidency that I didn't like; to oversimplify, he was too Corporate/Wall Street friendly, and I think much of the public suffered because of it.
Fast forward to Obama. For the moment it may be deja vu all over again. The jury is still out, but as mentioned above, Obama's carrying on many of the Bush programs such as in secrecy, wiretapping, his reluctance to come out for investigations into the Bush years, this delay in releasing the torture memos, his appointment of Geithner, Summers, things mentioned by bluebell above.
For the moment, I just don't feel as good about Obama as I did when he first took office.
Time will tell whether Obama goes up on Mt Rushmore or is relegated to the same dust bin of History reserved for the likes of George Bush.
April 8, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way,
I forgot to add the "likeablility" factor which both Clinton and Obama both have.
April 8, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every president becomes a captive of the permanent government establishment.
First, they owe their souls to those who funded their campaigns (usually big business and military contractors).
Second, they get brainwashed by the military and intelligence services into thinking that vague threats are more serious than they are. This leads to early paranoia.
Third, they are put in a bubble where they have little contact with unfiltered information and are manipulated by the permanent government.
Just to cite a few obvious examples from the past week or so:
1. The conservatives and the Dems owned by the wealthy go ballistic of a minor change in the deductibility of charitable contributions for the top 1% of the population.
2. The same group cries the end of the US when Gates suggests jiggling a few military hardware program's priorities.
If even trivial changes like this get so much pushback what chance does a new president have to make real change, even if he wanted to?
April 8, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think many of us recognize that. The sort of interesting thing about the present time is that going along with that extablishment may be politically suicidal.
And, while Obama does seem to have this tendency to belatedly discover that he needs to shift his political positioning in a more--let's for the sake of argument call it "democratic"-- direction, he has yet to do so on the defining issue of his presidency, the financial crisis. (Not to mention the other issues).
Considering that this is the real thing, and not a campaign, I'm not sure how that's supposed to work.
Although, in some ways, getting all of this clubby cronyism out in the open has its advantages. I'm just not sure why anyone would expect people to give Obama a pass on it.
April 8, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"going along with that establishment may be politically suicidal."
Absolutely. But high-level political suicide is lucrative.
April 8, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Obama has weighed in on the financial crisis--you just don't like where his weight came down. Obama came out and supported his Treasury Secretary when the barbs were coming in thickly.
Look, there's no easy solution to this financial crisis--but it's also best to acknowledge that Obama didn't bring us here. The GOP certainly did as well as Democratic political leaders who supported GOP policies. These Democrats are still present and they don't always come defined as a blue dog or any other kind of dog.
April 8, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might have bought that *excuse* on election day, 2008, but today Obama *is* Bush. And, in terms of vote getting in the broad middle, not in a good way.
Personally, I said back in 2007, that reigning in the finance cabal is Job 1 for the next President.
If not, out in four years. I don't care who it is.
April 8, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things I feel the most foolish about, is that I thought when you won, you got to do things your way...
The Republicans lost. They lost big. They do not control the the House the Senate OR the White House, yet still they are in control. A bunch of loud, crybaby, poor losers are jumping up and down and throwing tantrums because they lost, doing everything they can to keep the winners from being able to accomplish anything, and we're letting them do it. I'm a bit frustrated, and wondering what we can do about it...suggestions?
April 8, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to decrease the numbers of Republicans in the House and Senate during the midterm elections. Not much can be done about the Supreme Court at this point. I would hope that people will let their reps know when they approve of a vote and when they disapprove of one. And patience, yes, patience. It takes a long time to build a house and a few minutes to burn it down. I am very hopeful about a lot of things these days. Let's stop and think about how we would be feeling today if President McCain and VP Palin were at the helm. There, now didn't that make you feel better?
April 8, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, as a matter of act, it did. :-) Whenever I get to feelin' a little pissy, I need to remember that!
April 8, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly are they "still in control"?
April 8, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Obama and the Democrats have to shovel up the shit they left behind. We can't do much until the place is hosed down and sterilized. And, if they continue to vote on party lines on every issue, they control a lot, as there will always be some Dems who will vote with the Republicans. By default, with the wars and the economy, failed Republican policies are setting the agenda. That's how they are "still in control."
April 8, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, Kate, since the President wants, rightly so, to have bi-partisan solutions to the problems we face, they get their input, then they don't vote for the bills anyway...It is disgusting.
April 8, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose an argument could be made that they are "containing" us, rather than controlling us, but by keeping us from being in control, they are, in effect, controlling us.
April 8, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should have been a reply to "plan 69."
April 8, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressives are not unlike most Americans, who are intellectually lazy and unwilling to do their own research. So, they depend on the word of people they trust for information. Some, who are not always right, have their own personal/political ax to grind, and tend to follow the leader, because they are intellectually lazy too!
April 8, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of crap that floods into my mailbox whenever I post here.
"Sieg Heil, 'Bamaboyz, shout Sieg Heil."
This is from: glatt_kosher@myway.com
Who ever you are Glatt Kosher, I have asked you to stop writing me. You seem to change your email address every week to avoid our spam blockers, so fuck off.
