The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    cmaukonen's picture

    Are Americans still outraged ? Oh you betcha

    By cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:36am |

    Well here is a chart that might shed some light on this subject.


    From this article in Mother Jones.

    So here's the latest Gallup poll, asking people whether various groups have "too much power." The funny thing about it is that Americans apparently think that everyone has too much power:


    Soooo.....maybe this has something to do with the last election and may also have an impact on the next.

    And to put a timely political spin on this, the lousy showing of the federal government goes a long way toward explaining why Obama "lost" the battle with John Boehner and the tea party over spending cuts. Without taking sides on whether Obama himself deserves any of the blame for this, the fact is that it's pretty much impossible to win a political battle when the public is on the other side. And this poll makes it pretty clear that a big plurality of Americans are in favor of defanging the federal government.

    Of course, they're largely in favor of this only when proposed spending cuts are aimed rather vaguely at "discretionary programs" or some such. Boehner won this round because the actual reductions on the table were never made concrete. (In fact, they're still trying to figure out exactly which line items are going to be cut.) However, when it comes to something big and well known, like Medicare, this dynamic shifts in the opposite direction and Boehner will almost certainly be on the losing side of public opinion if he tries to push for big cuts. Political strategy matters in all this, but public opinion matters even more. That's the main reason Boehner won this round and it's the main reason he'll lose the next one if he overreaches.

    And in case anyone may have forgotten, here are some reasons why this is true. From our ..ummm...archives.

    There is a French Revolutionary air in America these days, with bankers playing the part of the aristocracy.

    Turn on the radio or open a newspaper and the bile comes pouring out. Michael Daly, a columnist for the New York Daily News, yesterday wrote about 'the Wall Street subslime'.

    Congressmen say calls to their offices are opposed to any bail- out of bankers by a factor of 100 to 1.

    The FBI is already investigating four of the firms involved in the recent bail-outs as part of a possible broader look at mortgage fraud.

    And here.

    In a breakfast round table with reporters, Frank said that the public is angry that the banks haven't started to lend more money. He said that people are also mad at CEO pay, purchases of executive jets, and even stadium naming rights. While he said that it is inevitable that some bankers will be rewarded with TARP funds, it is the responsibility of banks and financial institutions receiving the money to win the public's support.

    "People are outraged," said Frank, who strongly backs CEO pay caps and has indicated support for limiting lobbying expenses by the institutions.

    He warned that until the public turns around to support spending TARP II money, none will be approved by Congress. "I am confident you won't see that going forward," he told reporters.

    This anger and rage has not abated much, it at all. Add to that the inaction on jobs and the economy and Americans have every right to want to kick everyone inside the beltway in the groin.

    Comments

    And why should they believe....why should I believe....why should anyone believe....that Congress or the President would do anything but throw more hostages to the lions ??


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:44am

    Although I don't disagree with the thrust of what you wrote, I do find the value of that "Net" column to be dubious at best. Why does this net "too much - not enough" matter more than those who say "about right"? Sure, the first four groups can clearly be said to have too much power in the opinion of the public, and labor unions get the plurality vote for having too much power, but the plurality vote for the remaining groups is that it's "about right". Anyways, that's just a nit-pick, since I got nothing constructive to say.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:59am

    So you don't like Gallop either then ?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147026/Americans-Decry-Power-Lobbyists-Corporations-Banks-Feds.aspx

    I find it interesting that there are those on this blog that dispute ANYTHING that does not coincide with their previously held notions and agenda.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:50am

    Speaking of disputing anything that does not coincide with their previously held notions and agenda, does this article that Obey linked to alter your view of Obama's performance as having lost in this latest negotiation over the budget, or not: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/12/earlyshow/main20053039.shtml

    Or is the narrative that whatever Obama does is horrible a given for you, even before the facts are known?


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:55am

    I make my decisions on the overall actions not on personality or rhetoric. Politicians are notorious for making shit look like roses if one does not pay attention.  And even unskilled musicians can use a fake sheet to make the music sound good.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:19pm

    I'm not sure if my point was understood. Did you read the article at the link Obey provided that I put into my comment? 

    If you did, do you conclude from it that Obama gave away the store and got snookered by Boehner on this round?  Because on reading the article, which was an attempt to lay out some of the specific cuts in the agreement that to my knowledge had not previously been made known to the public, the result was not nearly as bad as I had feared (although there were still provisions in it which I object to such as DC vouchers).  I was asking if what appeared to be your assumption that Obama got the worse end of this agreement--which I don't know how anyone who hadn't already made up their mind could have made prior to knowing what was in the agreement--was altered in any way upon learning more about the substance of the cuts agreed to?


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:56pm

    I read it and was wholly unimpressed. No he did not give away the store. Just the keys and the windows and the combination to the safe and security system.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:31pm

    See my comment below. The blogger you cite at the top of this post, Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, says about that news:

    If these reports are correct, the bill contains only about $11 billion in hard cuts. Basically, it looks as if the tea partiers may have gotten snookered by their own side.

     


    by artappraiser on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:49pm

    This whole thing was totally avoidable. Capitulation from the get go ?  Of course people are pissed. Obama in not only a bad player he's a bad umpire as well. An umpire makes his call and if you don't like it, you can go to the showers.

    But that is beside the point.  Everyone in Washington is a light weight. Even the republicans. Boehner is this crybaby who along with racist McConnell is letting themselves be led around by the nose by a bunch of freshman in congress ??? WTF ??

    The new guys sit where they are told and say yes sir, no sir and how high sir on the way up. And maybe if they last long enough, they may get to sit in on a committee or two.

    But what can you expect from a bunch of unimaginative, self-serving, people pleasing technocrats. From a generation that thought est was the best thing since sliced bread.

    And I and the rest of the country are supposed to be eternally grateful that we have not been dragged back to the 19th century yet. Just the latter part of the 20th.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:36pm

    Well, i put up that link AD was talking about originally. And I found it incredibly cheering. Largely because, to me, it showed that Obama wasn't actually interested in making cuts, though to all appearances he wanted them, and was publicly thrilled at making them and publicly arguing for why he wanted them. In reality it turns out he was conceding cuts, and trying to minimize them.

    I.e. he doesn't actually believe that cuts are a good idea. And that thought is very comforting.

    In short, he's not a sellout in terms of his values.

    He's just totally incompetent.


    by Obey on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:22pm

    Love your cheer; but then there's tomorrow.   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:55pm

    It's a hard knock life, Sandy, but I've got high hopes.


    by Desider on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:05pm

    Apparently he'll be endorsing the deficit commission outlines.. But at least he won't believe what he says.

    ... ugh

    Just heat up the oven already...

    http://owni.eu/files/2010/12/bent10.jpg

     


    by Obey on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:09pm

    Oh, my starz!  That'll keep me howling all night, Obey!  And shit; that muffin's oven ain't even electric!  (the only thing that ever saves me, I confess.)

    Where did you find it?  You fucking genius, you!  And it took me awhile to click your link to the ILK site; you were holdin' out on us, methinks.   ;o)   ;o)

    Plus Digby's thoughts...


    by we are stardust on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:21pm

    Zat is a trade secret dahling. Can't tell you where I find these things or my contributions here will cease to have any value whatsoever...

    oh fuckit.

    Anyhow, I was so disappointed no one appreciated the gagapoopoo, though. Can't win em all I guess.


    by Obey on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:30pm

    Some of us are blind to hyperlinks; I almost loaded it in once I saw it, figured, "Oh, hell; if'n he wants me to, he could pay me the standard $3.99 fee.  But no; ya hadda do bloggin on the cheap.

    Seriously, somehow the font and whatnot didn't lead to further exploration somehow.  I forget why; maybe no Hat references.  Or zippers.  Or self-gratification.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:38pm

    And thanks for the digby. Quite right.

    You caught the hyperlink above...

    http://www.sharenator.com/The_power_of_imagination/#/egg-3.html


    by Obey on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:46pm

    I did, and thank you.  'Bout broke my heart, that little egg with his Mum's Day card...maybe sayin', "Mother?  Mo-o-o-the-e-e-r!"  You could see his little eggy crest-falling.  Awwww; poor Eggboy.

    (Gotta love that sick-o artist...)  And I saved the Muffin Suicide.   Cool  Might make a good Christmas card.  One year I printed that one: 'Merry Christmas from the NRA' with all Santa's reindeer dead in front of his sleigh...


    by we are stardust on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:20pm

    Mauk, if the typical comment at dag is to consist either of rants against Obama or not very persuasive defenses of him, well, people can write whatever they want to here, thank goodness. But, you know, I could find that at lots of places on the net. 

    My points are: it is entirely possible to be highly critical of Obama on a wide range of matters while still judging his performance in this recent round of negotiations with Boehner on its own merits.  And, making sweeping criticisms about a particular outcome before the facts are in seems misplaced, perhaps the more so when one has just broadbrushed unnamed others at the site for being closed off to conclusions that don't fit with their preconceived or well-established narratives ("Obama is doing as good a job as can be expected", "Obama is a bum", or variants of these)!

