David Seaton's picture

    Ending the First Decade of the 21rst Century

    By David Seaton on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 2:17pm |

    Bernie

    Sometimes after writing a long, rather ponderous piece like my last one, I like to follow it with a shorter and lighter version of more or less the same thing. This is some sort of a parallel text that grows out of its predecessor.

     

    We are at the end of the first decade of a new millennia, something that doesn't happen every day. I've chosen two images to describe the decade we are leaving behind us. I imagine most people who wished to portray these years, would use the Twin Towers in flames, the idea being that "everything changed" when Al Qaida busted up New York. I don't think so. I think that "everything changed" when people began to see that even by running faster they weren't getting anywhere.

    The first picture at the top of this piece is of Bernie Madoff, disguised as an Obama poster. By this I don't wish to insinuate that Obama is a crook like Madoff, I am more interested in illustrating disillusionment. Those who hoped that Bernie would  make them rich without their doing a lick of work were bitterly disappointed as were those who thought that by simply casting their vote, when Obama arrived in Washington the waters of  the Potomac would part and Pharaoh's hosts would be engulfed: they too have felt similarly short changed. Since Obama chose to take upon himself the mantle or the  brand, of "Hope", he has also been stuck with the dregs of "Hopelessness", when he  turned out to be such a damp squib. With  Madoff as the "Audacity of Hope" poster boy, I wished to create a poetic image of the wise folk saying that, "hope is not a plan".

    The decade we leave behind us was the story of the disasters brought on by the money changers in the temples of Wall Street and by the paralysis of the American political system as it is being dragged helplessly toward Grover Norquist's bathtub.

    So Bernie symbolizes the malodorous financial sector and President Obama symbolizes the starved and frozen political system and the poster symbolizes the marketing involved in making some  people think that Bernie Madoff possessed the secret of endlessly multiplying wealth,  while other people thought that Barack Obama had the secret of healing all of  America's defects and disasters and making the lion lie down with the lamb,  all the while feeding the multitude on five loaves and two fishes. When the guy who can do that finally shows up, no poster will be needed to illustrate, that as Bob Marley put it, "There ain't no hiding place from the Father of Creation"....  We have not gotten that far yet... I hope, I hope, I am still amazed that so many people thought we had.



    As far removed from each other as the intentions of both men surely must be, those who gave  Madoff their money and those who gave their votes to Obama, would all probably  rather not be reminded of what a distance there is between what they expected, waited and hoped for and what they finally received.


    The next image is simply is graph that illustrates the leitmotif of most working  people's lives today: that even by running faster, they aren't making progress,  that the brass ring is no longer within their grasp no matter how fast the merry-go-round spins. That middle class life is turning out to be  just another Ponzi scheme, like Bernie's.

    wages-productivity

    There are lot of wonderful graphs around, but I can't think of another that describes the middle class mood so well as this one does. I would like to see some further information to confirm my hunch that, as child labor is still illegal, the slight rise in household median income, while real hourly wages first declined then stagnated, is mostly due to all the housewives and mothers joining the work force.


    The next ten years will be colored by the bad taste of so much disillusionment and there will be no lack of demagogues eager to poison the system further.


    Hope? Been there, done that.


    Lucidity is the only thing that will save us now.

     

    Crossposted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    Who are these people who believed that Obama "had the secret of healing all of America's defects and disasters and making the lion lie down with the lamb"? I've been reading about such people since 2007. On the blogosphere, I've avidly followed their oft-reported progress from cult-blinded devotees to dogmatic apologists to disillusioned haters, but I've yet to actually meet one of these amazing creatures. I had almost begun to believe that they were imaginary, but here we are signing off a whole decade in their honor. Do they have a lot of them in Spain?

    PS Happy New Year! Out with the old, in with the new, or so they say...


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 2:47pm

    Back at TPM during the primaries and the presidential campaign when I expressed my skepticism about Obama I received the most amazing ad hominem abuse. Anybody from TPM days that used to read me then will remember it. The "abuse" button was installed at TPM because of the kind of crap I was subjected to... Stalinist would be a mild comparison. Pol-Pot-ist would be more like it.

