Whoa...
Its not just Fox News: How liberal apologists torpedoed change, helped make the Democrats safe for Wall StreetCenter-left pundits have carried water for the president for six years. Their predictable excuses all ring hollow
Thomas Frank - Salon
Sunday, Jan 11, 2015 04:00 AM PST
...
...
Now, lets bring this grand, overarching issue of inequality down to specifics. The recent episode in which the ugly reality of our new Gilded Age manifested itself most clearly was the financial crisis and the investment-bank bailouts. Together, these made up the greatest economic and political debacle of our time, the perfect expression of everything that has been going wrong with this country for decades.
Yes, everything that is wrong with the USA in one episode, and still the Democrats couldnt figure out how to handle it in a way that was much different from how those despicable Republicans handled it. Not only did our Democratic administration leave Wall Street standing after Wall Street plunged the nation into a slump without parallel in most peoples livesbut our government allowed Wall Street to grow more concentrated and more powerful than ever. Our government made it plain that there are to be no consequences for Wall Streets misbehaviorthat the bonuses will always flow, that the obvious fraudsters will never be prosecuted, that this one industry essentially stands above the law.
To say that Obama fumbled this most critical issue is to understate the matter pretty dramatically. More to the point is the great unasked question of why he fumbled it so dramatically. Again, lets review the historical record as it actually existsnot as Obamas apologists like to imagine it:
* It was fully within Obamas power to react to the financial crisis in a more aggressive and appropriate wayi.e., laws were in place, there was ample precedent, he wasnt forced to choose Tim Geithner to run the bailouts or Eric Holder to (not) prosecute the bankers or Ben Bernanke to serve another term at the Fed.
* It would have been good policy had Obama reacted to the financial crisis in a more aggressive and appropriate wayi.e., the economy would have recovered more quickly and the danger of a future crisis brought on by concentrated financial power would have been reduced.
* It would have been massively popular had Obama reacted to the financial crisis in a more aggressive and appropriate way. Everyone admits this, at least tacitly, even the architects of Obamas bailout policies, who like to think of themselves as having resisted the publics mindless baying for banker blood. Acting aggressively might also have deflated the rampant false consciousness of the Tea Party movement and prevented the Republican reconquista of the House in 2010.
But Obama did the opposite. He did everything he could to foam the runways and never showed any real interest in taking on the big banks. Shall I recite the dolorous list one more time? The bailouts he failed to unwind or even to question. The bad regulators he didnt fire. The AIG bonuses that his team defended. The cramdown he never pushed for. The receivership of the zombie banks that never happened. The FBI agents who were never shifted over to white-collar crime. The criminal referral programs at the regulatory agencies that were never restored. The executives of bailed-out banks who were never fired. The standing outrage of too-big-to-fail institutions that was never truly addressed. The top bankers who were never prosecuted for anything on the long, sordid list of apparent frauds.
Obama didnt play this greatest-of-all issues the way he did because the white working class rose up to defend its friends in the investment banking community. He didnt play it this way because forcing the Republicans to defend Wall Street would have been really bad politics. Nor did he do it the way he did because the presidency lacks sufficient power. In fact, everything I just mentioned can be done by the president, says noted former bank regulator Bill Black. It just requires some will and some imagination and a lot of planning and determination.
What I am suggesting, in other words, is that the financial crisis worked out the way it did in large part because Obama and his team wanted it to work out that way.
Much More: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/its_not_just_fox_news_how_liberal_apologists_torpedoed_change_helped_make_the_democrats_safe_for_wall_street/
Tace
(6,800 posts)...but this is the sordid truth.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)a presidential republican win in 2016. The stage has been set for a replay, and any obstacles they will push out of the way.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Obama's 2008 campaign was nothing but a marketing campaign. The third way doesn't give a damn that they destroyed the party. They have a lot more in common with the republicans than with all of those Obama voters anyway.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)that "Obama never wanted a majority". Go ahead and imagine the shit I got. I remember one guy starting off with "That is the stupidest thing I've heard ............
*sigh*
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)What you say is literally true.
The Obama campaign was Advertising Age's Marketer of the Year for 2008.
Obama Wins! ... Ad Age's Marketer of the Year
At ANA Gathering, Marketing Pros and Agency Bigs Tap Barack Over Apple, Zappos
People who pointed out the problematic nature of this pronouncement received the sort of indignant response normally reserved for someone who insults your favorite brand of athletic shoe or bath soap.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Much more is needed but it is a start and a counter weight to the perception Obama is serenading Wall Street like a forlorn lover.
From the Google:
"The idea for a CFPA originated[1] with Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel overseeing the U.S. banking bailout[2]. In a 2007 article in Democracy Journal[3], Warren wrote,
It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting the family out on the street... Similarly, its impossible to change the price on a toaster once it has been purchased. But long after the papers have been signed, it is possible to triple the price of the credit used to finance the purchase of that appliance ... The difference between the two markets is regulation.
After detailing various ways that the financial industry fleeces consumers, she concluded by calling for a Financial Product Safety Commission that would "establish guidelines for consumer disclosure, collect and report data about the uses of different financial products, review new financial products for safety, and require modification of dangerous products before they can be marketed to the public."
............
The CFPA Act (CFPAA) establishes a new agency to oversee consumer protection in financial services. It would subject federally chartered financial institutions to state consumer protection laws that have, in the past, been preempted and transfers authority to the Agency from existing statutory authorities. The Agencys mission is to promote transparency, simplicity, fairness, accountability and access in the market for consumer financial services. The Agency will seek to ensure that consumers have, understand and can use the information that they need in order to make responsible choices about consumer financial products and services.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I rec'ed though.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)and embarrassing DU. It needs to be brought back.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Cause I'm not... I didn't let the thieves off the hook.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'm not embarrased either Willy. Frankly crap like that from other people is getting quite old. What did salon's article call them, "Apologists". Aptly so.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)party. Doubling down is unlikely to help
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Note the carefully articulated argument for the (phantom) un-rec.
Case in point.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)who is always a good read.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Thanks for posting WillyT!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)niyad
(113,293 posts)anAustralianobserver
(633 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 12:25 AM - Edit history (4)
Good and painful breakdown of the apologetics. But the further leap - that Obama is being duplicitous about his declared values - I see as a bit paranoid. (Cenk Uygur makes the same extra jump.)
Why is it so hard to accept that Obama's inauthenticity has not been about his core values, but simply about a lack of courage (and transparency)?
I think Obama is a much braver person than most of us, but he has too often shown himself to be quite cowardly relative to the special responsibilities of the office post-Bush(es). I think he probably has more integrity than your presidents since Carter, but the years we've just lived through have required a bit more.
I pray he uses his remaining time to achieve a few monumental things... for example, the release of the torture report; which restored a bit of my faith in America.