    After the last thing I wrote at dag last night I caught up with the WashPost coverage.  My overall reactions were that they don't have all the facts yet, either, but that their version led me to somewhat greater renewed concerns than the Drum account left me with.  Here are some links to yesterday's and today's coverage for you to read, if you wish to, and form your own conclusions:

    "Budget cuts will affect vast spectrum", Philip Rucker, Tues 4.12.11 WashPost at:http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/A%20Section/2011-04-12/A/10/18.0.2370818597_epaper.html

    not on the recent agreement reached but relevant to the broader budget picture: "Work of bipartisan group to guide president's deficit plan", Lori Montgomery and Zachary Goldfarb, Tues 4.12.11 WashPost at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/A%20Section/2011-04-12/A/11/18.0.2371765158_epaper.html

    Two from today:

    "Obama risks losing liberals", Zachary Goldfarb and Peter Wallsten, Wed 4.13.11 WashPost at:http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-speech-on-debt-reduction-a-first-step-in-broader-effort-white-house-says/2011/04/12/AFitkvRD_story.html

    "President urged to cap spending", Lori Mongtomery and Zachary Goldfarb, Wed 4.13.11 WashPost at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/A%20Section/2011-04-13/A/1/18.0.2396546960_epaper.html

    So...maybe then one who is trying not to read every new situation as confirmation of one's preexisting narrative starts wondering if Kevin Drum got spun a bit by some WH or OMB contact of his?  Because after all, he's pretty well known in the liberal blogosphere so if you can pacify him maybe more liberals will feel able to live with what has been done.

    The larger issue is now a well-established pattern for Obama wherein he has not done a good job of defining himself.  So it is left for others to fill in the blanks. 

    That can, tactically, sometimes work to a politician's advantage.  If you're Obama and you can manage the media coverage of this so as to minimize further outrage from jobless people, citizens worried from a well-informed standpoint about contractionary instead of expansionary economic policies hurting this bad economy, liberals and progressives--while pleasing those who want to see you work on the deficit and also those who want to see you be bipartisany--then that is to your short-term advantage. 

    A problem with doing too much of that is that over time the perception can develop, if it hasn't already, that as a President you don't really stand for anything, or at least anything you are willing to stand behind and act on consistently.  And that can lead to major somewhat longer-term problems for a politician, even one who is in effect establishing for himself a single overriding goal of winning re-election at any cost.

    Someone said the other day, Obey, I think, that those who think--perhaps including Obama, some of his top political advisors, and many of his supporters--that next year's election will depend on the comparison voters draw between Obama and the actual Republican nominee, may be mistaken. 

    It might instead be the case that the election operates as a referendum on Obama, on the economy, or some combination of the two.  In which case...flexibility can be seen as a plus by voters, yes.  So can having accomplished (what can be portrayed/spun as) "results" or "getting things done".  But not having any clear idea what Obama "stands for" could also be associated with perceptions of poor leadership and/or lack of trust, which could of course hurt him at the polls. 

    I hope those who refrain from or hold off harsh denunciations of Obama in regard to specific actions he has taken where the facts are not even known do not then get denounced by denizens, thereby, as that most heinous of criminals, an uncritical Obama supporter.  That seems to me pretty mindless, not to mention dull and unworthy of citizens operating at a pretty high level as are most folks here.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:01am

    Dreamer,

    If it's not clear from what I said in the other comments, I for one want to thank you for bringing this up. I hadn't read it elsewhere, now I'm going to look for more on particulars as they come out.

    You know what, it makes sense politically, too, that Obama wanted to make it look like he went along with far bigger cuts. The only people he angers that way is the pro-government spending supporters who won't study the details and who have no alternative for 2012 president. He still disappoints the Krugman types who will eventually study what the actual cuts are but who want him to go strong spending, but hey, from his p.o.v., they already are disappointed with him and probably aren't going anywhere else with their presidential vote. But he wins over enouigh Independent and swing types that he needs for 2012 who get "snookered" into thinking he's willing to broker big cuts.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:12pm

    deleted duplicate comment


    by artappraiser on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:50pm

    A rare moment where I'm in full agreement, artappraiser. ;-)


    by quinn esq on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:33pm

    Er, Turns out Kevin Drum @ Mother Jones,

    whose post you start out your post with, so you seem to have some respec fort him,

    in a newer post agrees with the point American Dreamer is trying to get you to acknowledge and even is citing another version of the same article,

    saying-that the cuts are starting to appear as nowhere near as big as they are being advertised by the GOP:

    http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/04/smoke-and-mirrors-watch

    See, this news is saying that as we see more evidence of what the budget deal is actually about, it's the GOP's talk of the deal as big cuts that is the smoke and mirrors part, and Obama got far more for his side than is being advertised or that he's trumpeting..

