Steve Croft of 60 Minutes interviewed President Obama on this evening’s show, evoking Obama’s views on Afghanistan, the economy and jobs.
The president expressed consternation and anger at the Wall Street bankers who are again handing out huge bonuses (I think they said $32 billion in total if that’s possible) after being bailed out to the tune of 100′s of billions by US taxpayers and during a time of 10% unemployment. Shocked! Shocked, the President was! Duh, Barack, do you see who you surrounded yourself with?
I wonder if the prez has read this damning article by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. I’d have liked Croft to ask him about it. Virtually Obama’s entire economic “reform” team are Bob Rubin Wall Street insiders, who come from the very places that engineered the mess and are now awarding those bonuses again: Michael From, Jamie Rubin, Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Lewis Alexander, Gene Sperling, Lael Brainard, Gary Gensler, Peter Orszag, Diana Farrell, Mark Patterson, Lee Sachs, Rahm Emanuel et al.
“Rather than having a team of rivals, they’ve got a team of Rubins,”
The point is that an economic team made up exclusively of callous millionaire-assholes has absolutely zero interest in reforming the gamed system that made them rich in the first place. “You can’t expect these people to do anything other than protect Wall Street,” says Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Republican from Florida.
Afghanistan below the fold…
Second troubling topic. Croft asked about the recently announced Afghanistan surge & withdrawal strategy. The core reason for the strategy that Obama offered, as I understood him, is that the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan is the Taliban’s stronghold and epicenter of attacks launched by Al Qaeda against the United States and others, and thus we must eliminate them in that region.
I find it troubling to think that we are going to expend an additional 30,000 troops, bringing our total to over 100,000, to “Clear, Hold, Build, and Transfer” in a country that is not really a country and is nominally ruled by a disrespected, corrupt leader. But more important is that Al Qaeda operates in many places and launched the 9/11 attacks from other places than the Af-Pak border region. In other words, there’s ample reason to doubt the need for this kind of war. And when there’s doubt about whether a war should be waged, we oughtn’t wage it.
Discuss
34 Comments . Comments are closed.yeah, no kidding...
I guess Obama has arrived in the bubble since he can't seem to feel the "consternation and anger" focused squarely at HIM. I knew we were in trouble as soon as he selected Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary. At first I tried to believe that he had some sort of foresight that we couldn't see. But I now I think he was either duped or trying to be too agreeable and friendly when he first became President. You would think Obama would be savvy enough to not fall for it. I am really disturbed by the whole thing. While I never really jumped on the "hope" train, and "Yes we can" never left my lips once, I tried to have faith. Today, I have just about given up.
Did Obama give any ideas about what he is going to do to solve the problem?
$quot;financial regulatory reform...
and I want that in place next year." This is the actual clip from the show where he quasi-sorta-addresses your question.
Thanks for the clip
his solution is financial regulatory reform...that he wants in place by next year. The problem is why wait until next year? They should have done this at the time of the bailouts. If there is even a glimmer of a recovery by next year [and let's know that they are already touting glimmers of recovery because fewer jobs are being lost (but no job gains) and people are spending less, but more than was expected, not less than expectations (absurd!)], there will be no motivation to pass the reform, or if passed it will be so weak as to be nearly worthless.
It will be too little, too late. The damage is done.
Larry Summers said yesterday that
"everybody agrees that the recession is over," but he did not say when the unemployment rate could be expected to drop further.
Yes, the recession on Wall Street is over
but not on Main St. America. The banks are doing great, but that has not trickled down to the foreclosing homeowners. No bailout for those American. They are being allowed to fail. I guess we'll just have to see where this goes.
No diff beetween the parties.
Same economic policies, same foreign policy, a little red meat partisan rhetoric thrown out every election to keep us red and blue while corp. bigs and wall st insiders run right up the middle laughing all the way to the bank, er, fed treasury. How about that increase in contractors in Afghanistan? And Dick Cheney aint even in the Bunker! What about that revisiting of NAFTA? Outsourcing happening at greater pace. Oh wait Kerry says we will have job re training! Yippee! For wahat? Wal Mart clerks?
