Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama vows to work for middle-class economic security in weekly address (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There was no Second Great Depression (7+ / 0-)

    so someone did a lot right.  I credit Bernanke, Geithner, and Obama most.

    I remember this place was overwhelmingly against Bernanke in 2010 and was proven wrong.

    I supported Bernanke then and Yellen now, for the record.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:45:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If the Administration did something right.... (5+ / 0-)

      ...why did they lose the 2010 midterms?  

      This was, again, a lesson that the Democrats should have learned in 1994: you do not just have to do the right things for the economy. The voters have to feel it and know where it's coming from.

      So, sorry, no points for saving the known universe only to turn it over to the Tea Party.

      •  We lost the 2010 mid terms because (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shrike, stewarjt, SuzieQ4624

        1) the party in power historically loses seats in mid term elections, and
        2) the Democratic and progressive base didn't turn out in big numbers because they didn't get everything they wanted in the health care bill(looking at many of you Kossacks).

        •  So, in other words... (0+ / 0-)

          You contend that the reason the Democrats got 45% of the popular vote vs. 52% for the Republicans is because the president told people he would do certain things and he did not do them.

          So you're not really saying anything different than I am.

          You argue that Democratic progressives are responsible for that loss. The data say you are wrong. One million more liberals voted in 2010 than in 2006. Six million fewer moderates voted in 2010 than in 2006. And guess what the margin for Republican vs. Democratic House vote was?

          Six million.  

          Just coincidence, perhaps. Conservatives did a  good job of turning out their base, and that was a factor. But to accuse liberals, many of whom sacrifice enormously for the good of this country, is self-defeating and just plain wrong.  

          Liberals went to the polls. Not in exceptional numbers, but in normal numbers. The reason Obama lost in 2010 was that there were no results to point to. It was possible for conservative leaders to make all sorts of false claims because people could not see results.  

          Would you rather be self-defeating and wrong, or would you rather that Democrats learn some lessons, like:

          1. End the control that money exerts over politics before anything else?
          2. Don't let conservative obstruction stop vital legislation in the Senate?
          3. Don't pretend that both sides of Congress are equally at fault for gridlock. It's a lie, and no one likes a liar?  
          4. Go to the people and involve them as full partners, not as pawns?
          5. Don't pretend you've fulfilled promises when you haven't?

          I've heard enough excuses for why Democrats lose elections to last two lifetimes.

          •  From the data you linked (0+ / 0-)

            Data for liberals

            2006 - 85.7 million voters x 20% liberal = 17.1 million liberals voted
             2008 - 132.6 million voters x 22% liberal = 29.1 million liberals voted
             2010 - 90.7 million voters x 20% liberal = 18.1 million liberals voted
             Net change from 2006 to 2010: +1 million liberals
            Net change from 2008 to 2010: -11 million liberals

            AS for results to have voted for:


            •  The proper comparison is off-year to off-year (0+ / 0-)

              Many fewer people of all kinds vote in elections that occur in years when there is no presidential election. 1 million extra liberals showed up in 2010. It wasn't enough.

              As for the results, I know in great detail what they were. A few of the Obama achievements in the link you provide were popular. Many were either not known about or were actually unpopular.

              The mortgage plan was an embarrassing and expensive failure--except for the banks. For the amount of money he spent, we could have paid a $10,000 a year mortgage payment for 2.5 million mortgage holders for three years, thereby preventing most of the foreclosures.

              The total enumerated spending on poverty in the link you provide is about $35B. In the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, poverty gets 5% of the stimulus money.

              Should we should count more Food Stamps and unemployment benefits as an accomplishment? Sure, it's better than letting people starve, but the return of jobs was slower than in any other crisis, and that is because so little of the stimulus (about 15% according to the chart) was devoted to infrastructure.  

              Of the health care reforms, the ones that matter the most to people had not phased in by the time of the election (See here for the precise timeline). This is because the Democrats allowed a 1-year delay to reform.

              Of the stimulus bill, only a fraction was direct assistance to potential swing voters. $70B in Alternative Minimum Tax relief did not win many votes. By contrast, only $5B went to poor families through the EITC. Most of the stimulus did not stimulate. The tax rebates were mostly saved and, unfortunately, most people did not connect the rebate checks they received to the stimulus.    

              Dodd-Frank hasn't even been implemented yet. When it is, the risks to the financial system will remain.

              Race to the Top is regarded as a negative by many teachers and, indeed by the NAACP. It probably lost votes.

              The additional money for veterans care was not matched by the administrative ability to deliver it. And so on.

              The list of achievements would have been fine in normal times. But with U-6 unemployment hitting 17%--about 2/3 of what it was in the Great Depression-- the stimulus was pathetically inadequate.  

