General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThat's a cheap shot.
The Many Ways Joseph Stigliz Is WrongToo many liberals buy into this kind of nonsense from folks like economist Joseph Stigliz (from Real Time last night):
So yes, I'm going to take a few minutes to point out the myriad ways Stigliz was wrong in that short 1:15 minute clip.
First of all, in both of his presidential campaigns (2012 even more so that 2008), Barack Obama revolutionized fundraising by relying on small donations. This is simply a fact. It's true that in 2008 many employees of Wall Street donated to his campaign. But in 2012, after he signed Dodd/Frank, they abandoned him. The idea that he was somehow "captured" by his wealthy donors is absurd.
Secondly, during President Obama's first two years in office, while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, he fought hard for 3 big pieces of legislation: the stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Wall Street reform. Simply on it's face, those are three progressive pieces of legislation. But let's look a little more closely at them.
When it comes to the stimulus bill, I would suggest that there was a sense of urgency. At the time, we were loosing 700,000-800,000 jobs per month and so something needed to be done fast. In the Senate, Al Franken's election was being contested and Sen. Spector hadn't switched parties yet. As a result, with GOP obstruction requiring 60 votes for passage, the Democrats were required to negotiate in order to get a few Republicans to support the bill. They were able to do that and get it to the President's desk 28 days after he was inaugurated. Mission accomplished. I'll leave it to Michael Grunwald's book The New New Deal to tell the rest of the story about how well it worked.
Next up came health care reform. There are probably books one could write about that one. But when it comes to Stigliz's critique, I'd simply suggest that everyone google "Obamacare redistribution." Conservatives hate it because it redistributes wealth from upper incomes to lower and a lot of liberals simply whined because it wasn't single payer. But if you want to read a reasoned argument about all that, you could start with what Jonathan Cohn had to say.
Read More: http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-many-ways-joseph-stigliz-is-wrong.html
spanone
(135,636 posts)okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)You are so very welcome, freshwest. Love her.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)PS: Get his name right.
Cha
(295,929 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 12:48 AM - Edit history (1)
global trade here.
Cha
(295,929 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Take care.
Cha
(295,929 posts)nailed it.
Cha
(295,929 posts)Glad there's been a few who don't have to lie to get attention and brainwash people.. like Steve Benen comes to mind. That guy never never makes up shit. He's calm, rational, and a brilliant political writer. He also produces the Rachel Maddow show.
http://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Thanks.
Cha
(295,929 posts)So many ignorant cheap pot shots over the years, she. Whomever wins the 2016 primary is going to have Obama campaigning with them and for them.. unless they want to be like the stupid Dems in the 2014 midterm and disown him and run the other way.
Thanks for smartypants.
Yup, don't you just love that part.
"cognitively captured" by wealthy donors.
Yep, PBO will be at their side for the long hall, unless they deny him. IMHO, that would be foolish.
I so love you!
Cha
(295,929 posts)Obama fundraising powered by small donors, new study shows
"The numbers cement Obamas reputation as unusually reliant on small-scale donors to fill his campaign war chest. An earlier analysis by The Washington Post produced similar findings, suggesting a persistent trend in Obamas 2012 fundraising strategy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.htm
Love right backatcha, she! Thanks for your OP.. what we needed now.. was a good ol profiteering left lie to debunk
calimary
(80,700 posts)where he was sitting. "Simply not true." The President was talking about what might happen as a result of that cockamamie idiot ruling - which is EXACTLY what HAS happened, and genius Mensa member alito asserts with snark - "simply not true."
Well who got it right, asshole? Who called it, ASSHOLE??? What a jerk. So he hasn't attended another one since then? Fuck him. Who needs him there anyway. Go ahead and stay away, alito. You WON'T be missed. AND you were WRONG. For ALL to see, who could read your lips.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)I've been trying for years to figure out what bugs me so much about critiques like we here from Stiglitz and I think it has something to do with the fundamentally pessimistic belief behind it. That pessimism says that, no matter how hard we work make things better, there will always be some rich guy behind the curtain who will fuck it up for us, so why bother?
I mean really, if you were to go through life believing as Stiglitz (and many others do) that politics is fundamentally corrupt then how could you ever face another day? It is an attitude that is, at its core, hopeless.
Rather than think, "Oh, nothing good gets done in politics because of all the corrupt money involved", try thinking, "Isn't it amazing that so many good things do get accomplished *despite* the corrupting influence of money?"
