America and the incoming NEOLIB Administration are now wholly owned subsidiaries of Citigroup.

[Leopolds Ghost]

So says UNIMPEACHABLE LIBERAL ECONOMIST Steven Pearlstein, one of the few actual liberals left
in either the Post or this website, which is increasingly become an echo-chamber of partisan
post-Clintonite cheerleaders:

As you know, I talked about this in my last post several weeks ago, before I realized that
DU has become an echo chamber and there is no point trying to educate folks about what their
Democratic leaders are really up to. You are being sold a package, using careful marketing
techniques, and you've been brought up culturally to respond to those techniques. It's really
quite incredible how it mirrors the cliff Republicans took their dittoheads over.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112400745.html?hpid=topnews

Too Big to Succeed?
By Steven Pearlstein
Monday, November 24, 2008; 10:24 AM

Of all the rescues mounted by the government so far this year, none carries with it more symbolism, or more irony, than that of Citigroup.

Until recently, Citi was not only the largest U.S. financial institution, but the very embodiment of the new financial order. Under the relentless empire building of former chief executive Sanford Weill, it was Citi that brought down the old regulatory wall that had separated commercial banking from investment banking and insurance.

The combination of Citibank with Solomon Smith Barney under the bright red umbrella of Travelers Insurance was accepted with a regulatory wink and nod by the Federal Reserve while then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan worked to persuade Congress to make it legal by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, put in place during the Great Depression to prevent another market crash like that of 1929. (Larry Summers was the front man for Greenspan and Phil Gramm in this effort. What the fuck do ignorant neoliberals and center-right dems think the Gramm deregulation act was? it was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and Gramm was simply the Clintons' partner on the Republican side. Also, Greenspan and Summers enacted the "change the name" rule to allow illegal mergers to take place until the act was overturned 9 months later, so Citibank changed their name to Citibanc. Dems protecting and encouraging the formation of monopolistic trusts, and Obama and his aides goal is to preserve these monopolies and allow them to reform -- the McKinley-Coolidge wing of the modern Democratic party, Obama and Clinton are to the right of and in opposition to the moderate progressivism of Thedore Roosevelt. --LG) Now that another market crash has required the government to rescue Citi, there will certainly be those who wonder whether the New Dealers didn't have it right all along.

The rationale for saving Citi is that with $2 trillion in assets, more than 300,000 employees and operations in 100 countries, this was a bank that was too big and too inter-connected with the rest of the financial system to be allowed to fail. The question now, however, is whether an institution of that size and scope is also too big to succeed.
ad_icon

For no sooner had Weill stitched together his empire than it began coming unraveled as a result of a series of soured investments and embarrassing ethical scandals that cost shareholders tens of billions of dollars. In the years since Weill's departure, as various pieces of the company have been sold off or closed down, it has become obvious that the promised economies of scale had been overhyped, the synergies across business lines had never developed and the cultures and systems of the various parts had never meshed. The whole thing was simply too big and too complex to be managed.

It has also proved too big to be regulated. Over the past 20 years, the Federal Reserve, Citi's chief regulator, has been unable to get a handle on the bank's excessive risk-taking and incessant corner-cutting. Time after time, Citi rushed to jump aboard the latest gravy train -- developing country loans, commercial real estate, Internet stocks, subprime lending and securitization -- and time after time, Fed regulators failed to spot a problem until it was too late.

As Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin joined with Greenspan in supporting Citi's campaign to repeal Glass-Steagall. And when he resigned from Treasury in 1998, Rubin accepted Weill's offer to become vice chairman of Citi, where he has quietly worked the back channel to Washington and other international capitals and served as strategic counselor to the chief executive and the board of directors.

Although Rubin has been cagey about his role at Citigroup, what is indisputable is that all of the decisions that have led to Citi's recent troubles were taken while he was chairman of the executive committee and were made by executives whom he supported and with whom he worked closely day to day. He supported them when they were criticized, and as a director he approved compensation packages that rewarded them (and himself) handsomely for judgments that turned out to have been disastrous for the shareholders.

Yet even as the government has now been forced to step in to save Citi by investing $45 billion in new capital and putting a floor under its losses, Rubin and all the other directors and top executives have been allowed to remain at the helm. You have to wonder how much more of the shareholders' and the taxpayers' money they would have to lose -- $100 billion? $200 billion? $1 trillion? -- before the Treasury and the Fed would demand their resignations.

