While I was glad to hear that Larry Summers was planning to resign, I think it's 18 months too late. And I blame Obama for putting in someone so beholden to Wall Street and dismissive of Main Street, and as a result of that appointment (as well as Geithner), Obama's economic policies, in my mind, have been misguided with regard to wide swath of Americans (for example, this idea seems to me a year late). And I still have yet to understand why something like a 21st century WPA or CCC wasn't even considered, even for the Gulf oil spill (where the bill could have been covered by BP, and not the American people). Perhaps it was because people like Summers, who have long forgotten what regular people experience in times of need, surrounded the President.
And let me make this clear. With every complaint I have regarding the Obama administration, I still hold that Obama is 1,000 times better than what McCain would have been on virtually all of the issues that this President has tackled since his inauguration.
17 comments:
sad that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. while i support the president in terms of his general philosophy, he has proven to be rather inept in moving his program foreword. Yes, I know about filabusters and blue dog democrats, but that's what sets a skillful politician apart from someone with good ideas. I thought Rahm was going to guide him through those treacherous waters and put the fear of god into those spineless democrats. Now that he's leaving to run for mayor of Chicago I fear all the fire is going to be sucked out of his administration.
My concern is that we are almost halfway through the first term, and I cannot identify what Obama is really willing to go to bat for. What issue is out there where he will use the full weight of his office to push through Congress? I don't think it was health insurance reform, not really.
I was skeptical of Rahm from the start. I think it's unacceptable that we have a POTUS and VPOTUS from the U.S. Senate, and it was that body that they allowed to stymie their programs. When Rahm exits, I think Obama would be well served to have someone who knows all the dirty secrets of the Senate as his CoS.
And I do find it interesting that as Elizabeth Warren comes on board, Larry Summers bounces. Obama would be well served to have more people around him of the Warren mould, than the Summers mould.
Doesn't Elizabeth Warren report to Timothy Wall Street???
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm????
Shouldn't it be the other way around????
Just sayin'...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/the-angry-middle-class/63417/
Obama was barely in the Senate...
@Anon #2: I saw this. What did you want to say about it?
@Anon #3: I don't get your point here, and don't forget that Obama's VPOTUS was in the Senate for decades.
I agree with the author/Schumer’s point. The Democrats are the party of the poor, (and the ultra-elite) not the middle class. The D’s want the middle class to pay for their programs for the poor and the middle class resents it. That’s the explanation for why the middle class is hard on the poor. I found your previous post attempting to address the issue hard to follow--I don’t like the rich, but I can’t get to them so I stomp on the poor? No, the poor cost me something every day. The rich may not pay enough taxes, but at least I’m not paying for their housing, food, rehab, prison, etc. every day. The time has passed when the poor were seen as the hard luck family who tried to play by the rules, but just couldn’t make ends meet. Today’s reality is that they are more likely from a dysfunctional broken family, addicted to something, open to violence and unable/unwilling to work--and they‘ve been that way for decades, no matter how much money we throw at them. I’m suppose to be happy about paying for them?
By the way, when you argue that the financial crisis was all about greed (policy decisions made through Fannie Mae) are you including the greedy home buyers who were buying more house than they could afford? Are you including the home buyers who just wanted to flip their purchases for a profit? How about democrats who were installed at Fannie Mae like Franklin Raines who got huge salaries driven by increasing Fannie Mae’s portfolio. Or are you simply thinking about villains on Wall Street twisting their mustaches?
I meant "(NOT policy decisions made through Fannie Mae)"
@Anon 4/5: I think that people perceive the Democratic Party to be the party of the poor, but i don't think middle class black/hispanic/asian, union workers regardless of color, and many gays are poor, and they aren't all elitist. Besides, poor people have certainly, and will continue to support the GOP, though most of them will be poor white people.
And even as the middle class resents the poor, thank you for conceding that point, it does not mean that the GOP necessarily meets its needs either.
I think that it is high time for folks on the right to be clear and forceful about wanting to return the U.S. to an 1890s economic structure. whole segments of the population were frozen out of meaningful upward mobility (and likely deserved to be at their low station for some reason or another). people with money weren't "punished" with the idea of actually helping their fellow man. Just come clean with the idea that the entire welfare state (though not the corporate welfare state) should be dismantled, and let the mendicants find their fates as they will. at least that would be honest.
meanwhile, there but for the grace of God go you, but i am sure that those people who resent helping the poor, have no intention of ever finding themselves in need of help, ever.