    The Obama phenomenon was briefly like one of the "Great Awakenings" of the 19th century, but it was kind of like mushrooms, one day they are all over the place the next day all gone. I think most of the "victims" don't like to be reminded of how dumb they were. Like running into somebody horrible you slept with when you were drunk.

    As to Spain, Europe in general, they had high hopes for awhile, but they have mostly caught onto the gag by now.


    by David Seaton on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 3:57pm

    True, if Pol Pot had had the internet, he would have spent his days flaming bloggers rather than massacring intellectuals.

    While I don't doubt that you and others suffered much abuse during the bitter passionate days of 2008, it hardly constitutes evidence that large numbers of people believed that Obama would solve every ill.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 4:24pm

    Even more to the point, while David certainly criticized Obama, he was all over the map with it. To say I told you so now is like Jeane Dixon followers saying She told you so when Paul and Ringo eventually die.


    by Donal on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 4:37pm

    The Obama as Messiah line was really just a mean way for people to dismiss the guy's supporters.  It wasn't really one of the prouder moments of that discussion.  Now I guess the idea suggests that we were all sold a bill of goods and that Obama could never fulfill the hopes and ambitions of his supporters.  But then, when it comes to what he actually said he was going to do, the record's not bad.  We've all got our gripes, sure, but it's not because we expected miracles.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 4:55pm

    I expected a politician would be sitting in the Oval Office, but was not expecting whine to be served with the loaves and fishies. How about you, destor?

    Cool


    by seashell on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 5:38pm

    Lol.  I wanted Hillary right up until her campaign fell apart and, to be honest, I wanted Edwards before that so it's tough to see where my expectations would have led us.  So far as Obama goes, he'd really have to change his mind on a bunch of things to truly be the leader I think we need.  But absent that, I never expected miracles.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 1:41pm

    I was for Edwards too. In some alternate universe maybe he didn't fail the honey test but did get elected and was still the guy who worked for the people who hired him and fought like hell to win. If I could hop from universe to universe of my choice I would do a lot of hopping but at least my legs would stay strong.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 1:48pm

    I liked what I thought Edwards was. Knowing what I know now, I'm glad he didn't get elected.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:15pm

    I liked Edwards, too, and felt like a chump later on.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:27pm

    David, many of the people reading your post here were at TPM during the primaries, so you're entitled to your hurt feelings, but not entitled to completely mischaracterize the discussion during those times.  Your memory of the degree abuse you suffered, much like your memory of the hopes of those supporting Obama, exists exclusively in your apparently failing mind.  Frankly, I found your assessment of Obama in the primaries rather weirdly (for a self-proclaimed liberal) and obsessively preoccupied with his race, which is why I found your comments so objectionable.

    And here's a hint: if you want to present arguments that warrant a respectful response, maybe you should refrain from rhetorical gambits like substituting Bernie Madoff in an iconic Obama poster, and from making deeply insulting (and inaccurate, and just plain stupid ) statements like "those who thought that by simply casting their vote, when Obama arrived in Washington the waters of  the Potomac would part and Pharaoh's hosts would be engulfed."

    You are pretty obviously a crank with several axes to grind and a rather tenuous grasp on reality.  When you make statements like many of those in the original post and this comment, you forfeit any right to be taken seriously, and practically beg to be insulted in return.   


    by brewmn on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 5:37pm

    I have always considered Barack Obama's race to be something like Harry Potter's "invisibility cloak", a good disguise.

    And believe me, though you don't like to be reminded of it, grown men and women were going nuts over Obama in those days, like 13 year old girls with Justin Bieber.


    by David Seaton on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 2:46am

    First, it's not that I don't like being reminded of the enthusiasm of many of Obama's supporters during the campaign; it's that I think your characterization of that enthusiasm is insulting, inaccruate and unfair.

    But, I'm guessing you have some examples that prove your point?  Because to me, it seems like the Obama campaign was attended by slightly more than the amount of enthusiasm that typically attends to any presidential campaign with a likelihood of success.  For example, I attended a pre-election rally in Chicago for Michael Dukakis, and the energy in that auditorium where the rally was held exceeded the energy at any rock concert I've ever attended by a significant degree.  I mean, Michael Frickin' Dukakis, maybe the least charismatic candidate for president I've ever seen!