    So if you judge by actions and not personality or rhetoric, you' d have interest in these articles, instead of being negative towards what Dreamer is trying to point out. It's actually an example of what politicians are doing as opposed to what they are saying. Your hostility makes no sense unless you didn't read the article Dreamer cited or unless you are indeed more interested in the rhetoric and political effects surrounding the deal and not the facts.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:44pm

    There seems to be an echo in here....and echo in here....


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:49pm

    OK, let me be clear since I seem to have been misconstrued. It's not the results I'm doubting, it's the validity of subtracting the "not enough" answers from the "too much" answers to come up with a dubious "Net 'too much'" value that completely discounts the "about right" answers, and then the dubious interpretation that "Americans apparently think that everyone has too much power". What in the hell does that have to with disputing something that coincides with my previously held notions and/or agendas? (I'm assuming that paragraph wasn't just a random point of interest but was actually directed at me. Correct me if that assumption is wrong.)

    If you read Gallup's interpretation, by the way, it was exactly the same as mine. Exactly.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:24pm

    I thought your point was very well taken...


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:50pm

    Anyways, that's just a nit-pick, since I got nothing constructive to say.

    Apparently not.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:51am

    A good part of what is going on now could have been avoided. Yea even the 2010 election results. If the democrats and the president had hung tough on the banks and the bail out and put the justice department on their case big time.

    Putting the bankers in jail and dismantling TARP would have been the best move politically and even economically that could have been done.

    Putting Bushes criminal crew back in charge was the absolute worst thing that was done.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:11am

    Who didnt know;  that a Capitalist, banker class shill , Republican-lite President wouldnt actively seek a criminal investigation of his well healed friends.

    Obama did his job, he stood between the angry mob and the banker class.

    He protected the Banker class.

    When the economy falters, and interest rates go up, his friends will be just fine.
    "Atta boy Obama; come join us at OUR  table, where you'll not have to eat crumbs, you'll not have to experience, what the peasant class will reap" 

    Banker Class: "You scratched our back, now let us scratch yours"

    When the Presidents term is up, he'll have friends he can call on. Rich banker class friends.

      


    by Resistance on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 3:36pm

    Well, I did find this little tidbit relating what happened a couple of decades ago:

    NEW YORK -- After the last major banking crisis, some two decades ago, roughly 3,800 bankers were prosecuted and sentenced to prison terms, by the Justice Department's count. Yet this time, some four years after the economy descended into the most punishing financial crisis since the Great Depression, the public still waits for the Obama administration to deliver a similar kind of justice.

    The 2007-'09 financial crisis was "avoidable," a bipartisan, congressionally-appointed panel concluded last week. Mortgage fraud "flourished" in the run up to the collapse. Securities fraud was apparently widespread.

    "Lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford and that could cause massive losses to investors in mortgage securities," the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission wrote in its report on the causes of the collapse. About $1 trillion worth of home loans made from 2005 to 2007 were "fraudulent," the... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/financial-crisis-prosecutions-wall-street-slow_n_818851.html

     

     


    by Richard Day on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:29pm

    The American public may not be all that bright or have the understanding of economics necessary to completely follow Matt Taibbi's current piece in Rolling Stone. But they do know that the big-wigs in Washington have been handing over their tax money to Wall Street firms, their wives and other insiders like the printing presses at the FED are just for them alone.

    Most Americans know about that budget. What they don't know is that there is another budget of roughly equal heft, traditionally maintained in complete secrecy. After the financial crash of 2008, it grew to monstrous dimensions, as the government attempted to unfreeze the credit markets by handing out trillions to banks and hedge funds. And thanks to a whole galaxy of obscure, acronym-laden bailout programs, it eventually rivaled the "official" budget in size — a huge roaring river of cash flowing out of the Federal Reserve to destinations neither chosen by the president nor reviewed by Congress, but instead handed out by fiat by unelected Fed officials using a seemingly nonsensical and apparently unknowable methodology.

    .....

    The Fed sent billions in bailout aid to banks in places like Mexico, Bahrain and Bavaria, billions more to a spate of Japanese car companies, more than $2 trillion in loans each to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, and billions more to a string of lesser millionaires and billionaires with Cayman Islands addresses. "Our jaws are literally dropping as we're reading this," says Warren Gunnels, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "Every one of these transactions is outrageous."

    And do you think anyone inside the beltway is going to do anything about this ? Not on your previous existence.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 3:51pm