It's not about Obama. It's about whether we will stay with a discredited approach

[Armstead]

I like Obama. I support him basically. I think he is a great guy and I often have agreed with him, and been amazed by his intellect and empathy.

But I am really pissed off and disappointed in him. Not because I think he is a bad person. But because he has bought into an entire mindset, ideology and approach to politics and economics that IS THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.

That problem, in a nutshell, is the Corporate Centrist belief that "growth" for its own sake is automatically good and beneficial. The quality of that growth is irrelevant and the social cost is irrelevant. As long as the corporate sector is profitable, and as long as the oligarchs in the Elite Investor Class are getting a healthy return, everthing will be fine.

It is a kinder and gentler version of GOP supply-side, trickle-down economics. If GE is doing well, they will automatically share the bounty and create jobs and everyone will be happy.

Instead of being a counterweight to the abusive power of the GOP CONservatives, the Democratic "Centrists" joined it. They have become part of the club, and share the worldview of GE, Goldman Sachs, WalMart, etc. The Democratic centrists are nicer about it, and pay lip service to liberal ideals and social liberalism....But at heart they pursue the same policies that placate Wall St. and the Corporate Boardrooms while screwing everyone else.

The "nicer" centrist Democrats may or may not mean well. But they have lost sight of an important truth. The Social Quality of growth is as important, or more important, than the Fiscal Quality of growth.

Profitability and Productivity and Competitiveness are socially destructive if the benefits only go to the Tiny Top and feed the power and wealth of the Corporate Oligarchs at the expense of the rest of us. Job Creation is not necessarily a good thing, if it means jobs in sweatshops overseas. Or if it replaces the kind of jobs here that adequately support a working class and middle class standard of living with McJobs.

"Healthy financial markets" are unhealthy when they are rigged to benefit the elites while screwing everyone else.


It is not a matter of "left" and "right." It is a matter of the social costs and benefits of this approach. And, ultimately the sustainability of the economy for everyone.

The Crash of 08 dramatically proved the destructiveness of the totally amoral economics of the past 30 years. The Jobless Recovery is the inevitable result of corporate values and unchecked "free-markets" that are not balanced by social accountability.

But it was also an opportunity to learn from these mistakes and actually restore some balance to the system. It was an opportunity to bring back the social/human factor into our economic equations. It was an opportunity to at least provide a counter-point to the lies from the amoral corporate elkite that outsourcing is good for American workers, that all regulation of the economy is evil, etc.

Obama seemed to be part of the corrective process. He seemed to "get it" in terms of reasserting the interests of the majority over the elites. Although no one expected him to be a Bernie Sanders progressive, he did seem to at least represent moderate liberalism rather than the corporate centrism of the DLC.

But instead, he has chosen to emulate the DLC model. Instead of pointing out the problems caused by the ruthless behavior of corporations like GE he is elevating them. telling us we should just shut up and listen to the oligarchs because they know best and their prosperity will trickle down to the rest of us if we leave them alone.

It is disappointing that Obama had a real chance to open up the dialogue about these issues, but instead has chosen to close it off.

If he actually becomes the person who ran in 08, and does more than pay lip-service to liberal/progressive populism, he will deserve true enthusiastic support. If not, then he's just another obstacle to the goal of restoring the middle class and pushing positive social values into the economy.

[Brickbat]

1. K&R.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[HughBeaumont]

3. K & R. This is a corporate COUP.

"Socialist" . . . the TeaDouchists wouldn't know a real leftist from a milkman.

[leveymg]

4. 5th rec

It may be too late for him to "actually become the person who ran in 08." He'd have to undo too much of what he has already done to maintain the corporate status quo at all costs, the middle-class and poor be damned. That is essentially President Obama's legacy to date.

[NorthCarolina]

5. K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

6. I, for one, appreciate that our President is an adult

You people on the seem oblivious to real results. Obama is continuing the policies of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush for one reason: they work.

Think of how far we've come in 30 years!

Our economy is thriving
Our Middle Class is vibrant
We are at peace throughout the world

[ClassWarrior]

8. You're happy that "Obama is continuing the policies of Reagan, Bush..."

"...and Bush?" Because "they work?

I think you're on the wrong forum.

NGU.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. It was sarcasm, sorry. nt

[ClassWarrior]

31. Ya skeert me, Manny!

:fistbump:

NGU.

[Armstead]

9. How could I forget?

It's Morning in America.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. You forgot the "u"

It's Mourning in America

[grahamhgreen]

11. You forgot your sarcasm tag!

[ClassWarrior]

7. K&R... It's not about one man. It's about our values and our nation.

NGU.

[grahamhgreen]

10. Big K&R, the solutions are simple and obvious, and exactly in the opposite direction O is heading.

[DirkGently]

12. Well put. Kinder, smoother corporate kleptocracy won't fix anything.

[ProSense]

13. Really?

"That problem, in a nutshell, is the Corporate Centrist belief that 'growth' for its own sake is automatically good and beneficial. The quality of that growth is irrelevant and the social cost is irrelevant. As long as the corporate sector is profitable, and as long as the oligarchs in the Elite Investor Class are getting a healthy return, everthing will be fine."

What the hell is "Corporate Centrist belief"?

When did the President say the quality of the growth is irrelevant?

The fact is that the growth is slow, there is no evidence that the quality is lacking.

The manufacturing sector added jobs for the first time in 13 years.

