General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould a Larry Summers nomination be the last straw for you?
Because I'm thinking it would for me. It's something the prez couldn't blame on the need to work with Congress, or the inherited ills of the last administration, or anything like that. It would be 100% his idea -- and he sure as hell couldn't claim "best man for the job" with a straight face. I like to think I have a balanced view of the president, and I tend to resist the "Obama's just another corporatist lap dog of the 1%" rhetoric around here -- but a Summers nomination would prove the naysayers right once and for all, I'm afraid. Anyone else feel that way?
Deep13
(39,154 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Awknid
(381 posts)Although I keep visualizing the big bankers and the MIC holding a gun to Obama's back. I remember what they did to Kennedy and I know they would not hesitate to do it again.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)He might make an excellent ambassador to Bumfuckistan for instance.
Or the director of economic development in Rooster Poot Arkansas.
Chairman of the Fed? That would definitely be in the top two or three last straws.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,018 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Amak8
(142 posts)After contributing to the crisis, and then losing $1.8 billion for Harvard by investing most of their cash reserves in an endowment stuffed with risky trades, Summers denied the existence of the housing bubble. At the Federal Reserve annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming in 2005, right before the crash, economist Raghuram Rajan warned of the imminent catastrophe in a formal paper, arguing that excessive risk-taking had surged, and that the banking system faced a full-blown financial crisis from the sliver of toxic securities on their own books. Larry Summers was the first to stand up and attack Rajan, bellowing that he found the basic, slightly lead-eyed premise of [Mr. Rajan's] paper to be misguided. Incidentally, Janet Yellen spoke publicly about the risks of the housing bubble around this same time.
In short, if we wanted to pin the crisis on one person, Summers would be a viable candidate. Nontheless, he failed upwards by taking a lead position on the Obama economic team, and the man responsible for much of the financial crisis would set out to fix it. He predictably failed again. Summers lowballed the estimate of how much stimulus would be necessary to get the economy back to full employment; he lied to key members of Congress about the Administrations commitment to providing housing debt relief and support for cram-down, where bankruptcy judges would be empowered to rewrite the terms of mortgages (this never happened, as the White House withdrew support and created a mortgage relief program that has massively underperformed); and he stood mute about monetary policy efforts to turn around the economy, which would be his main area of impact at the Fed. So on fiscal, debt relief and monetary terms, when the economy was reeling and everything counted, Summers missed on all three.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/24/sexist_larry_summers_will_destroy_the_economy/singleton/
The bigger his failures, the higher he gets promoted.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Because in the entire history of the United States there has been no clearer case of an impeachable offense that I know of by a President. No President should ever be, and in fact there is no authority for any President ever acting as Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Apparently President Obama takes on those roles (as reported) every tuesday morning when the current "Kill-list" is reviewed, updated, and approved.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama's going to be President until January 2017, and in that time he's going to do some bad things and some good things.
Regardless, he's going to be President.
So, would I think less of him and lose trust? Yes. Would I stop taking his side in opposing draconian cuts to the federal budget against the Republicans? no way.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You hope you can undermine the Democratic support somehow and are hoping this will do some more further damage?
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I haven't been here nearly as long as you, obviously, but I came here under an assumption that this was a site that was devoted to supporting the principles of the Democratic Party, not a site for unquestioning support of politicians who call themselves Democrats (if it was the latter I was after, I'm sure the DNC has a site somewhere that offers that). Instead of an ad hominem attack on me, perhaps you could offer an argument that squares Larry Summers as Fed chair with the values of the Democratic party. And if you can't explain it, perhaps you can suggest why a president should continue to enjoy the support of his party's rank and file if his actions put him in a different ideological camp from his own base.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is always one sided here on DU. They are always looking for something to get us to abandon the Democratic Party. Ever since day one after the election. This is about the 300th issue brought up and at least the 30th nominee.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I don't think it's every nominee, by a long shot. I think it's egregious nominees like Pritzker and egregious trial-balloons like Kelly and Summers.
And I don't think it's trying to get people to abandon the Democratic Party. Quite the opposite; it's getting people to stand up for the Democratic Party, and asking the president to do the same. (Unless you're suggesting the Democratic Party is whatever President Obama says it is, which is basically a monarchist position unworthy of serious consideration).
The fear here is that we're turning into a 2-party system -- a Conservative Republican Party and a Moderate Republican Party -- and that our president is colluding in that development. I don't want to be a moderate Republican (I'm old enough to have chosen to be one, back when they still existed). I want to be a Democrat, I AM a Democrat, and I want politicians with (D) after their names to be Democrats, too. This does not seem unreasonable to me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If you find the Democrats too conservative for you.
You are attempting to claim the President is not a Democrat. That would be rather unlikely, given that he was nominated by the Democratic party for the highest office in the land.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I was a Democrat before the corporatists and disaffected Republicans moved in; let them find a third party.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I figured it was over with Penny Pritzger sailing through. Then the reports that he had praised "Racial Profiling, OWS Targeter, Ray Kelly. Then Summers was floated with the Trial Balloon.
Given his first term appointments that were mostly Repugs....the Second Term is not getting off to a promising start, imho. But, I've been worried about him since he allowed the Wall Street Bail Out and Banksters to get off along with the rest of what went in on first term. Some said that he'd be more "Liberal" in his Second Term. I guess it depends on version of Liberal. He's very liberal sharing with Repugs, MIC and Corporations but not to his own Democrats who voted for him.
NoPasaran
(17,291 posts)librechik
(30,676 posts)I lost it the first time.
mick063
(2,424 posts)And I'm good with that.
You want more Obama? Vote for Clinton.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)That's "stayin' in Mississippi a day too long". (Bob Dylan)
"So many things we never will undo
I know you're sorry, I'm sorry too
Some people will offer you their hand and some won't
Last night I knew you, tonight I don't..."