    Furthermore, the only people who seem disappointed by Obama not parting the waters are the more-progressive-than-thou types who never really supported him in the first place.  Polling indicates that a vast majority of both Democrats and self-identified liberals are reasonably satisfied with his performance.

    Again, your take on Obama is a completely subjective one, and it really does border on the delusional.      


    by brewmn on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 2:02pm

    Ok, I really must step in here in partial support of Seaton against what I see as revisionist meta-history.Laughing

    I remember hundreds of people filling the TPM reader blogs scroll with links to every campaign utterance by Obama like they were followers of a religious sect, and obama maniacs who spent their days jumping to defend Obama with ad hominen swords should any analysis of policy positions or actions appear in a reader blog. (You want names--some come to mind quite easily because I found what they posted so horrifying so often: amber; HusseinTenaX; hrebendorf; quasar; kash79; chino blanco; jade7243; Aunt Sam:...)

    I thought whoever came up with the "drink the koolaid" comparison was a very astute observer and I thought this site was genius when it first came out: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/ in capturing the zeitgeist, and I do recall skits on SNL by one of their most astute writers seeing the same.

    Where I parted with Seaton on it and still do so, and the reason I had a hard time defending him then, is that he read this temporary sect of the political fan worship that had invaded the liberal blogosphere (even the mighty DKos which had formerly been a place where Obama was bashed) and combined it with news reports of fainting and Beatlemania type screaming at Obama rallies, and read it as representing what was going on in American meat space. It was simply a temporary takeover of the political blogosphere by a bunch of Obama campaigners, a few quite qualified, most rank (as in stinky) amateurs often doing more harm than good as regards any real people lurkers that might stop by a blog or two. He was pushing a picture that wasn't real but virtual, actually helping them along.

    As regards the specific dynamics of TPMCafe, when all of you primary bloggers invaded the Cafe with the installation of new blogging software, what I saw was you DAG bloggers set up a small clique of smart people that only talked to each other and blogged for each other, and didn't seem to be paying much attention to all the other really horrifying stuff being posted by many other Obama supporters. As they only dittoheaded your posts, you had no reason to pay attention to the kind of truly scary Obama adoration idiocy they were posting in reply to the few Hillary supporters with gumption enough to hang around (like Billy Glad, desidero) or the kind of horrifying stuff they wrote in comments on Seaton's blogs. It doesn't surprise me that you don't think they existed, as you DAG guys really seemed to me to be living in a world of your own with blinders on where all the really nasty, scary koolaid type Obama supporters didn't exist. I really was horrified by the celebrity worship of Obama I saw; I had come to think of the political blogosphere as having savvier inhabitants than that. It really was an eye opener how people can have information staring them in the face and still be very willfully blinded by adoration of personality, or to want desperately to infect others with it by inept use of propaganda.

    BTW, it really really was torture for us old timers at the Cafe to see all of you primary campaign maniacs of all persuasions descend upon the site in mass quantities and disable our ability to discuss and track anything else (due to the faultiness of the software, of course--Josh Marshall had decided at the time that getting everyone to blog was priority number one and that just so happened to coincide with a bunch of people willing to campaign for Obama by doing that.) What we had their previously was actually something like what you have here at DAG blog now. For that reason, I am very pleased to see DAG's concern about "ruts." It's just ironic because to me, DAG was once part of a huge gang fueling a rut. In 2008, there were actually other things going in the country and the world than the race for the presidency and the one especially charismatic new guy on the block and his supporters and detractors. Speaking of the latter, I remember one time the flood of posts attacking Hillary and in support of Obama like a mother bear protecting her helpless cub got so ridiculous and over the top that Andrew Golis made a post pleading with people to post on something else. It was upsetting to see Seaton attacked so viciously by Obamabots (and yes, that is what they were) especially because he sometimes posted on topics other than Obama or Hillary.