What I've been saying
Of course, every time I say it, I find myself said "ridiculous" and then accused of "slander"
It's ridiculous
that you would be accused of slander for expressing that opinion.
expect he wasn't
Read the thread. He accused the Democrats of cheering Bush on:
JimC and I both called him on it. I asked him to substantiate it (he didn't), JimC said:
OBroadhurst is as trustworthy a reporter as JohnD. Both like to play victim...
I disagree
What I noted was that a great many Democrats cheered him on. I certainly never suggested that all did, nor even that most did -- but only that more than enough did so that a filibustering of enactment of his policies in the Senate lacked feasibility, hence permitting it. Frankly, this seems so transparently clear on its face, I'm surprised that you're debating it.
disagreeing doesn't make it true
You may think it's transparently clear, but you've yet to provide an example of one, let alone a "great many," Democrats who cheered Bush on. As JimC correctly pointed out, people who went against Bush were accused of being traitors. Going along is a far cry from cheering.
Back to the topic at hand, the flack you were given was for distorting history, not claiming the parties are similar.
I do note you conveniently left out social policies in your party comparison. It seems rather cynical.
Well, I think I hear where he's coming from
I frequently found myself wondering why my fellow Democrats were so fearfully quiet during much or most of the Bush era.
Yes, there were a few notable exceptions. Far too many Democrats fell over each other proving that even Democrats were "tough on defense" and "against terrorism" and similar baloney. Even after we won the majority, and in spite of promises made to the contrary -- Barney Frank, speaking with me personally at the Holiday Inn in Brookline during the 2006 campaign, for example -- the Democrats were stone silent about pursuing impeachment of Cheney, Bush et al. Newly-elected Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" as one of her first acts.
Too many Democrats, along with virtually ALL Republicans, are far more beholden to the wealthy interests that bankroll them than to the concrete reality that surrounds us. The tortuous path of health care reform, the wall-street bailouts, and the pursuit of demonstrated war criminals supports this observation (in my humble opinion).
I guess
That's still nowhere near "cheering on" which is what he got called on.
My real issue is that he's now using people's reaction to claim victimhood on other topic entirely.
To be clear: NO ONE said "ridiculous" and then accused of "slander" in response to a claim the parties were similar.
Fair enough
I suggest, though, that the public record of too many Democrats on things like the Patriot Act goes well beyond "going along". Let me offer a typical example, in this case from this piece (helpfully provided by the "World Socialist Web Site) (emphasis mine):
Maybe that's not "cheering on", but it was enough like it to turn my stomach at the time.
Lieberman
Joementum was a big fan of Bush's wars, and back before he lost that primary, he was a Democrat. He was not alone, either. Here's an interesting essay from 2007
The Democrats abandoned Joe and he is having a revenge that only will be
surpassed by Tiger Woods' wife for making him quit golf. Vengeance tastes so sweet. In 2010 there will be 36 Senate seats up for reelection/election. People may want to exact a beating on Joe but they should be worried about him after 2010.
The Democrats abandoned Joe
How do you figure?
He is part of the Democratic caucus despite campaigning for McCain, Palin and Sen Coleman down ticket. He was allowed to keep his seniority courtesy of the Democratic caucus in the Senate and, as a member of the majority party caucus, chairs the Homeland Security committee.
It is true Democrats in CT had had enough of him and he was beaten in the primary forcing him to run as an independent.
All of that is beside the point. He is out for Joe not Dems not Republicans. He is the recipient of $450,000 from health insurance companies which puts him at #10 on the top 10 list of health care industry campaign donations in the Senate.
Lieberman is using the threat of a filibuster to do for health insurance companies and his own campaign funds. Three months ago, he said he was in favor of expanding Medicare to age 50, now he's against it. The guy is not bargaining in good faith. Too bad CT does not have recall.
I stand by that linked comment n/t
Give him a chance!
He inherited some really bad problems. He didn't realize things were this bad when he was campaigning for "change we could believe in". He's trying very hard and these are really hard problems. He really did think the Stimulus Bill would keep unemployment under 8% (oops!). Can't wait to see what happens next.
Matt Taibbi is not a reliable source
Taibbi is getting some bad press for his bad press...
Apparently,
Taibbi has published a response to Fernholz's post somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Anyway, IMHO most of Fernholz's "gotchas" weren't all that impressive -- nibbling around the edges at minor factual issues, not cutting the heart out of Taibbi's basic thesis.