April 8, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know how to read email headers? If you do, you could complain to the abuse desk of the entity through which your pest sends his mail.
If the abuse desk exists, they will be very likely to take action; I recommend that you mail them, and ask them to direct their user to cease contacting you.
I know that this is possible; because I work on an abuse desk for such an entity; if someone complains about such harassment, and asks us to intervene, we do. We'll even cancel the offenders account if they refuse to abide by our Terms of Service. Full stop: we dictate Terms of Service in cases like this. Free speech does not extend to harassment. We stomp on that.
If you do not know how to read email headers, I can help.
April 8, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon: nobody likes a whiner.
In the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger in Kindergarten Cop: Stop whining!
Politics has no place for whining girlie men.
April 8, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then half the people posting here should turn off their computers.
April 8, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hee hee hee hee
(high five)
April 8, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bwak. I bet you are busy laying eggs this time of year.
April 9, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Politics has no place for whining girlie men."
Rick B
"I want nothing to do with politicians. They are not men."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
April 8, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So they are.....? And you call yourself a liberal? I think not. Here's another quote for you from Emerson: "A great man is always willing to be little." Take note.
April 8, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kate, I don't call myself a liberal, or anything else. I just make a sincere effort to understand things, and I care about all people. Based on the serious efforts I've put into understanding history and economics, I strongly disapprove of Obama's Middle East policy and economic policy. Of course I don't expect everyone's opinion to match mine.
I will make a better effort to present my opinions in a polite manner. But I say for the record that I believe history will show Obama's policies to be disastrous. In the meantime I wish everyone well!!
April 9, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon, chill:
- The internet always brings out the most extreme minority opinions. TPM is quite mild than most sites, and even the trolls are smarter.
- Some on the far Left have always hated Obama. He eschews dogma, their dogma included. And their guy lost, so they hold a grudge.
- Some healthy dissent is good for the party, and for Obama. He needs progressives pushing him to the Left, while the rightwind and media want to pull him to the right.
- Obamabot / Obamaniac is a badge of honor. I'm an enormously proud supporter and volunteer. Many many TPMers feel the same.
The only disagreement I have with this is to stop obsessing about Obama. The president is important, but the Senate is ground zero for ALL of our battles. So stop wasting time preaching only to our overworked chief exec.
But, hey, progressives, most importantly -- we won, and we are winning. We have a huge year ahead of us. We do need to celebrate that and not take it for granted. Obama is the second Dem pres in three decades. Let's not screw this moment up.
April 8, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are all correct. I should not let it get under my skin. On my own blog people are much more civil. We have lots of long discussions (some 400 posts long), but it never gets personal.
I'll put on my TPM hide next time.
JT
April 8, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professor Taplin, in my experience, blogs that are operated by University Professors tend to be a much calmer environment form comments that the rest of the world. Maybe that cloistered aura spreads even into the net. In reality, a personally run blog tends to more civil, if the owner is also civil, and exercises a bit of control when the commenting begins to get rough. I frequent manyu Law Professor blogs, and at times the comments on them get very rough. A few of the Professors on those blogs engage in editing and deletion of post they find offensive, and action that inevitably cause them to remind their readers that free-speech is a laudable value in society, but carries different connotations in private and public spheres.
This is the first time I've ever commented in one of your blogs, and only did so, because I believe your association of Norquist to libertarianism is a distortion, even in the context of the travesity that passes for libertarianism in contemporary America. Ron Paul, with his states' rights arguments in favor of limiting private actions, and his desire to rescind birth citizenry in America is not a true libertarian. Bob Barr, who was for the Patriot Bill before he was against it, was a driving force behind DOMA, and who on September 13, 2001, proposed H. J. RES. 62, a declaration of war against Parties to be named later, is not a libertarian either. This is a touchy topic for me presently, because I am a vocal critic of the LP, and have been tagged as a member of their "Anarchist Wing", a categorisation that amuses me greatly, much to their consternation.
Then I got caught up discussing short-selling.
I would suggest that rather than carrying around a TPM hide, it might be better to just remember that virtual sticks, stones and words can never harm you. Also, I just visited you blog for the first time, and am wondering if you would prefer a liquid layout to the fixed one you use presently. It's a trivial convert for me. If you do, just let me know. I've already located a contact email pointer for you.
April 9, 2009 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, don't take some of these folks too seriously. Many of the "usual offenders" are basically in a foul mood all the time and lash out. Who knows, maybe they are unhappy? But the rest of us welcome a good lively debate and intellectual discussion. Thanks for contributing!
April 9, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Taplin, I salute you!
April 9, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel good, thank you on the article。by the way,Upstairs is a sucker.
christian louboutin|Abercrombie and Fitch london
August 20, 2010 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
is also the devisement of the social contract via the creation of the 401K retirement vehicle where persons within 7-10 years of retirement stand little chance of recovering losses. It can be argued those losses are largely attributable to the rather extreme failures of our regulatory agencies. liberar samsung
December 22, 2010 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor does it show a great deal of sense to retain persons who are and have been major contributors to gross failure.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, iscsi windows storage server
March 11, 2011 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink