MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 4 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 months ago
Hits of the Day
Could Obama have fixed the economy?
By ocean-kat on Sat, 11/08/2014 - 4:42pm |I’m hearing “Obama couldn’t have fixed the economy. Wage stagnation is not his fault, it’s been going on for decades!” (For the record it’s been going on for at least 34 years, probably 39, and for some parts of the population, for 46 (that’s when wages for working class white males peaked. Which is why they’re pissy.))
The Stimulus: Negotiating 101, people, is that you always ask for more than you want. Obama asked for too little, and a huge part of his stimulus was tax cuts. Worse than this, his stimulus was structured terribly. What you do with a stimulus package in a recession and financial collapse is you use it to restructure the economy.
Prosecute the Bankers: This is an executive decision. Entirely an executive decision. There was widespread fraud, and no senior executive on Wall Street could credibly claim to not know of it.
URL:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/could-obama-have-fixed-the-economy/
- Add new comment
- 9722 reads
Comments
This article is so good Ocean- Kat
Thank you so much.
Edited to add
I hope others read more of his writings/opinions, follow his links.
He nails Obama and the Obamabots for the calamity leaving no reason to believe Obama tried his best.
We will be suffering for years because Obama failed to act for the people.
He could have been this generations FDR but instead; he served in behalf of the rich.
Just a little to the left of the Tea party.
by Resistance on Sat, 11/08/2014 - 9:55pm
I just stumbled upon this blogger this morning as I was link surfing from article to article. He's not very comprehensive in making his case but his arguments are well written, clear and concise. He's writing the blogs I would have written if I had the time to blog. I've been posting some of the same ideas in bits and pieces with my occasional comments.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 11/08/2014 - 10:03pm
I would like to help you keep presenting his articles If you wouldn't mind.
I am sure glad you stumbled upon this blogger.
I wonder if he would contribute articles to this site?
by Resistance on Sat, 11/08/2014 - 11:02pm
http://www.ianwelsh.net
http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/05/a-stimulus-bill-with-40-in-tax-cuts-wo...
by Beetlejuice on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 9:12am
I agree he is quite good at hitting the nail head top-dead-center, but in my opinion, I think he fails to consider the mood of the individuals. Obama seeks nothing more than a bipartisanship with republicans and the Senate democrats are feckless, lacking a clear agenda and a will to move forward and fight for what they want.
That said, I find what is is saying reflects the mood of the public. They're frustrated with Obama and the Senate democrats for not accomplishing anything other than keeping the country in a never ending holding pattern.
He's definitely on my "too watch" list for just monitoring the pulse of the public's mood
by Beetlejuice on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 9:09am
Economic Stimulus Principles
by Resistance on Sat, 11/08/2014 - 10:00pm
The author could have saved a lot of bandwidth if he had just stated Obama governs by laissez-faire ... just lets thing meander without providing any direction. In other words, he placed the entire country into a holding pattern.
And Senate Democrats share the blame by not being more aggressive ... fighting the battle without any leadership or guidance using only their Constitutional enumerated rights and parliamentary rules to hold their ground and move their legislative agenda forward.
In a article he wrote ... What Can Obama Really Do? 10 Aug 2010 ... he states the Senate could have used reconciliation to push their agenda over the objections of republicans, just as republicans had done while they held court in both House and Senate between 2001 to 2006. It was a tactical choice entirely at the discretion of the Democratic leadership they failed to appreciate.
But the real elephant in the china shop is that Obama prefers and strives for bipartisanship with republicans, who see it as an opportunity to chip away at the progressive social structure the public relies upon which Democrats claim to defend.
If you understand Obama's position, then everything he wrote is a moot point ... wasn't going to happen no matter what.
by Beetlejuice on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 8:58am
It should be recorded for historical sake; Obama was not as good a President as he claimed he'd be.
A master campaign of Bait and Switch, a fraud
During that tumultuous time, the people wanted to drive a nail in the coffin of Republicanism with its trickle-down theory and the harm it had done to social causes.
Had the true Obama, clearly stated his intent to seek bi partisanship ,he’d have been soundly rejected as the Democratic standard bearer.
How were the people to know, his campaign was built upon deception?
The progressives knew the battle we were engaged in.
During the primaries, particularly in Ohio; Obama purposely mislead the voters with his NAFTA stance.
He knew then, he'd mislead the voters, but why would he care?
Winning the Presidency was all HE wanted, to heck with what the people thought was the Change, they thought they were getting.
Who were the fools, believing there could be bi - partisanship, from the party that fought so hard to get the reins of power, so they could promote further their agenda against the Social programs the people desired?
Bi partisanship would have been synonymous, with both parties sharing the same trough.
Obama should be remembered as a Master of Bait and Switch
: the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable.
His Chicago acceptance speech was his guilt speech, "I'm sorry; but this is who I really am"
"Thanks for your votes suckers"
by Resistance on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 3:57pm
Yes, he lied about NAFTA. All politicians lie but Obama was more honest than most. He told us he was not ideological and he wanted to be a bipartisan leader. Anyone who looked at his history could see it. From his famous speech at the 2004 convention, there's not a red states of America and a blue states of America, there's the United States of America. To his time as editor of the Harvard Law Review where he was the mediator between opposing factions.
I hated his 2004 speech. I thought it was naive and misguided at the time and I think its apparent that the last six years have borne out that view. But all his failed efforts at bipartisanship, obstructed by republicans in every instance, also show he was serious in his attempts and mostly honest in his campaign.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 4:45pm
I agree, he's very honest, honest to a fault. Before he ran, he said what he thought over and over, he put it in his white papers and he wrote it in his books. He dissed leftists early on, he made it clear, in writing, on the internet for all to see, that he thought they were wrong. There was the speech at the Call to Renewal conference in 2006 where Professor Obama lectures progressives on politics and religion. And here's the Aug. 2008 NYTimes "Obamanomics" article where he lays out that he's going to find consensus, some middle ground, between the economics of Bob Rubin vs. the economics of Bob Reich.
And he's stuck to it. He's very consistent. I can't think of one thing in "The Audacity of Hope" or "Dreams from My Father" that he's contradicted.
This tendency is also why he's no good at schmoozing people Bill-Clinton-style. He's straightforward, doesn't chum up to people of all types, just tells them what he thinks.
Which is why I still think the whole Obamania thing is one of the more puzzling and curious events of our epoch. Even the Nobel committee got swept into it. If they had given it to "all the fans of the image called Obama, dreaming of hope and 'yes we can!'" that I would have respected. But they didn't, they got swept away like all the others. If I were them, I would be ashamed of the strange version of reverse racism that I am sure was part of their decision.
It's beyond me what he was supposed to do about it. Look a gift horse in the mouth? Say "I'm not that person, I told ya over and over, don't vote for me."?
Why anyone should feel bamboozled by him is beyond me. Those who do need to think about their own comprehension of reality when they get all het up about an election.
by artappraiser on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 6:32pm
I was too young for the Beatlemania era, just 10 in 67. Many years later I watched films and documentaries of live concerts and I had this WTF moment. Teen girls weeping and screaming for tens of minutes. Security guards carting them off when they fainted. I had a similar WTF moment in 2007. Obama-mania never reached the level of Beatlemania yet still... all these people weeping at a politician's speech. It just seemed weird to me. Couldn't understand it. I'm not even going to try to speculate why or how it came about. I wouldn't know where to begin. Crying over a politician's speech. I was and still am flabbergasted.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 10:15pm
by Resistance on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 10:31pm
Just like every other politician, ever? Anybody who didn't think Obama would let them down was probably under the age of 25 (and a poor student of history). Still, I'd rather have Obama disappointing me than McCain or Romney confirming my worst fears.
Edit to add: I was 22 when I voted for Clinton, and I suppose a poor student of history. In '96, I was so disillusioned that I voted for an nth party. (Not a "3rd" party, but something considerably further down the list. I had found a site that asked my political views and then paired me with my "ideal" candidate. I forget what "party" he belonged to, but I recalled being amused at the fact that he'd also gotten a degree in Physics.)
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 4:57pm
Any one who didn't understand that Obama saw his role as mediator between opposing factions just wasn't paying attention. Anyone who thought he could succeed in that role and that he could overcome republican obstruction or that it would just melt away was as naive as Obama. The whole democratic party shares the blame but Obama's enchantment with the idea of bipartisanship led him at times to thwart the senate when it tried to fight. Several articles at the time stated that Reid was totally pissed when Obama sent Biden in to make a deal when the Bush tax cuts expired. It scuttled his negotiations and he felt he could have gotten a better deal. When the debt ceiling negotiations came around Reid reportedly told Obama he would not be involved in the fight unless he was guaranteed that Biden would stay out of it.
Obama just doesn't seem to learn. Just a few days ago Obama said, "I continue to believe we are simply more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States."
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/09/2014 - 5:01pm
Obama just doesn't seem to learn
No he believes it. He's a true centrist, a Bloomberg-style centrist. The article on Jarrett I just posted is more proof for the pile. She's a centrist too. They agree with Republicans on some things, hence they see consensus where Harry Reid wouldn't.
He's honest, he just said again: "I continue to believe..." Read the 2006 DKos post, where he tells the readers, liberal Dems, that they don't get the majority of Americans' opinions right.
I don't know where the idea he's got liberal sympathies comes from, actually. Because of the color of his skin? Because he worked as a community organizer as a young man? Because he recycled RFK quotes in his campaign speeches? Because Fox News calls him one?
Read his stuff, what he wrote in the past. Listen to what he says back before he ran, during the campaign and now.. Look at all his appointments. He believes what he has said he believes, and he's always pretty much been honest about it. (If you've read :"Dreams from My Father", you get the impression that his visits to Africa may have been a turning point, where he sees what too much reliance on government jobs and on a kind of "dole" can do.)
He's mostly with the majority. of the country on almost everything. It wouldn't surprise me to know he himself voted for moderate Republicans, it won't surprise me if he registers as an Independent after he gets out of office.
Pick an issue, I bet I can find where he agrees with a majority of the country, often right down the middle between left and right. When he said he hadn't made up his mind about gay marriage, he was telling the truth. When he plays both sides of the immigration issue,it's because he agrees some with arguments on either side. Preference for some gun control is another example: the majority agrees. Promising people if they like their health insurance the way it is, they can keep it, and trying to effect that, is another example.Wanting to keep Geithner as long as he can, another. Look at his judicial nominees. Etc. etc.
He's a very consistent centrist, amazingly so.
I am reminded of when M.J.Rosenberg wanted to believe he was going to be a leftist on Israel because for some reason he thought an Afro-American candidate would be, I guess. (Never gave any other reason!) He was trying to convince himself that candidate Obama was just pandering to AIPAC. He wasn't. When he said over and in many places that Israel was America's friend, he meant it, he believed it. He was being honest.
He has fulfilled what he said in his first campaign, tough on defense, not against all wars but against "stupid wars." Remember when he disagreed in a debate with Hillary about Pakistan? He had said he would bomb them under certain circumstances and she was trying to make him look dangerously hawkish? He wasn't doing that for political effect, he believed it,he believed that is the posture that should be taken. Look at the risk he took with the Abbottabad raid, actually flying into their airspace without their knowledge and without ironclad proof.
Where is the evidence that he is not just not a liberal, but that he is even a loyal Democrat? I can't think of any. He's not partisan, he was always telling the truth about that, too. He especially dislikes the extremists of both parties, that is one thing that has become ever more clear..
by artappraiser on Mon, 11/10/2014 - 3:32am
P.S. Some of his attitude may come from his start in Chicago in anti-machine politics: I just re-read Ryan Lizza's 2008 article on his Chicago years in a new light where entrenched one-party control is the enemy of progress, and networking with power people in an independent manner is the way to go to break free of a moribund entrenched party system. Interesting that the "networking with power people" thing is also in the new New Republic article about Jarrett, and Jarrett is, of course, in the Lizza article as playing a part in the beginning in doing this.
(A reminder that he decided to marry a corporate lawyer upon meeting her working at a major corporate law firm for the summer; the "community organizer" thing is way overplayed. A corporate lawyer who, I would note, upon becoming first lady, chose support of military families as one of her main causes; I don't think that was a cynical choice, I think she is a believer in what she says at the link.)
Could mean he may feel the need to start fighting the Republicans now, because they've become more entrenched, and the balance has tipped far too much from center?
by artappraiser on Mon, 11/10/2014 - 4:30am
The enactment of NAFTA has always been a hot issue for me.