RobertMay 2, 2015 at 1:12 PM (response to Chris)
You're overthinking it. It's Obama's hands-off attitude toward banker and Wall Street crime, as well as him trying to Grand Bargain away parts of Social Security. That stuff matters to people.
This is a reply based on fact-free reasoning. He did NOT have 'hands off' attitude. He converted the Bush-Paulsen giveaway to loans that forbade bonuses so we got repaid with interest. Second, some bankers WERE convicted of civil matters - you seem to forget what they did was NOT a crime because of both Clinton and Bush who changed the terms of the financial world. Dodd-Frank has replaced huge barriers (whatever mushy rejection of that you may think you have) that, as Nancy has show, are breaking up banks. There are now legal provisions to nationalize failing banks that was impossible before. As for the Grand Bargain - it was a dodge to show the total fraud of the GOP. It did NOT give away parts of Social Security but did offer a slight - yes SLIGHT - modification in the NOT guaranteed COLA formulation. Passing that was ENTIRELY contingent on the GOP raising tax rates on the rich. Did they do that? NO. And that was the President's entire point - they refused at ALL gain to themselves to do that one thing that was too precious to them. The largest divide in America is racial. The second largest divide is between those of us who do close analysis of public policy and those who simply get mad over hype and know no facts at all. Sorry, Robert - you're in the latter camp. You may feel righteous. You are simply ignorant.
I have to give props to both Chris and the ChurchLady for their pushback. We need more of that.
And WTH did Robert mean by "overthinking it"? Is he saying that it's a bad idea to dive into the situation and think critically about what is going on instead of accepting what some talking heads say?
Thanks for bringing those comments here, Jamaal!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)
People walk around in a dream state and raise hell when you try to wake them to think about the words coming out of their mouths. Which are usually not their own thoughts, but what was fed them. Or in this case, typed online.
It makes them feel clever to say what they have heard, even though they don't the people that fed it to them and why. They imagine teveryone agrees with them on their not-so-original idea and believe they have also been great!
Repetition is more powerful to the human mind than facts or reason. When they hear it enough times, it is TheTruth©! If you don't agree with each verse of the song, they will beat you up, one way or the other.
And this is why unlimited money for the propaganda fed daily, and focuses on politics as a way to make even more money for the owners of media, small and large, since brainwashing gets the votes to turn the government over to them. It's an investment that pays like nothing else.
So it won't end, and it's the worst threat imaginable. Jefferson and others never anticipated the modern media empires, they saw print, which does not give the full psychological effect of our current media. There is no method of manipulation they will not use.
Cha
(295,929 posts)those who think they know something but they don't have a clue of what really went on.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Because he needs "filters" to tell him what to think of the news.
Robert needs someone to explain to him in the most basic of terms just how economics works.
He needs someone to explain it to him like he is in the 8th grade.
About just how the big banks were all able to take advantage of the financial situation they themselves created by 2007, while Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan sat on his hands and watched passively.
I'll bet Robert is the type of consumer of news who watches Faux Snooze religiously.
He thinks Hannity talks to him on a "one on one" basis, down to his level.
"Sean's my kind of man."
So, he never misses a show.
That's how he can blame President Obama for the 2007 financial crisis so easily.
You know, before President Obama was even the President!!!
I know people like Robert in the real world.
He's the type of consumer of news who swallows every little thing they serve on the Faux channel.
He eats it up.
Yet, he needs to have the most basic explanations about any issue that actually affects his life spoon fed to him in teeny, tiny bites because he barely graduated from high school.
So, now at the tender age of 50, finding out about how all of this shit affects him causes his head to hurt.
And that must be Obama's fault too!
So now, after he has had downed a few beers, he feels brave enough to go on the internet, and tell everyone why he thinks Obama is such a shitty President.
Cha
(295,929 posts)The corpmedia likes people like Stiglitz too.. doing their job for them.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)sheshe2
(83,355 posts)I don't watch TV, thank goddess~
They~
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)damn liar.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)DU, gotta love it sometimes.
Enough said.....not going for a hide.
No mo' hides for us!
she!
Cha
(295,929 posts)end snip//
"P.S. I forgot one other way Stiglitz is wrong. If President Obama is so "cognitively captured" by wealthy donors, then it is really a mystery to me why he spoke so forcefully against Citizen's United in his 2010 State of the Union speech that Justice Alito nodded in dissent and hasn't attended another one since then." !
I'll take Paul Krugman's honest observations over this guy's made up shite anytime.