In saving the auto industry, workers got the biggest profit-sharing checks in a decade

President Obama is the President. Just because he isn't doing it your way doesn't mean that you get to define it as failed.

[Armstead]

14. The auto bailout was an out of the box strategy, not the usual approach

Only time will tell whether it was the right thing to do or not ultimately.

In any case it was not part of the usual playbook, which is to let the "markets" alone, and allow companies to continually merge into one larger entity.

The auto bailout was a significant intervention into the economy, verging on state socialism.

I do not think he would have done that now, because it was bold. Instead he would support a merger of the Big three into the Big One in the name of "competativeness."

[Still a Democrat]

15. Which is just speculation - and that often is what is used to criticize Obama

You cite a great example of government intervention that he spearheaded, and then you criticize him by somehow imagining he'd never do it again.

[Armstead]

17. His "pivot to the center" makes it unlikely -- possible, but unlikely

Centrists don.t like to rock any boats, unless it is in support of smaller government, deregulation and privatization.

Makes those corporate executives and investors nervous.

Picking the head of GE to chair his economic advisory panel -- even if it is only symbolic -- makes it pretty clear that he is aligning himself with the people who don't want to interfere with the Holy Free Market.

I'd love to be wrong about this.

[Still a Democrat]

19. Which, if you don't mind my saying, is more speculation

If you've got examples of things he's actually done, that's a lot more convincing.

[Armstead]

20. I just gave you one -- Getting into bed with (Gut the Economy) GE

It is one thing to take input from the head of one of the worst monopolistic corporations in the country.

It is another to elevate him, tell America that GE has the answer to our problems, and endorse the idea that corporations should be taxed less and regulated less.

Even if it is only symbolic, it is very disturbing, if one cares about actually looking at new answers to our stubborn problems.

Obama's call for a review of "stupid regulations" that hold back progress and "competitiveness" is another example of repeating the same old crap.

Balance yes. Selling out totally, no.

[Still a Democrat]

22. Advisory, symbolic, and verbage

I suppose I can understand it raising eyebrows, but let's wait it out.

[Armstead]

25. I agree -- But we should not just sit back quietly and let the worst happen

In the 1990's there were too many enablers of Clinton's darker side, and therefore we got a lot of bad things that have been the undoing of the broader economy and the middle class. He was given the benefit of the doubt that things like unfettered "free trade" and outsourcing, and deregulation of the media and financial sectors would work out.

I would just rather not see that kind of history get repeated and enabled by our silence now as Obama "pivots to the center."

[ProSense]

16. "In any case it was not part of the usual playbook, which is to let the "markets" alone" And

the President has not taken the usual track of leaving "markets" alone. He is, in fact, the most pro-regulation President in last 40 years.

This is the President who gave the FDIC new powers and established the first-ever Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

[Armstead]

18. Will you cite Rachel Maddow next time she is critical of Obama?

[ProSense]

21. What does Rachel Maddow's criticism have to do with the point?

The information about being pro-regulation did not come from her so why are you bringing her up?

This is your best response to the points made?

[Armstead]

23. You cited her when she's favorale, but she often makes the same...

...criticism that people like me do.

I have not said that the Obama administration has done nothing good.

But I do say:

1)They have often pulled back from the difficult but important things that would really make a difference, and instead use fig leaves to say the matter is "solved. (As in the total sell out of health care reform and the refusal to truly deal with the banking monopolies.)

2)He is sending conflicting messages to this "pro-regulation" stance by embracing GE as a source of counsel.

[ProSense]

27. "but she often makes the same...criticism that people like me do."

When she offers criticism, it's possible to agree with or counter her claims without citing the fact that she sometimes agrees with me.

What does Maddow have to do with the point?

"He is sending conflicting messages to this "pro-regulation" stance by embracing GE as a source of counsel."

A perceived message isn't a policy. He allegedly sent the wrong message with Geithner, and we got Wall Street Reform that included more powers for the FDIC, the Volcker Rule and the consumer bureau (being established by Elizabeth Warren).

[Armstead]

29. We got Wall St. reform, so noiw we can just move on, eh?

Wall St. reform was a good thing, but it failed to address things like the fundamental monopolization of the economy. Kind of tame. But we did something, and now we can just sit back and watch the Titans continue to rip us off through the loopholes.

We got health care reform. No matter that we are still at the mercy of greedy insurance companies who continue to merrily raise rates. Not even any kind of back-up for people who don't qualify for public assistance but can't afford the extortion.

[ProSense]

30. If by moving on you mean

implementing, strengthening and addressing things not yet addressed, then yes, it's time to move on.

Same is true for the health care law.

[Armstead]

32. Time will tell -- If he followsd the centrist path nothing will be done

Jeff Imhelt is head of one of the largest financial services companies in the nation -- GE.

If after appointing him chair of the economic recovery panel, Obama still is willing to push through real regulation, then more power to him.

That health reform plan is a good thing. But it is basically an end-run by Bernie Sanders around the Obama plan. Sanders did not like the health reform plan, and he was very vocal about it. He only agreed to support it after funds for community health clinics was included. So this is more the work of Sanders and Lahey than any real committment from the Obama administration.

There is one important point here. I am all for the good things that have been done. I want to support Obama, and do to the extent that I feel he is doing the right things (in my opinion, of course). I hope he does more of that.

But, as stated in my OP, I am less concerned with Obama than the larger picture, and his role in leading the nation in a better direction. I just don't want to see him given a free pass, or for us to be enablers of policies that are harmful to the greater good.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.