The ultimate irony, of course, is that just as Rubin & Co. at Citi were being bailed out by the Bush administration, President-elect Barack Obama was getting set to announce a new economic team drawn almost entirely from Rubin acolytes.

That's not to take anything away from the qualifications of the Timothy F. Geithner, Obama's pick to be Treasury secretary, who owes his current position as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to Rubin's aggressive lobbying; or soon-to-be White House senior economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers, who was Rubin's deputy secretary at the Treasury and whose appointment as president of Harvard was championed by Rubin as a member of the university's government board; or Peter R. Orszag, Obama's choice to be budget director, who was hired by Rubin to head a Democratic think tank on economic policy that he founded. They make a great team.
ad_icon

But perhaps the next time Obama thinks about assembling a group of wise men to advise him on the economic crisis, he might consider leaving Rubin out of the mix. The accountability that Obama has promised to bring to economic policy should start at home.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Comments, or has DU become completely irrelevant as an "underground" or grassroots site?

Inhabited by actual liberals and not ignorant center-right political junkies who only care about getting their guy elected and don't understand what is being done in their name?

Have you noticed an increasing number of center-right, possibly upper-middle class and insecure about their financial investments, neoliberal DUers who actively support things that the Roosevelts would have actively opposed?

[Jim Sagle]

3. I've noticed. I feel chilled and marginalized, and I'm not that far left.

Center-left is now too far left for many DUers.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. What creeps me out is all the center-right johnny come latelys who quietly exuded lurkness for 8 yrs

Are now coming out of the woodwork to take credit for an Obama victory, castigate liberals and declare their day is done, and urge DUers to settle down and get with the program.

It's almost as if they were being paid to provide the think-tanks with a finger on the pulse of major blogs.

[judasdisney]

55. Uh-oh.

I agree with everything you just said. But you need to learn to "talk around" the existence of conspiratorial undercurrents.

[JDPriestly]

58. Look, after eight years of Bush disaster after disaster after disaster after disaster,

people are wise to be suspicious. We are all edgy. And we are all very angry at Bush and at the current economic situation.

I like many others have dozens of unanswered questions about the bail-outs and where they money has gone and is going. The whole stocks/commodities bubble beginning with the start of the Clinton administration (remember the problems with the Asian economies back then) and the Reagan administration (remember the recession that Reagan's administration saw? it was worse in Europe where I was at the time) through the present seems to be one huge Ponzi scheme. And now the bail-out strikes me as a shell game. Money is being shifted around. But eventually the creditors who are being paid off with the bail-outs have to be the same creditors from whom the money is going to come to pay for the bail-outs and meanwhile the little debtors who can't pay off their mortgages or their credit cards are being left to hold the bag and required to pay the debts. Yet those debts are the same debts that taxpayers are borrowing money to make good. If this seems like a chaotic neverending circle of loose-ended ideas, that is what it is. Because that is what our country is going through.

So if people are very angry and very suspicious it's because they are confused and feel some kind of scam is being pulled on them. And it is. It isn't a matter of being center or center-left or right or center-right. It is a matter of being an easy mark and suddenly realizing that's what you are and have been for a long time. Somehow it makes you angry. Americans voted for Obama because they were/are mad at the status quo. Obama seemed to respond and mirror that anger during the election -- or better yet, he seemed to rise above it.

Now, Obama's job is to acknowledge the anger, and he does not seem to be able to do that. He seems to be demanding that people be happy and trust him and his middle-of-the-road administration. He wants Americans to unite and come together. But he hasn't given anyone any reason to do that yet. It isn't just a matter of where in the political spectrum his cabinet picks fall. It is his failure thus far to speak for the anger and frustration of the American people.

It's as if he were a parent trying to soothe an angry child. It really doesn't work. Especially since the American child is angry for very good reasons. Obama's overtures to the right-wing are not well taken, not by Democrats even middle-of-the-road Democrats. They won't be respected by Republicans. He is going to have to acknowledge the confusion and anger and work with it. Those emotions will be his worst enemy or his best friend depending on how honest he is about how justified they are at this time.

It's not about where we are on the political scale of liberal to conservative. It's about how bitter we are after the Bush years and how skeptical we are about anyone who wants to forget those years and just act as though the crimes of those years never happened.

And, no, I have not had anything to drink. I just had a rough day.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. You might want to consider changing your sig picture

By 1/22/09 we may have Obamarabia.




Tansy Gold

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. As upset as I am, I'm not expecting the Bushies to stop investing in Arabia

The reason they're building the Dark Tower of Burj Dubai is to give global investors a safe haven in the Middle East if the economy totally collapses. Oil is a tangible good and the recent price declines have given them a springboard to prop up future production and string people out on a declining resource. The first hit is free!

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. More on my future sig pic, the Dark Tower of Burj Dubai

http://hawtaction.com/2008/07/tall-building-burj-dubai-in-dubai-revisited.html

[Tansy_Gold]

32. But Arabia will invest in Obama

the boooshies haven't "invested" in Saudi Arabia -- they are owned by the Saudis. And Obama soon will be.

The House of Saud doesn't want to give any power to its own people, but they need a market for their oil, so they can continue to live like the medieval kings that they are. That means the U.S. has to continue to buy the crude. They will buy Obama in order to sell their oil.


Tansy Gold

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. Kerry wanted to invest in transit. Trouble is, even if Obama wanted to invest in transit,

The local Dem elected officials who helped him get into power won't.

They are downscaling and cutting back transit to pay for the Wall Street bailout -- and make up funding shortfall on "much needed" highway projects like the eight-lane Inter-County Connector in Blue Maryland, or the 10-lane, transit-free San Francisco Bay Bridge Replacement Project. They would (will?) resent Obama telling them to invest the money in transit when it should go to "green energy".

I doubt the subject will even come up except to repeat the tiresome mantra (repeated tirelessly by urban Dems) that $10 billion is a ridiculous amount to spend on, say, a subway in Kansas City, "a city that doesn't even need mass transit."

And of course downscaling our energy requirements is out of the picture : the objective of the bailout seems to be to goose the economy into RESUMING exponential growth in vehicle miles travelled, consumer spending on foreign goods, etc. That's the only way of measuring productivity in a wage-depressing, service-only economy. More reliance on transit and fewer VMT is a measure of economic stagnation in the eyes of most economists.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. To be quite frank, I am not getting a lot of vibes here "on the ground" of idealistic young liberals

of idealistic young policy wonks from the LIBERAL end of the spectrum --

of any such folks moving to washington.

All these people who are moving in seem to be of the "Generation Q" (the new quiet generation)
mentality -- "go ahead and get ahead, personal success" types.

hell, that is what the "new civil rights movement" is all about -- the folks criticizing
the "old civil rights movement", such as the handpicked "young correspondents" that appear
on the talking head shows representing the DEMOCRATS -- denouncing the notion of collective
progress and placing personal success as the only metric. If someone does poorly, its his
or her own damn fault -- and he or she has the power to rectify it
by learning a new marketing skill -- and wish fulfillment.

They want to know what an Obama administration will do for THEM and people like them --
not those other undeserving types.

If these "quiet" yuppies that are devoid of an idealistic bone in their body are going to fill
all the open slots in civil administration, where are liberal ideas supposed to "bubble up" from?

All the think tanks in DC are either neoliberal lobbying outfits, or tut-tutting
go-slow progressive upper-middle-class "reform government" outfits that focus only
on getting candidates elected and don't seem to specialize in fundamental change.

[Tansy_Gold]

47. Yeah, it's the 70s and 80s all over again, but without the 60s.

Lots of Alex P. Keatons.

Ugh. spare me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. GET THIS -- Washington DC Metro (run by elected Dems) voted to kill free bus transfers.

They want to force bus riders (including homeless) to buy RFID-tracking smart cards
or else pay 4X "regular fare" to transfer from one bus to another, according
to the Washington Post.

This was done "in response to the fact that we can't afford to spend as
much money on transit as we used to" because of the economic downturn /
bailout, of course.

Any rublings of money from Obama Admin for transit would be useless.
Public Works money can only be targeted to items local Dems actually
WANT to fund, and transit is not one of those things.

They need the money to widen area highways to meet the expected SURGE in
auto use from the exponential growth "our economy" (or rather, our hedge
fund managers and developers) need to survive.

Did I mention Metro and other transit systems are asking for bailout money
because they invested in hedge funds in order to allow hedge fund managers
to use mass transit systems as a tax shelter?