In the important primaries of Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama and Hillary were both vying for the same voters and voters wanted to know their stance on NAFTA.
We were elated to hear, there would finally be a look back on the issue.
Many have always felt NAFTA and GATT, led to the destruction of the American middle class, robbing them of their dreams for themselves and loved ones.
We'd read the pollsters findings when voters were asked "do you think your kids future will be better or worse”. Many voters remembered, the previous debates, years before, on this subject and were convinced, the dark forces that rule DC was the problem.
I and many others knew, we needed CHANGE, the future was looking bleak.
We remembered that giant sucking sound, Ross Perot warned us about and how Perot warned us about the devastating effect of the loss of a tax base would undermine our American dreams.
It wasn't lack of Bi- partisanship that needed to be changed; because the voters already knew both sides were feeding from the same pig trough, getting the same money from the dark forces and WE knew it was going to take someone brave, to take on the deeply entrenched corruption,
Obama: “Here I am; I’ll be your champion”
Obama was talking to the older voters of the decimated industrial belt, who remembered the good days before NAFTA; they were the ones that knew the TRUTH and they wanted to get back to the days before the calamity and if Obama should be charismatic enough to get the young voters to agree, we older ones thought for sure the Change we believed in, could really be possible
I knew politicians lied in order to get votes, but I and other convinced ourselves and others, Obama would be different, he just might do it. He came across as someone to trust and that what we needed was TRUTH in Washington DC to run the corruption out of town.
Truth would be the disinfectant; to expose the underhanded dealings that robbed all of us of a government of the people, for the people
Chants of “Obama, Obama, Obama", BY the People everywhere, who believed in that hope that finally might bring the Change we needed.
Turns out Obama's NAFTA comment was followed by a wink, crossed fingers and denials.
Many of us thought the claim of possible betrayal, was just the lies of the Dark forces that would say and do anything to remain in power.
We didn’t want to believe Obama would lie, to remove one group of deeply entrenched power brokers only to be replaced by his select group of power brokers.
It turns out Eugene Debs was correct. It was all about the spoils.
Washington DC was not going to Change
Once elected, the people’s dreams were dashed, the Truth about Change we thought we were getting, was quickly cast aside.
The only change we got, was just from one pandering politician to another
The TRUTH about the Bankers deception was met only by more cover up by Geithner because supposedly he knew how to ferret out the Truth, and then the people find TRUTH had no teeth.
So the Change we were promised, was just an empty promise, just as his NAFTA position was only a wink and crossed fingers.
Now in retrospect, as you point out, Obama stayed true to himself, but when pressed in Ohio and the industrial belt; TRUTH to the voters was a little fuzzy, a little
white / black lie. Grayby Resistance on Mon, 11/10/2014 - 6:54am
To me it sounds like you are making up your own narrative where somebody promised you to make the U.S. protectionist and to get rid of NAFTA. Nobody promised that. They basically all said in one way or another " It's more complex than that , but I'll do the best I can to make trade deals better for the American worker" because only sound bites work on the campaign trail.
There is confusion because in polls people say they are for trade with Canada but against NAFTA
He's been trying to do what he thinks will fulfill the promise, what he thinks will make things better for the American worker.and also make the majority happy. That article is not describing somebody who is out to screw the American worker for the oligarchs' benefit, but someone who is trying to get the American people the best trade deals he can, according to what he believes will benefit them the most.
If you care that strongly on a complex issue, you have to dig deeper about candidates than sound bites on the campaign trail. There aren't a lot of 100% protectionist candidates out there (including in other countries) because few believe that would work out well for their country in this day and age. If you studied up and dug deep on their policy beliefs, you could probably find them. You'd have to do that rather than rely on believing what you heard in a sound bites on the campaign meant what you thought it did.
I really don't believe any Democratic candidates and few Republican ones are out to make slave workers of their citizens so they can get rich after they leave office.They just disagree with you on what would make for a healthier job situation. You are turning this topic into a high drama narrative of conspiracies against "the people" that just isn't true, you cast it into a "people vs. politicians in bed with the oligarchs" story that just made up of whole cloth. And that makes me think you're not capable of really studying up on it in the first place, and that's why they have to use sound bites when they run for office and why they can't get into the intricacies of what they would do about trade deals if elected.
by artappraiser on Mon, 11/10/2014 - 10:39am
Its not so confusing. Americans want America to trade more i.e. sell more goods to Canada or Mexico and don't care if that causes Canadians or Mexicans to lose their jobs. What they don't want is Canadians and Mexicans trading more with America and causing Americans to lose their jobs.
You know, people aren't stupid, but they don't spend a lot of time studying policy issues. They have a gut sense that their life is getting harder, that their children's life is getting harder. They look into the future and it sure seems like that trend is going to continue. People can accept stagnation in their life if it looks like their kids will have a better life but to many it looks like their kids are going to have it even harder then they did.
Most people aren't policy wonks. They make their best guess about what may be causing the problem in their life. They see good paying manufacturing jobs disappearing and blame NAFTA because they've been told that's the cause. They really don't know the solution so they react against any more trade deals. I'm not a policy wonk either. I, and everyone here, spends more time studying the issues than the average American but I too just see the problem just in a little more depth and don't know what to do.
I was working in consumer electronics repair during the early NAFTA years. Fixing TVs and VCRs. Virtually every American job making TVs went to Mexico. A friend of my father, a 50 year old man, went from making $20 an hour to minimum wage at Burger King. He was one of the lucky ones, he found a new job. But it wasn't just manufacturing. TVs began to be redesigned, Zenith was the first. The basic functions were separated in to different boards, a sound board, a power supply board, a video board etc. When a TV came in I determined which board was the problem, swapped it out with a new one, and sent that board to Mexico to be repaired. I was capable of repairing the board but Zemith no longer made the schematics available. Most repairs were done under warranty and Zenith would no longer pay for board level repairs. All they would pay for was to swap out the board and send it to Mexico. I had a degree in electronics but I didn't need it to swap out boards. You could get a monkey to do that job and pay him peanuts. NAFTA probably eliminated 80% of the consumer electronics repair jobs in America.
In your link, Obama touted the pan-Pacific deal as an “opportunity to open up new markets in the fastest, most populous region of the world – the Asia Pacific region.” The problem is that most of those people don't have enough money to buy American goods. What they have is an enormous poor and desperate supply of labor that will work for peanuts. America is the largest richest market. I read article after article and the plan in every country to build their economy is to sell more to America. Its not just the poor nations. I'll read some article about the economy in France and some minister of finance will say, "What we really want to do is export more goods to America" Hell even Germany is saying, what we really want to do is sell more goods to America. It doesn't take a genius to see that America can't save the economies of every nation on earth by buying their exports and if we try it will destroy the American economy.
What globalization has brought us is an oversupply of labor. Couple that with raising productivity and increased automation which will only accelerate and we have a big problem that will only get worse. I don't know the solution but free trade isn't the answer.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/10/2014 - 1:46pm
Right on the money Ocean-kat .
Strategy for GOP Congress: Keep Doing Nothing.
by Resistance on Mon, 11/10/2014 - 3:14pm
What a bunch of malarkey to think Obama has our best interest in mind.
Look a little closer and it's not hard to spot the schemes and empty promises of a dupe/dope
Who'd have thought Benedict Arnold would be a traitor? He dressed and looked like a typical American.
The American workforce knows de - scented manure is still manure.
The problem in America, is that our citizens are unfamiliar with what the Greatest World Power did to control and manipulate commerce, detrimental to the colonists.
A manipulation and control for the benefit of the Royalty class and their commercial interests.
For after all, America was a colony to be exploited. They didn't care at all about the plight of the colonists.
But of course they would try to maintain this level of control as long as they could and would deny their true intent, otherwise the colonists would resist. Interrupting their grand plan for wealth creation.
Eventually; the colonist rebelled against the commercial interest of the Crown, when our forefathers threw a little Tea Party; sending a message.
Why do you forget? Or maybe it isn't stressed enough, because it would go against the interest of the oligarchs? NO DEAL is not a term they want to hear.
So they have to sell these trade deals.
"Look at one of the benefits you'll receive; You'll get Chilean cherries in the off season"
What have we become? A bunch of Manhattan Indians accepting trinkets?
by Resistance on Mon, 11/10/2014 - 4:54pm