Here it is
http://trueslant.com/matttaibb...
Fernholz mentions that Taibbi failed to mention some of the more progressive advisors, like Christy Roemer. On Meet the Press yesterday, Roemer discussed how she believed that the stimulus package should have been bigger, but that this number was never brought to the President. I had heard this before, but it still seems so bizarre that an apparently high level economic advisor is not actually advising the President on something like this. It also did not seem as if it was her choice not to present this number to the President.
Everyone makes some specific mistakes, but his argument still stands
It seems to me, from reading through to the posts you cite, that they agree with the thrust of the argument and call out Taibbi for some specific mistakes (good work!) but also assert at places that he doesn't go far enough, or could make a better case for, his essential thesis. Prospect:
As to the "it's all Congress' fault" argument, it is perfectly plausible to accept Taibbi's assertions and also, at the same time, accept that Congress is a roadblock per Yglesias.
OK, I'm confused
If he's so angry at the firms for handing out bonuses, then why is he not requiring the limits? Why does he want so badly for the firms to participate in the rescue plan? Why can't he say, "OK folks, we'll offer you this money, but here are the stipulations. If you don't like the stipulations, then fine, go under then - it's your call."?
The president speaks well, too bad he seems powerless.
The interview was embarrassing. I wondered if the president is even in the loop. Who's in charge? The Treasury (a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs)? The Pentagon (a wholly owned subsidiary of the military/Industrial complex)? Except for the most rabid Democratic Party apparatchiks I know, there is great disappointment in the person we supported for "Hope" and "Change". Perhaps the government can't be changed. Perhaps we will spiral down to collapse as so many countries have. Maybe we're not good enough to keep ideals of the Revolution alive.
So where do we go from here? Do we cry in our beer? How do we reclaim our birthright?
"...a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." -A. Lincoln
Get our morale back up!
In his AlterNet article, "Are Americans a Broken People? Why We've Stopped Fighting Back Against the Forces of Oppression", psychologist Bruce levine says we are demoralized for a variety of reasons and what will set us free is building our morale.
I think you're on to something.
In 1976, the Bicentennial, the mood of the people was down. The economy was sick from payment for a seemingly endless war, scandal was rampant in government, the future was bleak. (hmmm.) The people weren't all that behind the celebration.
By 1986 the country was out of malaise and celebrated the restoration of the Statue of Liberty. The people threw themselves into the celebration as I have never seen. People had real hope.
How can we bring that hope back? We've be snookered on "Hope and Change" already. Who can lead?
Reagan led, for better or worse,
by being outspoken and unafraid to state what he was for and against. That period you cite was essentially the Reagan Era. What we are finding is that Obama, by contrast, shrinks from saying - and more important, doing - what he's really for and against. I submit that were he to do that, people would admire and support him. Unless, of course, at heart, he's really for the Wall Street Biggies and The Long War. It is Obama's lack of clarity and apparent obsession with finding a middle ground to please all sides that makes us wonder what he's really for.
Yes.
I don't know how true this is, but if the percentage is really only 10%, the guy has problems.
Good Ottawa Sun article on Afghanistan.
Here.
Very good and...
he is not alone in thinking this way.
Getting it wrong
There's been a lot of hemming and hawing about the size of Wall Street bonuses. That's the wrong problem. The problem is the purpose of Wall Street bonuses.
Wall Street has gotten misaligned into creating financial derivatives that create no value but serve, mostly, to transfer money from the public or the taxpayer to Wall Street investment banks. I'm sure the Mafia pays bonuses for socially destructive behavior too, but our concern is not with their dollar amount but their human cost.
that's assuming they were ever aligned in the first place
I'd like to once again recommend "Where Are the Customer's Yachts?"
This Amazon snippet summarizes it better than I can:
"Liar's Poker" is more recent and equally eye-opening. I like "WAtCY?" better since it's shorter and funnier (call me shallow). Both are well worth reading.
Three stools away at a midtown bar
I'm reminded of Calvin Trillin's excellent op-ed contribution. He tells a story where it is generational. For the older generation, the nice but not-so-bright guys took jobs on Wall Street; for the next generation the smart guys took jobs on Wall Street. Here's what happened:
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 4 Feb 5:42 AM