All part of Rubin's "Reinventing Government" and making it competitive and market-driven, it seems.

[malaise]

33. Very good post

Obama's economic team makes me very nervous. I am watching quietly and giving him six months of space to show me the 'change'. After that, all bets are off.

[fla nocount]

49. Fine, give them space but don't let them know that you are.

Let them hear foot-steps in the back-field behind them, keep em' dancin out of harm's way. Even if the harm is merely perceived. Look at the cabinet appointments one at a time, study their history and providence. Now think of the Clinton Administration and Rahm in particular with the Bush Administration's executive privileges. Think FISA, Bail-Out, CitiCorp, speculators, unpunished war criminals, escalated pipe-line enforcement in Afghanistan, 20,000 more corn-fed youths as cannon-fodder. Skeerred yet?

Those responsible for these travesties aren't either. Not yet, that's our job.

Hillary Clinton said that McCain would be a better chief executive than BO, yet there she is, our spokesperson for policy to the world. That Obama fella, he's a big, big guy to over-look these transgressions. Being a somewhat astute observer of human behavior, have a degree in it, I must wonder if he ever had a choice in these decisions...or was ever programmed to want one.

[fla nocount]

52. It's midnight, once more before I sleep.

To the top.

Hopefully it won't get barfed over with Barky pablum before California and points West have a chance to work it over.

[illuminaughty]

61. Nope. I put the "sin" in cynical.

I got sucked into a thread last night that made my head splode. Three hundred some responses and a whole lot of stupid. Well, not stupid, but not the DU I've hung around for five years.

Someone actually was bitching about being considered rich for having a household income of $250,000.
Worried about taxation. Yeah, I get it that it's not RICH. Hell, I worked in Palm Beach, FLorida. When you look out the window and see a yacht with a helicopter on top...that's MONEY. But, damn, we (my mother and I) are at the end of our options with no help in sight. It's freakin' insulting on the DU that I know. There's been many a post lately that has broken my heart. People that are not going to make it and have all there hopes in the new admin.

I managed to suspend disbelief for awhile during the campaign but every thing I'm seeing leads me back to cynical.

[Jim Sagle]

2. This structural problem developed WAY before Obama. In fact it developed way before Clinton.

The anti-labor, pro-business slant of the Democrats was launched by Jimmy Carter and further developed by Clinton. Obama continues in the same tradition.

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. Ironically, I'm not one of those Blame Hillary types.

I find her a hawk, but she is to the left of the Rubin crowd on economic issues.

but Hillary DID build a populist coalition in the past year or so, and many of
those people are to the left of the folks Bill had around him on a number of issues.

Notice how Obama is out of the gate "reassuring" folks like David Brooks that
he will be to the right of Bill Clinton on every issue circa 1993
and the economic recovery from the early 90s recession.

Doesn't matter though. Rubin and those folks are going to be running the show
on the Democratic side no matter who is in office. They have a franchise it seems.

[girl gone mad]

62. It will be an interesting time.

Their policies have absolutely no chance of succeeding in rescuing the broader economy. They are destined to fail, just as the neo-conservative's wars were destined to fail. Bad ideas are bad ideas. The American middle class has given its last drop of blood to the parasite class. Now they are attempting to steal what they can from our future progeny.

We have no real representation at this point. Our outlook will continue to deteriorate, but I can see alternative economies springing up as a result of leadership failures. Bartering might become more common, for example.

[DS1]

4. Define NEOLIB

because if you're getting at what I think you're getting at, you can f off

[Donnachaidh]

7. educate yourself

from Wikipedia entry:

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from state to the private sector.<4>

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. Neoliberal. If you were involved in anti-globalization or aware and on the left in the 90s

You'd be familiar with the term.

They are the Democratic brand of neoconservatism -- more oriented to economic thievery, class hostility and demonization of the poor, and the destruction of the New Deal, although they are internationalists and not averse to foreign wars. The New Republic and numerous think-tanks, including the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute, are their flagships. Thomas Friedman and Robert Samuelson and David Ignatius is an archetypal neoliberal. Samuelson recently wrote an op-ed actively blaming the social pathologies of the urban poor and justifying the Wall Street bailout and promoting exactly the values Obama's new team is advocating.