    Yes, the Obamabots have for the most part disappeared now. But they were very real. Seaton thinks it's because they were disappointed. I think it's because they got their god hired and felt he would take care of things and they could move on from their year as "poltical activists." Unlike Seaton, I doubt that many are disillusioned, rather, they had a good time and moved on. Also unlike him, I doubt they were of any signifcant size as regarding the entire electorate. (That's the danger of taking the blogosphere as representative of much of anything, one of my least favorite things, the echo chamber effect.) It was very clear they never did know much about politics or history, just had a belief in electing dear leaders.  They really weren't interested in politics, they only had a fervent desire of seeing Obama win the equivalent of American Idol.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 1:14pm

    As someone who slipped into TPM during the election and the various factions well-established, as well as someone who in those early days never went over to the Cafe, but stayed on the threads on election threads created by TPM, I have my own memories of what happened there. 

    The thing I find interesting is that even in an arena in which everything that happened was written down because of the very nature of its format, there is still disagreements over the historical assessment of what actually happened.  And then we turn around and assume we can assess what really happened historically in events where the evidence is far more minimal.  If anything, it is all at least a lesson that operate on our perceptions of what happened as opposed to what actually happened.

    The other thing I would add is that for many of those who supported Obama first in the primary and then the general election, there was a sense that there more than the expected forces aligned against him.  Not only the Republicans and other conservatives, which were expected, but also other democrats, specifically the Clinton supporters, as well as the media. It wasn't that they weren't treating him like the One or a deity, but that he wasn't getting a fair shake. 

    At a place like TPM during the election, there is a sedimentation of sentiment that occurs, so that as soon as someone says that one supports or doesn't support a particular candidate, all of the past comments made by all those who could be considered in one's particular political camp is attached.  Given what was believed by many as to what was at stake (can we even really contemplate a McCain/Palin administration), things differently became skewed and twisted.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 2:10pm

    I think your entirely overstating the facts of that time, and I'm still impressed that neither you nor David have posted any links (something you're able to do very well, as we know) to provide even anecdotal evidence of the horribleness of the "Obamabots" (and where's your derogatory term for the Hilary supporters who were just as dogmatic and vicious as those supporting Obama?).

    On TPM, all of the energy came from the Hillary v. Obama primary, and it only began to favor Obama when he was clearly going to win the nomination, and Hillary started with comparisons to Bobby Kennedy and her overt appeals to the racism of the Democratic primary electorate.  To portray the discussion as one-sided as you do is to engage in your own revisionist history.

    That said, I agree completely with your last paragraph, which was the point of my mention of the Dukakis rally.  A lot of people's interest in politics extends only the campaign part of it, much to the detriment of policy. 


    by brewmn on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 2:14pm

    Gee, I remember hrebendorf, wow I'd like to punch him in the nose if I ever get the chanceLaughing


    by David Seaton on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:19pm

    That's the graph any new movement in American politics should be focused on.  The spread's only getting worse.


    by miguelitoh2o on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 3:09pm

    I agree, but the problem is that it is difficult to translate for people that increasing gap into tangible realities of the day-to-day like inflation does with the price of, say, a gallon of milk from month to month.  One ends up talking in broad generalities about "working hard and harder, and not making any more than before." 

    An even bigger problem is how does one intervene and correct it beyond something like a government mandated executive-line staff pay ratio ceiling.  That would be something I'd be all for, but it would require a level of government intervention into the private sector that I doubt the general public would be willing to tolerate at this time.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 3:44pm

    Oh for sure Trope. And the Supreme Court right now would never countenance such a take over.

    A couple more liberals on the bench might do it.

    But our chance was lost in September of 2008 and we blew it. We could have just taken over Wall Street for a short time and changed the frickin world. ha

    I am too old for miracles. I never thought one man would change the universe we live in.

    But I think our President is doing the best you can under the circumstances.


    by Richard Day on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 4:42pm

    I don't even think there was a realistic chance in 2008.  I mean, look at the reaction Obama received when he tried to get involved in the restructuring of the auto industry.  Even that minor intrusion brought out the "socialism" rants to a high pitch.  Imagine if Obama stated the government would dictate salaries, benefits and bonues for all fortunate 500 companies, not just the financial sector. The silver lining would have been that Beck's head would have probably imploded during one of his shows.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 5:07pm

    If you put pay caps on execs, then the profits just go to the corporation.  Besides we don't need to do that, just raise the upper tax rates.


    by miguelitoh2o on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 5:27pm

    If the profits go the corporation, then it can be (although it is not a given and that is the problem) reinvested in new hires, increased pay to current employees, expansion of research and development, capital investments, etc.  Merely increasing the taxes on the wealthy, while not a bad thing in and of itself, does directly impact the tax home pay of a household.  It will shift money to the federal government which can then be reinvested back into the communities.  But as a policy position as to how to address getting non-top-executive workers to benefit in the increased productivity of the private sector it isn't going to be successful in any "new movement."  If there is some formula imposed, then before the CEOs and their underlings get a raise, they have to figure out how to spread the wealth to those at the bottom of the ladder. 