I've seen the safety net as a necessary component of a properous society. i don't judge it by the abusers of the system, but by the millions of people who have been helped by it.
I am not answering this quite the way I want, and I apologize for that, and will have to come back to it, but I still hold that many of the middle classes would love to scream at and take their frustration at the fat cats, but they can't.
Oh, and I am including all of those folks you mentioned regarding housing, from those who were lied to about their ability to manage a mortgage (and yes, they should have realized that it was too good to be true, and a scrupulous lender would have said so), to the house flippers, some of whom I definitely knew in Washington, DC and NYC who got caught, to Franklin Raines and crew. Many of us were guilty of our economic woes. I don't just lay this at the feet of Wall Street alone (even i was all agog of my 401K).
I could have/ should have added that the Ds are seen as the party of the poor, the super elite, and those who see themselves as marginalized. It’s important to their identity for blacks to see themselves as oppressed. Gays could live their lives in peace, but they see themselves as marginalized. Hispanics were/are on the fence—their social values are conservative and they don’t have the same history as blacks. But the Rs are pushing them away with their principled view on immigration. I think one of the worst things that could happen to Hispanics is if they adopted the model/outlook of African Americans. I’d like to see some stats, but my sense is that Asians are split at best. There are a lot of professionals (paying high taxes) and small businessmen. They also tend to be skeptical of an intrusive government if they are recent immigrants.
I don’t view it as much of a concession to say that middle class folks resent paying for poor folks who then trash the schools, the cities, and threaten decent tax paying citizens. It seems fairly obvious to me.
Why do you have to assume that just because I don’t like paying for poor folks’ pathologies, that conservatives want to go back to the 19thc? The social safety net is necessary, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be reformed, like welfare was. I’d be extremely supportive of a CCC/WPA program as long as they would not be permanent, not unionized, and doing real work. There is an endless amount of work to be done in our parks and cleaning up our cities.
Finally, as you know, many of those hard-hearted 19thc folks went on to create some of the most important and generous charities and foundations in the US.
I am about to say something that i rarely say. I am offended by something you wrote: " It’s important to their identity for blacks to see themselves as oppressed." That may be the case for the professional race hustlers, but it is far from true for the vast majority of black folks, and it's a statement that seems like it could be made only by a person who has had a very limited interaction with black people.
And though I am not offended by the other pronouncements about the other groups, but I tend to find that only conservatives seem to be on the hunt for model minorities, with blacks as the bad model, and asians as the good model. And the gays could live in peace in your mind, if they maintained primarily closeted existences.
I am surprised that you agree with the notion of a safety net, quite surprised actually. Reforms are more than necessary for the major safety net programs, but basic giveaways to Wall Street (privatization of SS) and insurance companies (vouchers) needn't be in the mix.
and regarding the captains of industry/robber barons, they indeed did good things, but those types still do that, even with their "tax burdens."
I didn’t mean to offend, but it seems true to me that when it comes to politics and public policy that most (certainly not all) black leaders advocate policies based on grievance and victimhood. Affirmative Action (which most blacks support), minority set aside contracts, racially gerrymandered districts, and reparations are all justified by the fact that blacks were oppressed. The black political model is one of petitioning the government to address some injustice. “Let’s have a march and force the government to do something about this!” And let me be clear--blacks were oppressed in this country, and that model worked to address their concerns. The problem is that the model hasn’t evolved. Mortgage “redlining” comes to mind. This is the practice of lending institutions treating blacks as riskier and giving them higher interest rates. This is certainly a problem and the traditional response was pursued to pressure the government to get tough on lenders who were caught. But there is so much black wealth in this country, why not start a bank or credit union to target black customers (not exclusively). That’s what Hispanic immigrants did when they created a credit union in NC. The approaches are not mutually exclusive--you could do both--but it always seems to come back to, cry out, and petition the government to do something. A younger generation of black officials, Harold Ford, Corey Booker, Obama are attempting to move past it to some extent, but I’m afraid it is deeply ingrained. Of course, you would know better than I, but my sense from what I read and what I see is that victimhood is deeply ingrained into the black consciousness.
Another example is the whole issue of restoring felons voting rights which is race driven. There’s a law that says that if you commit a felony you lose the right to vote. The law is applied fairly and evenly. Then the democrats/black leaders realize that a large % of their base can’t vote because they are felons. Well, the law must be unfair, it must be changed, to many blacks are “disenfranchised!” How about, there are too many black felons, they should stop committing crimes and trying to avoid the consequences! Instead of pursing a policy that teaches people that they can avoid the consequences for their action, where is the leadership to get them to stop committing violent crimes in the first place, or live with the consequences.