See, this is the problem, die-hard liberal Obama voters (and there's nothing wrong with that, I participated in a cacoalero on election night even though I'm not a huge fan of Obama) who haven't been (or been aware enough) in politics long enough to know what they're buying -- and are willing to let their leaders draw them into redefining liberalism rather than "challenge" or "keep the pressure on" -- a term of art for after-election that has lost any meaning for most people since they no longer have any ideological moorings, it seems.

The policies of Robert Rubin and his proteges (and of guys like Larry O'Donnell who are progressive on social and civil rights issues) are to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, never mind Nixon or JFK.

Which makes sense because the Obama electoral coalition in 4 years time will increasingly resemble the coalition who elected Coolidge.

[LWolf]

43. I'm familiar with the term.

It fits.

Regardless of what his "die-hard liberal voters" have believed and repeated.

[Cleita]

6. I just heard Noam Chomsky's assessment on "Democracy Now!" of

this incoming administration and he's pretty critical. Chomsky is someone whose opinion I have a lot of respect for. He says about the wars that what he's hearing is very hawkish. He also had a poor opinion of Rahm Emmanual and said that some of his actions during the Clinton administration were criminal.

[Pastiche423]

45. Noam Chomsky and I think alike

I agree w/what he is saying, especially about rahm.

[fascisthunter]

8. disgusting... the Dem Party is Turning fascist....

...go ahead and call it neoliberal.... it's all the same end game.

I expected Obama to be moderate or centrist, but this???? This is far to the right.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. I was hoping/worrying?? Obama would be "center-right" in the JFK sense

And JFK decided to de-privatize the privately owned Federal Reserve banks like Geitner's... which are owned by private hands like the Chase and Morgan and Mellon families... shortly before he got assassinated. I guess certain people viewed JFK as a traitor to the "Center-right" cause of running the government the way it has always been run and ensuring nothing changes.

I started out upset at Obama at one issue -- FISA, which being a Constitutional scholar I genuinely expected him to oppose, much as you would expect a scientist to oppose creationism.

I think it's fair to be "upset at" (even if unsurprised) ones rulers without being accused (by center-rightists, no less!) of being counter-revolutionary spies for Free Republic.

This path the Dems are on resembles the path taken by the Iranian left in 1979.

[fascisthunter]

21. I Don't Want to Feed the American Wealthy and I Sure as Hell Don't Want...

to pay taxes to the wealthy, because that is essentially what is happening. America is about to become a third world nation with a ruling wealthy class.

Freedom? HA... without wealth we have none!


I will go about about getting things done on a very local level... I have no faith anymore in the democratic party. It has become obvious to me that there is only one political party that is owned by corporate interests (fascism). I also believe Bush was allowed to do as he wished, while spineless democrats watched and pointed fingers, but were always supportive of his goals.

How do I know? They did NOTHING to stop him and will never hold him accountable because they too are guilty.

I hope I am wrong.... but that's about as far as "hope" goes for me. Pretty slick slogan though..

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. I've been trying to get a social nonprofit up & running in a town teeming with incoming Admin aides

We can't even find someone willing to provide us with pro-bono legal help,
or a grantwriter.

When pressed to explain why the economic downturn is a bad thing for civic
groups seeking help from the upcoming Main Street bailout, they knowingly
and confidently declare that that money is not intended for folks like us
and that if we want to prove ourselves we need to show that we have money
to pay people like them to spend more than an hour talking to us because
time is money for people like them. These are the incoming "best and the brightest".

I suppose it could be worse; they could lobby to tear down an entire "slum"
in order to build housing for idealistic white interns like the best and the brightest
did in the 1930s.... Course the local (blue) officials just tore down that
neighborhood again to build naval office buildings "to provide an attractive
environment for development around the new baseball stadium." Who knows where
the elderly residents of that housing project ended up? They are "not bailout
eligible", to paraphrase the movie "Falling Down".

[girl gone mad]

60. Do everything possible to avoid giving them more money.

Right now they are in the process of taking it against our will through the bailouts and handouts.

In the meantime, shop local, grow your own food if possible, get of the grid, buy used and invest with caution.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. Please stop using the word NEOLIB.

There is no such thing as neo-liberal.

Please call it what it is: laissez-faire.

