Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 07:39 AM Oct 2015

Obama's recovery = win for trickle down

Reich and Stiglitz discuss the bailout. "They really believed in trickle down economics." When presented with "bailout Main Street (Stiglitz)" or "bailout bankers *without conditions* (Rubin & banksters), Obama chose banksters over his instincts - bailout Main Street.

Now, Obama is King of Trickle Down Economics and Democrats are the loudest cheerleaders of Trickle Down. I've been saying this for a while.



For an even longer period, I've said, in so many words, DU lost its integrity. If an R had been at the helm, DU would not be praising a trickle down recovery.

I started a thread last week about how disgusted I am with liberal talk radio. Not at all surprised it got no traction, hereIt's all praise for Obama's this, that, and the other. Liberal talk radio lost its objectivity, too.
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama's recovery = win for trickle down (Original Post) WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2015 OP
I Found The Logic Lacking ProfessorGAC Oct 2015 #1
Yes, your logic is lacking. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2015 #2
You're Missing The Point ProfessorGAC Oct 2015 #8
And the part about this being Joe's and Bob's argument, too WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2015 #15
Such a myopic statement GummyBearz Oct 2015 #20
Did you happen to catch the part about "no conditions" WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2015 #4
Yes ProfessorGAC Oct 2015 #7
Trickle Down WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2015 #10
Not Part of The Supply Side Theory ProfessorGAC Oct 2015 #17
Not snarking: Have you a term that describes it? WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2015 #19
Obama just trying to copy his hero Reagan (nt) bigwillq Oct 2015 #3
Obama NEVER said or implied Reagan was his hero, so of course you leave no text KittyWampus Oct 2015 #6
He only ever described himself as a Reagan Democrat. Kip Humphrey Oct 2015 #13
Obamacare went a very long way towards bailing out "main street". KittyWampus Oct 2015 #5
The Deal with the Devil WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2015 #12
TISA: Obama’s Latest Betrayal of America and Americans in Favor of the Big Banks (William K. Black) Octafish Oct 2015 #9
If an R were in charge there would not be a recovery lame54 Oct 2015 #11
You understand that all the bailouts were started under Bush GummyBearz Oct 2015 #14
Results have been "trickle down" whatever you want to call the methods NT 1939 Oct 2015 #16
Yep GummyBearz Oct 2015 #18

ProfessorGAC

(66,659 posts)
1. I Found The Logic Lacking
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 07:41 AM
Oct 2015

Doing something to prevent an economic catastrophe is not employing trickle down economics.

That's a case of changing the definition to suit a premise. You know, like the hard right always does.

I wouldn't be too proud of employing right wing attack tactics.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
2. Yes, your logic is lacking.
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 08:08 AM
Oct 2015

There were multiple things that could have been done to 'prevent economic catastrophe'. The specific means chosen, though, WERE most definitely trickle down economics. Money was thrown at rich people, while poor people were given crumbs. As a result, bank shareholders were 'saved', while many many homeowners were left in foreclosure.

93% of the 'recovery' went to the richest among us. That's trickle down any way you cut it, and is not 'employing right wing attack tactics'. It's Obama employing right wing economists like Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke.

ProfessorGAC

(66,659 posts)
8. You're Missing The Point
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 08:33 AM
Oct 2015

I'm not disputing there were other ways to skin the cat. What i'm disputing is that this is consistent with supply-side theory. It's not. Supply side theory never even touched on governmental actions in the face of pending catastrophe.

Were there better options? Sure. But, the argument is that this is an extension of trickle down economics. I think that's a light year off base.

Your arguing against a point i'm not making.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
15. And the part about this being Joe's and Bob's argument, too
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:27 AM
Oct 2015

True, I've been saying it, but Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz are saying, unequivocally "They really believed in Trickle Down Economics." So it's their claim, too. It's quite obvious. Experts and insiders really didn't have to validate this. Considering Stiglitz was an insider to the process and is calling it Trickle Down, it's really no longer my argument.

 

GummyBearz

(2,931 posts)
20. Such a myopic statement
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:47 AM
Oct 2015

"Supply side theory never even touched on governmental actions in the face of pending catastrophe"

You are going to hinge everything on the fact that the words "pending catastrophe" weren't directly used in supply side theory? What defines trickle down economics is money given to the rich by the government, with an expectation it flows down to the middle and lower classes. Whether that money is given in the form of tax cuts for the rich, or direct capital injections to the rich, is irrelevant. The whole point of TARP, QE, and ZIRP is to give money to the rich with an expectation that it will also improve the condition of the middle and lower classes.

Specifically, TARP was designed to give banks capital to shore up their balance sheets so they could start loaning money out again for home purchasing, thereby helping middle class homeowners avoid foreclosure. As with previous implementations of trickle down economics, it did not work in 2008.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
10. Trickle Down
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 09:12 AM
Oct 2015

No conditions allowed the money to go to the banksters to enrich them by, among other things, by paying fat bonuses and buying back stock.