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 5:37pm

    Your point is well taken, but in light of the current corporate tax share in the US, I think taxing corporations is a good idea.


    by miguelitoh2o on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 6:01pm

    I do, too.  The question is how is that taxing framed. 

    One of the interesting things I found with the graph is that just a few years ago, the percentage was at a nearly 30 year high in terms of percentage before diving in the last couple of years.  Morevoer, it is a point it was in 1983, when we were coming out of a recession as we are now, and then it began to rise again.  So it will be interesting to track this graph if the economy "recovers" as it is expected to do in the coming years.  Unless of course the banks implode. 


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 6:32pm

    Here's a review in Foreign Affairs of an academic study done tracking the power of drift in policymaking of the US gumint over the past 50 years or so, and its effect in extablishing the income income inequality we are experiencing today.  The authors lay the blame directly on policy changes favoring such things as stock options and their tax code treatment , among other things.  /worth a read.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-...


    by miguelitoh2o on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 7:59pm

    Excellent link, miguel. Great article that should be read.

    I agree with the conclusion that Hacker and Pierson are "long on diagnosis but rather short on treatment." They make a very plausible case on how we have moved toward supremacy of the wealthy class in this "winner-take-all economy." And they show how policy drift has aided and abetted their cause.

    Ultimately, the article insists that "the task of restoring some sense of proportion and balance to the winner-take-all political economy is essential if the American body politic is to recover from its current diseased condition."

    Proportion and balance ain't going tp be achieved without a fight. But we must first realize that the fight is upon us and quit ceding to the other side that their march to supremacy is inevitable.

    For example, making deals with the other side that include tax cuts for them in exchange for unemployment benefits for us is perhaps only the most glaring example of the way in which we continue to propogate the "policy drift" that is outlined. We continue to undermine the stability of the middle class by accepting increased debt to pay for social programs (like UC) while simultaneously relieving the wealthy class of any responsibility to contribute to the common good. It was a most remarkable surrender, and we will most surely suffer for it as a symptom of our "diseased condition."


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:11am

    Maybe one way to influence the top end distribution would be to leave personal income rates alone and classify executive pay as a form of profit taking. Provide tax expenditures to create incentives for re-investment and progressively tax profits that are turned into private equity. The corporation pays the same tax on the latter whether it is packaged into a financial product or payed out as executive salaries.

    Under the present system, executive pay is a machine that contverts corporate profits into expenses. If the corporations receive no benefit from the scheme, off the hook reimbursement will stop without "taking money from people." 


    by moat on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 6:13pm

    As a general rule of thumb, at this stage of the "game," I think using the tax structure as the basis for the restructuring of wealth distribution is too loaded.  One spends most of one's energy overcoming the decades of anti-tax and tax-and-spend-liberals rhetoric.  What needs to be addressed is how individual corporations make decisions regarding their revenue and expenses, in other words the priorities.  While the share holders do have some right to expect their short-term interest is taken into account, corporate responsibilities should also take into account their employees, the communities they live in, and the nation as a whole.  I think we would be better off in the long run if we get the discourse to focus on sustainable growth instead of forcing redistribution through the tax system.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 6:26pm

    I see the coiled snake waiting for anyone who touches the tax code. Maybe no initiative can move forward without being poisoned by the terms of the common discourse. But I see one benefit to separating the corporate from the personal is that it leads away from the language of redistribution and stays strictly within the language of real costs being addressed. With all the push to address the deficit, one political answer is to start talking about all the costs that are being deferred. Debt comes from costs being deferred. The spectacle of the moment has Debt  looking like a special effect from the Matrix. But we are the Debt. The cost of ourselves is what is being deferred. 


    by moat on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 7:03pm

    well said.  We are the debt.  there's a bumpersticker i can put on my car.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 7:25pm

    And so the solution "at this stage of the game" is to privatize the tax system and outsource the New Deal? If we offer the proper incentives, then we can induce the corporations to accomplish wealth distribution in a socially responsible manner? We can replace the progressive tax and the social contract of the New Deal with something like "progressive incentives" that will place our "social responsibilities" into the hands of the corporate shareholders? We will govern best by attempting to reorder corporate priorities away from short-term profits and more toward social responsibility? 