The American public has been conditioned to react negatively to "neo-con" only to transfer those feelings to this suddenly popular word "neo-lib." There is nothing wrong with the word liberal, please don't allow yourself to be dragged around by the nose as if you don't know any better.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. I'm defending REAL liberals (like Pearlstein, who routinely speaks up for unions) against Rubinites.

Neoliberal is a term of art. If we had a better word it'd be useful, but ironically,
the DLC and PPI crowd openly advocate that "liberal" be restored to its European definition,
as used by the Reagan coalition in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin wall.

These right-wing political movements, funded by Reagan, Bush and Clinton, and advocating
both Reaganomics and Rubinomics (which are different only in that one is supply side
and the other Keynsian, but the goals are the same) openly called themselves "liberal"
in the classical sense of the term, meaning to "liberalize" the economy and politics,
to conform to a definition not used since Adam Smith and the French Revolution, a
sort of "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", a progressivism of pure meritocracy in
which the interests of the society as a whole are confined to the interests of the
educated upper class.

They are the ones actively trying to redefine liberal and use the old definition,
to counter that it is better to call them neoliberal, since "neo" generally has
connotations of twisting an existing philosophy into something new and different
which is what they are doing.

[ColbertWatcher]

36. "the DLC and PPI crowd openly advocate that ..."

Which is why I don't use it.

[Jim Sagle]

18. Ahem.

From Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

neoliberalism
One entry found.

Main Entry: neo·lib·er·
Pronunciation: \-ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: noun
Date: 1945

: a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods
— neoliberal adjective
— neo·lib·er·al·ism

[High Plains]

20. "Neoliberal" is a common term in the rest of the world.

Think corporate globalization.

It refers to the liberalism of the 19th Century, which was indeed laissez-faire capitalism. We Americans are funny: Somehow "liberal" became "conservative" when it comes to economics; the rest of the world still calls laissez-faire capitalism liberalism, and the current bunch of global capitalists and their apologists neo-liberals.

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. It's because in Europe et al, socialism became an acceptable catch-all term for FDR-style liberalism

Here, socialism is considered godless, and therefore a different term is needed.

Liberalism was available.

The go-slow, upper-middle class reformers of the era preferred using the term "progressive"

Ironically, evangelicals in this country used to be at the heart of the socialist and abolitionist movement.

So I don't get the whole godless thing -- but I guess Spain is our enemy, and has always been our enemy, so... :-)

[ColbertWatcher]

24. I don't speak "globalism" ...

... I only speak American.

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. What about "Neobears"? We are in a bear market after all. And bears ARE a threat n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

34. Actually, I believe Dr. Colbert is a moneytheist ...

... http://www.wikiality.com/Moneytheist

He believes in a "Lion's Market."

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. Ohh, that's the term Palin's spiritual advisor actually used. Or was it the golden bull worshippers?

Apparently people really believe in this "Lions Market" stuff.

Does Colbert believe the Lion will lie down with the Bear then? You can't trust those bears.

[ColbertWatcher]

48. There is a DVD out there showing Dr. Colbert kissing a bear ...

... but it's a fake.

You can purchase it at any retailer that sells DVDs and see it for yourself.

As far as what I believe Dr. Colbert will believe: he'll hope for a Lion's market, while hiding in his cabin from the bear market.

[High Plains]

30. A true Colbertian neo-nativist!

Nonetheless, "neoliberal" remains an accepted term. Sorry.

[ColbertWatcher]

35. M eh, that doesn't mean I have to use it. n/t

[anonymous171]

15. Jesus fucking christ let them man govern for a bit.

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. only if he gets rid of Summers et al. Otherwise, why should I let any of these people rest?

They are actively in favor of expanding Citigroup and giving them more money for christ sakes.

What is it with Dems when Dick Armey is the only one saying let these fucking monsters (Citigroup) fail?

They are a near-vertical and horizontal monopoly.

[cali]

28. have at it.

it won't change a thing. I don't enough about economics to make a judgment here. I do know you mischaracterized what Perlstein said and that Krugman and Reich seem to think that Obama picked a good economic team.

I get sick of the hysterical crap.

Oh yeah, and I think that Obama's doing a reasonably good job so far from my liberal perspective. And I feel I'm in good company with Krugman and Reich.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. Do Krugman & Reich believe Citigroup needs all the help it can get? Do they support Glass Steagall?

After all, what's good for Citigroup is good for the nation -- they are larger than Standard Oil.