              •  Dodd-Frank hasn't even been implemented yet. (0+ / 0-)

                That simply isn't true. While many provisions and rules have yet to be finalized(for various reasons) the law is in effect, most notably the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Senator Warren. And while it doesn't go as far as some would like, given the political climate and the prospect of getting a more robust bill passed in Congress, it's a step in the right direction.


                •  Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                  According to the Washington Post, as of early June, just 38% of the rules required to Dodd-Frank have been implemented vs. the 70% that should have been done:

                  What happened to the other 245 rules? Well, 117 have been proposed but not finalized. But 128 haven’t even been proposed yet. More concerning still, regulations around banking, asset-backed securities, and “liquidation authority” — perhaps the regulations most directly related to the causes of the 2007-08 crisis and bailout — are particularly slow in being implemented
                  38% is a lot closer to "not implemented" than to "implemented." Something that is "not implemented" is not going to prevent any crisis, much less the crises it was designed to prevent.
    •  duly noted (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... for the record

      "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." -James Madison

      by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 08:26:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is "right" in your book? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snoopydawg, jfdunphy, chuckvw, apimomfan2

      First, who pushed for the deregulation who created the crisis in the first place?  Yep, Larry Summers.

      Second, the "recovery" has in fact not resulted in an increase in employment (stuck at 59% for quite a while) and an astonishingly anemic recovery.  NOw, clearly a major part of the blame for that goes to the GOP, but this notion that Obama has overseen some kind of fabulous economy is simply not true.

      Third, the notion that this economic crisis is not a second Depression suggests that perhaps you aren't as well versed in the economy as you say.

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

      by Mindful Nature on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 09:43:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A depression is characterized by a sustained (0+ / 0-)

        period of asset values and deflation.

        Bernanke and Summers averted that.

        Secondly, deregulation did not create the financial crisis.  Mass hysteria over homes did after home prices went straight up for 10-15 years.  Even Senator Warren says Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the 2008 crisis.

        See 1929 and the mass hysteria on stock prices.  People were wiped when their primary asset fell sharply then too.  But stock prices would not recover for 20 years then.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:08:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yikes. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          time for a little spoon feeding.  SO, where did the money that drove up house prices come from?  That will tell you why financial deregulation was a major contributor to the crises.  However, I am not sure how much success you'll have here peddling the latest GOP talking points here.

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

          by Mindful Nature on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:20:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "falling" asset prices. (0+ / 0-)

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:08:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You know, shrike...this is what you (6+ / 0-)

      are praising, and if you think this is great, then you belong to the wrong party.

      I know this is hard for all the Obama apologists to accept, but his policies have decimated the middle class while making the criminals who caused this mess to become wealthier than they could have ever imagined.

      Read those four graphs...the proof is there. It takes a lot of chutzpah for Obama to blame the Republicans for the consequences of his policies, but that's all he has.

      •  Which of his policies decimated the middle class? (0+ / 0-)

        The Recovery Act?

        The ACA?

        Financial Reform?


        I can't think of a single one that has.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:14:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  TARP and HAMP, to name a couple... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The proof is in the bottom line, not in the White House talking points...

          ...the graphs I pointed to, show that income for the wealthy Wall Street insiders -- who caused this financial collapse -- is larger than it has ever been...that is, is the graph showing that income is lower for middle class Americans than it has ever been...once again, those are the facts...

          Those were the consequences of Obama's policies...he selected Wall Street insiders to fill his economic team, and it paid off big time...for Wall Street...for middle class Americans, it has been a disaster...

          You can point to any Obama program you like, but they won't change those numbers.

          If Obama is the great president that you say he is, then he will accept responsibility for these failures...if he is less than a decent person, he will blame other people for his failures...which is what he has done...the evidence is in the speech he gave today.

      •  Thank you for that link, and for O-pologists and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfdunphy, apimomfan2

        the rest of us, here's another little insight into the character, behaviors and motives of The Only President We've Got:

        Doesn't matter, of course -- the Game will go on, the money will flow in well-sluiced channels, the great stupid clumsy Imperial Global Network-Centric Interoperable Battlespace thingie will keep on growing like a massive malignant, metastatic, and terminal tumor, and the people who REALLY create all the wealth, who work their butts off and spoil their health and live in fear, will continue to get the Obamenema. Of course, Obama is just an easily swappable catheter tip on the enema hose wielded by Nurse Olly Gark... under orders from Doctors Pluto and Klepto Crat...

        Meantime, that tide, actually the Mean Low Water ocean level, will be rising along with the temperature and the desperation of so many billions... which is just a "threat" to be "managed" by our patently incompetent military class and state-security clowns...

        Anybody see any connections to larger things here, and any of you know who the author means by that "we"?

        "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

        by jm214 on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:14:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site