ProfessorGAC

(66,659 posts)
17. Not Part of The Supply Side Theory
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:30 AM
Oct 2015

I agree there was a highly likely a better way to be found. But, there is nothing in supply side economic theory that provides a contingency for government intervention in the face of pending economic collapse.

They never thought through those things. Not at all. In fact, major intervention into a single industries financial woes is anathema to the underlying philosophy of supply siders.

So, as i said earlier, and you just repeated the thing with which i find fault, you don't get to redefine the term just to fit the complaint.

Did it disproportionately benefit the top earners and those with the most overall wealth? Yes. Readily acknowledged. Was there a way that those with their hands in the cookie jar could have been made to pay for their fiduciary negligence? Yes. Would i have insisted that we give you help and then step 2 is you have to break up into many smaller, individually owned and operated companies? Yes.

But, failing to do any of those things does not make it trickle down. It has nothing to do with trickle down economics, because the conditions that created the problem being addressed are not part of any supply side theory.

So, we're agreeing on the negatives of what occurred. I just don't think you can use this to paint Obama as a proponent of trickle down because this isn't even trickle down.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
6. Obama NEVER said or implied Reagan was his hero, so of course you leave no text
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 08:30 AM
Oct 2015

When you throw a blatant falsehood out there, it's best not to follow up with any kind of diversion.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
12. The Deal with the Devil
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:02 AM
Oct 2015

There's a book. One can only hope Obama gave banksters and "free" traders carte blance (TPP) in exchange for Obamacare. I mean, that's the best case scenario.

After the bailout, the two haters hate on TPP, too.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
9. TISA: Obama’s Latest Betrayal of America and Americans in Favor of the Big Banks (William K. Black)
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 08:45 AM
Oct 2015
William K. Black is a well-respected expert on white collar crime. As a forensic economist in the employ of the federal government, he helped jail hundreds of S&L crooks in the 1990s.



Obama’s Latest Betrayal of America and Americans in Favor of the Big Banks: TISA

By William K. Black
New Economic Perspectives, June 24, 2014

Introduction

EXCERPT...

“Transparency” for Bankers: Maximum Opaqueness for the Public and Congress

The TISA draft (Article X.16) is very clear about the second great paradox: bankers must be told everything that regulators are thinking about adopting and have ample opportunity to influence the regulators’ drafting of the rule. But TISA is an international secret that will remain an international secret for five years after it is adopted. Like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the drafts are kept secret even from Congress. Indeed, TISA is “classified” so that those who might blow the whistle on the travesty may be prosecuted. The draft’s initial information contains this language:

“Declassify on: Five years from entry into force of the TISA agreement….

It must be stored in a locked or secured building, room, or container.”


I note this obvious, indefensible hypocrisy because it is illustrative of the entire draft. When the indefensible appears in a document like this it is because the drafters know that there is no one representing the other side and they can afford to be outrageously one-sided. It was clearly drafted by and for lobbyists for the SDIs. Any government officials involved in the drafting are simply scribes who will be rewarded on the other side of the revolving door. There is no pretense that the draft is a reasoned response to differing views. Only one set of views – literally the wish list of the largest, most criminal banks – is presented and it is presented in exceptionally extreme language. There is literally nothing in the draft designed to increase the regulatory protections afforded the public from private banks. There is literally nothing in the draft that increases restrictions on private banks.

As a lawyer I recognize exactly what happened because the draft reads exactly like how we draft a wish list. Obama is a lawyer. Mr. President, read the draft and it will be obvious to you that no one is representing the public. The President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (an economist), was outraged when he learned of what the bankers were trying to achieve through TISA. Sadly, the U.S. played a disgraceful role in pushing TISA forward over Ecuador’s objections. If Obama were to admit that Ecuador was right, bring the U.S. back to representing the public rather than the looters, and make public the entire disgraceful draft TISA would collapse.

TISA’s drafting consists of a meeting of banking thieves who are successfully demanding a return to what Gramlich correctly described as “no cops on the beat.” If the street robbers of the world demanded that we remove the cops on the beat we would be enraged. Bankers and their neoclassical economist allies, however, regularly lobby for just such a boon to elite white-collar criminals. We have millennia of experience with what happens when we give the elites the power to loot with impunity.

CONTINUED w/links...

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/06/obamas-latest-betrayal-america-americans-favor-big-banks-tisa.html

The three “de’s” – deregulation, desupervision, and de facto decriminalization – first looted America's S&Ls and then America's banks. Now, TiSA wants to deregulate the world's banks. Anyone think the money will go to a good cause?
 

GummyBearz

(2,931 posts)
14. You understand that all the bailouts were started under Bush
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:24 AM
Oct 2015

And Obama just continued his policies, right? TARP, QE, QE2, QEn...

The OP has a point and I think it sailed so far over your head you didn't even hear the "woosh" sound

 

GummyBearz

(2,931 posts)
18. Yep
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:37 AM
Oct 2015

I see some here have an issue calling it trickle down because the supply side theory never covered government intervention. But what do you call it when money is given to the top (whether by cash injections or tax cuts), and expected to flow to the bottom? Sure sounds like trickle down to me

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama's recovery = win fo...