    Grover Norquist likes this idea. Me? Not so much.

    That first "general rule of thumb" sentence in your comment could be used as exhibit "A" of just how far we have come in surrendering the narrative to the supply-siders who would "drown government in a bathtub" for their own personal gain. Sometimes, you really scare me with shit like this. The proposed surrendering of our governance into the hands of corporate boards in this manner is outrageously considered and really quite frightening. It's certainly not anything I would expect to be promoted by one who would profess to be on "our side" in discussions of how to make government work in the interests of all.

    But - as your second sentence explains - it sure beats fighting back against the prevailing forces at play in Washington, eh? Sorry, but I'm not yet quite so willing to wave the white flag of surrender.

    Seriously, Trope. Take a step back and read what you have written here. It truly is a profound statement you have made, ceding almost everything to those who would eliminate the middle class in the pursuit of increased profit and wealth for themselves. Surely, even you would come to a point where you would say "No mas!" and begin fighting back, eh? If not now, when?

    Take a look around at the challenges we face. Dare to frame them within the reality of the class war that is being waged against us. Then, read your suggestions again and ask yourself: "Which side are you on?"


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 5:36am

    Take a look around you.  Are we living in a country that is centered at least in minds of folks on the private sector.  What I was talking about how to deal with increased productivity without that wealth generated by that productivity being spread evenly with the company.  That has nothing to do with the particular tax structure one wants to impose. 

    If a household bringing in 44K doesn't bring in more money if you tax the corporation or the executives more.  That is not an argument not to tax the corporation or executives more.  I think we should.   But the household is going to still be bringing in 44K regardless of that tax structure.  It seems in the "old days" there were plenty of companies that would voluntarily share the wealth, accepting 1% or 2% consistently over the years.  Then it was 10% every year or the shareholders were unhappy.  Moving from looking at the annual reports to the quarterly reports to the weekly reports.

    As long as there is a private sector (and if you want to argue for the elimination of that go for it), then we have to figure out a way to live with the private sector that is sustainable for the long run.  That will mean some government intervention beyond what we have.

    The constant clamor for using only the tax system as a means to develop a sustainable system will get us nowhere, not just because of the anti-tax rhetoric, but not every problem can be solved by shifting money from the private sector to the public sector.

    To put it more simply - it wasn't some tax structure that created the the middle class in the post WWII boom and to which we all now view as the world we want things to return to.  So go ahead and keep attacking anyone who makes an effort to suggest some strategy to be done along with the tax system as some capitulation to the other side.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 1:11pm

    Ummm - there is nothing about Obama or Madoff that correlates logically or poetically with the chosen chart. Out of the 50 years that track productivity and income, Obama has been president for precisly two.  Madoff's ponzi scheme would not be charted on this graph as it was neither productive or income producing, never mind relevant.

    We won't even go into what the mythical creatures, who are apparently napping with lions, have to do with Grover's tub or this chart. My chart would look pretty good in his bathroom, though.

    Happy New Year & Peace, moment by moment or decade by decade. It's our choice how we celebrate them.


    by seashell on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 5:42pm

    Now that's a cool chart.


    by miguelitoh2o on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 6:03pm

    Thanks, Miguel. Upon reflection, screw that draino challenged weenie, Grover Norquist. I'm going to put it in my bathroom.


    by seashell on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 8:10pm

    Orthogonal correlation like it ought to be. John Denver at the center of it all iterates the latent entropy.


    by moat on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 6:17pm

    I suppose it is true that the country roads cannot over the physics of the burden and take us home, to the place we belong.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 6:34pm

    You are so astute, Moat. As AT perceptively re-iterates below what John Denver iterated above, when we are in a sector-specific benchmarking phase with all of its amorphous challenges, we must be clear given the demands from other priority areas, that if resources aren’t available for the target, then we have to restructure the target, such as our country roads.