(Glass Steagall -- the cornerstone New Deal legislation that prevented banks from buying up
financial and insurance firms and gambling away people's savings in the stock market -- like
they did -- the reason "Citibanc" is in danger of failing is it has leveraged all your savings
in bad investments, the only thing keeping any of the banks alive is the fact that the feds
prohibit bank runs, so they only have to pay out what people remove from their ATMs, which
is usually less than they deposit during an economic downturn. The actual money in your
account is leveraged across these monopoly bank's huge investments in the economy, which
they own half of, meaning the money does not actually exist. They are taking money someone
else just deposited to pay you back at the ATM -- like Social Security is doing -- the
trust fund disappeared.)

Rubin and Summers worked with Gramm to repeal Glass Steagall after Rubin joined Citibank,
one of the leading beneficiaries, I believe, and the Clinton team gave them the green light
to change their name to "banc" in order to begin making illegal acquisitions and turning
themselves into an otherwise illegal financial monopoly "too big (or rather, too powerful
and too criminal) to fail." Then they passed the Gramm Deregulation act (which Summers
personally lobbied for) to retroactively legalize Citigroup's very existence (sound familiar?

Rubin also lobbied for the plan to commoditize public housing by giving low-income
families low-interest loans, requiring them to have credit to remain in public housing,
and literally driving them into debt in order to "teach them how to survive in the
new economy."

[BeHereNow]

25. Leopold- have you read Carroll Quigley? Tragedy and Hope?

I think every DUer should read it.
Perhaps then, more would comprehend what is unfolding.

BHN

[Leopolds Ghost]

27. No, but I will check it out, on your recommendation, thanks!

[BeHereNow]

29. Oh DO check it out. It's a LONG read, but SO worth your time.

Talk about your New World Order exposed.
BHN

[laststeamtrain]

42. Oddly enough Bill Clinton referenced Quigley in his acceptance speech in '92

Toward the end of the speech Clinton mentioned that "as a teenager I heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so."...http://www.namebase.org/news01.html

I say oddly because I consider Clinton to be a neo-liberal.

[fla nocount]

40. Leopolds Ghost, Thank you for the education, the clarification, the ...

research and your steadfast resolve in both clearing the air around the issue and barking down the Party First idolaters who don't have the foggiest notion what you're talking about except...it smells bad for "our" side...somehow.

There is nothing "Neo" or new about the human condition and it's practitioners. Caligula, Genghis Khan, Francis Bacon, Himmler or Prescott Bush would all be equally at home in our political/economic environment. Those here at DU who would object to your litany of snips and logical suppositions can be likened to pop-music fans enamored of that cute little roll of fat at the top of Britney's hip-huggers and who's only criticism is that her belt is drawn so tight they can't get a glimpse down the crack to her naughty bits. They're here to march to the music, not listen to it.

Hell, over the last few days there's been long time DU'ers trying to convince the sane and sober that Oswald was just a really good shot.

[upi402]

44. agreed

The "give him a chance" crowd roars when you point out the continuation of corporatism to them. It really is 'us' vs. 'them' but intramurally. Pick your cheriot color, it's all a game and we need our distractions.

We may be toast as an American democracy. If so, we've failed to keep our republic.
Even Air America Radio hosts are gushing over this Clintonista redux.
Corporate fascism is here to stay it seems. It will do us in.

[fla nocount]

41. >>>

[crispini]

46. K&R

[fla nocount]

50. This fine piece of dissonance deserves to be observed and discussed.

Hence the kick.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

51. Indeed

& R

[JackRiddler]

53. Thanks for the signs of intelligent life on this planet.

[tkmorris]

54. Kicked. Recommended.

I too am very concerned about what Obama's choices of advisors say about his intentions in governance. I am reluctant to criticize too early or too vehemently, preferring instead to give him time to see where he goes with it but he's not making it easy.

Quality post LG. :kick:

[earth mom]

56. Thanks for posting this.

Today I was "officially warned" by the DU powers that be to toe the party line or else face the granite pizza.

Just want to get the warning out there to all the truth seekers such as yourself! :yourock:

[Anarpeace]

57. Welcome to Saudi America nt

[hfojvt]

59. yeah I was just watching Rachel about the Rubinomics of Obama's team

To think I had hoped the Clintons were defeated in the primary.

[windoe]

64. kick -

excellent information here.