I think you may be offended by my characterizing blacks as a monolith, but politically they are a monolithic group. 99% approval for Obama? On average, 80-90% support for the Ds? Total intolerance of any political dissent (conservative blacks--what do you think of Justice Thomas?) It’s a little indelicate to say it, but it seems to be true.
Generalizing about ethnic groups is always tricky, but there are usually elements of truth to the conclusions. I think most Asians have been great citizens. Of course, there are some exceptions, but they tend to work hard, study hard, and stay out of trouble. It’s hard to complain. Hispanics are a much larger group and harder to stereotype, but I think it is fair to say that they are on the fence. If they follow the Asian model of hard work and sacrifice they will eventually prosper, but if they are drawn into ghetto life, as some already are, it will be a tragedy. Gays don’t have to stay in the closet, but I think most people would leave them alone if they didn’t push marriage so aggressively. For example, I’m very supportive of a law that would prevent gays from being fired, but I’m uncomfortable with gay marriage.
Finally, I’m surprised that you are surprised regarding my support for a social safety net. I think you sometimes project the worst onto the other side. I would oppose any privatization of SS. For some people that is all they have. For others, they already have a market investment--having a retirement component that is guaranteed is an important element of that. Just how safe that guarantee is is another question. My guess is that for you and I our SS benefits will be cut.
Sorry for the repetition, I had a problem with my browser.
No worries Anon. I just took out the repeated comments.
@Anon: I have just had an opportunity to read your last comment in depth, and, of course, I take issue with some of the things that you have to say. First, in giving your examples, you've doubled down on the good minority/bad minority construct, and it's one that Asian friends that I have appreciate as much as my black friends do.
Regarding politics, I agree that there is too much concentration of black votes with the Democrats, but the GOP does not offer a ready or viable alternative for almost every single black person I know. I even tried the party out, and found it wanting. On this I can speak only for myself, but the GOP doesn't feel welcoming. It didn't feel that way in 1986, and it feels less so in 2010. And I am just speaking from the perspective of a black person. I won't get into the gay side and the GOP (though I wish the Log Cabin types all the luck in the world, as I do black conservatives). The best way that I can discribe that lack of welcome is race based. The GOP, as a party, seem much more willing to tolerate actual racists within its midst. That is my opinion. Does that make the GOP a racist organization? Absolutely not. It was, after all, the original home of the black community for more than obvious reasons. And I am fully aware of folks like the late Sen. Byrd, who demonstrated publicly his remorse for having been in the Klan and such. His actions, in the end, spoke louder than his words. But I am reading too many stories, and hearing a few anecdotes, from actual black Republicans who get pissed off by thinly veiled racial comments, or out right craziness (check the GOP nominee for NY governor, or Sarah Palin's odd defense of Dr. Laura after she threw "nigger" out eleven times to a black caller seeking her advice within one segment of her show). Black Republicans have been trying to keep their party focused on actual issues, but random racist or racist-lite moments keep popping up here and there.
I also think that some people confuse telling what's happening with crying victim. Meanwhile, we've spent the better part of a year witnessing repeated cries of victimhood from the right. That is some cognitive dissonance right there, to me.
Regarding black self sufficiency, I think it is a shame that more Americans are unaware of the solid number of black banks dating back to Reconstruction that are still in existence, and more importantly, survived the economic collapse. I have family members who bank at Consolidated Bank here in Virginia. This is the bank that the first black female bank President ran back in the first decade of the 20th century. Bluntly put, how do you think black folks managed things during segregation? Why do you think that there are historic black communities throughout the nation? Black businesses were there. So the example you raised about Hispanics putting together a credit union in NC is nice, but doesn't work, since there are indeed black owned banks that have been doing exactly what you pointed out.
Regarding affirmative action, I think one of the most disingenous aspects of this debate is the lack of discussing affirmative action based on gender. white women, overwhelmingly (and concomitantly the white men in their households), have benefitted from affirmative action/diversity programs. Do you disagree with that point? With that said, I think that the dynamics have shifted in an interesting way. Several white women, as shown by the various law suits where they are plaintiffs are white women suing on the issue of race, seem to have little to say about affirmative action based on gender. But then, I am sure, like many black folks (like Colin Powell) who have benefitted from affirmative action, that those women feel that their advancement has been based on actual credentials and merit. Yet, they might look at the black candidate and see someone "unqualified" and "undeserving" moving ahead. I think it's an interesting discussion to have with some white women.
Post a Comment