    I feel so much better now that the chart and the logic are correlating again. You know, hopeful, like. :-)


    by seashell on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 8:21pm

    I love the way you re-allocate, aquatic aural device.


    by moat on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 8:31pm

    Coming from such a fine, fortified fosse as yourself, I am fulfilled. Thank you. Bows aquatically.


    by seashell on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 8:58pm

    Aquaman, where are you in our time of need?


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:39pm

    Gone fishin'.

    by LisB on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:49pm

    What a wonderful chart! Cool


    by David Seaton on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 2:47am

    I love it, seashell! Truly enlightening! LOL!

     

    Happy New Year!


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:17am

    Happy New Year back atcha, you sagacious, sainted, slumberous savior!


    by seashell on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:17pm

    Given the choice between McCain and Obama, Obama had the upper hand. Too many people were desperate for change after 6 years of GOPer's running both houses of Congress and 8 years of Bu$h. And that McCain didn't have the slightest clue as to the dynamics driving the 2008 election cycle by selecting Palin as his running mate pretty much sealed his fate. For myself, I made the fatal mistake in thinking a Democrat as President and Democrats running both House and Senate would yield legislative results the public were denied those 8 years of GOP tyranny. Each would have played off against each other, kinda like a full court press, pushing the GOP agenda out and replacing the void created with prime legislation geared to correcting the deficiencies the free market imposed on the working public. I was dumbfounded when it dawned on me the Senate Democrats were meandering fools who had wasted 16 years by not honing their failed 1994 attempt at HCR into a package that would have sailed thru the halls of Congress if they ever got a second chance.

     

    What annoys me most is what Congress accomplished in a lame duck session is the accomplishments I expected throughout the entire 2 years...not the few remaining days. Just think what HCR could have been if they had worked it like they did the lame duck. And financial reform or TBTF? How about that Pecora-like panel to discover how the financial markets melted down? And I'm sure others have their own pet agendas they would have liked to see come to fruition as well.

    In short, the end of the first decade of the new millennia came in with a bang...Bu$h v. Gore..., but went out on a whimper...accomplishments of the 111th Congress. The tree bore fruit, but it is easy to see it wasn't watered enough, not enough fertilizer was used to enrich the soil and not enough sunshine was capture to sweeten the end product. 


    by Beetlejuice on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:01pm

    Farming analogy for the serfs?

    We did get to beat on the barn door though.

    Now all we have to do, is figure out how to remove the hinges, in order to get inside.

    The pitchforks were beaten into shackles and yokes.  

    So the threat is dimisnished

    Now the elites have the sticks and the carrots

    The first priority Capitalism being spared, because the poor became the sacrifice, to the God of greed and materialism. 

    As the Nation sqaunders it's remaining treasures and blood on distant shores

    They hate us? Wonder why?

    Why hate me, I'm as disgusted as the rest, I'm only an unwilling, forced pawn. 


    by Resistance1 (not verified) on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:36pm

    Lesson learned. Never mistaken a dream for reality. They're fruits only for the subconscious mind and tend to rot if they're put into practice.


    by Beetlejuice on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 11:26pm

    America has become so weird that it can only be properly described with poetic allegory. It's the wonks that are missing the point... it is as if they were auditing the deck chairs on the Titanic.


    by David Seaton on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 2:49am

    It's more like they're re-arranging the deck chairs for the best view of the oncoming iceberg.


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:41am

    Attention   passengers ,in a moment we'll be stopping to take on some ice.Meanwhile  the crew and I will  test the life boats..


    by Flavius on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 12:27pm

    Happy New Year, flavius.

     


    by we are stardust on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 1:19pm

    Pull up the ladder mate.

    I'm aboard.


    by Flavius on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 2:17pm

    This  is one of your best.  Thanks.  And thanks for doing an "Executive Summary" version for all of us very busy movers and shakers.  We are indeed all dancing as fast as we can.


    by LarryH on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 1:26pm

    Happy New Year to all and may everybody get a pony.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_W18CWypE


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 1:37pm

    This ones for you LULU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvN29Xv_a-Q&feature=related

    Cool


    by David Seaton on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 2:30pm

    Latest Comments