dagblog - Comments for "Obama's Down and Out On Wall Street"

Exactly what the unions have

we are stardust — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:55:08 +0000

In reply to Thanks for this and perhaps

Exactly what the unions have been doing in Wisconsin. ;o) Far too many people had been taking the benefits unions had won for granted and needed to be educated. ;o)

Now young workers there (and elsewhere) are far more apt to join AND view unions as positives for the nation.

Thanks for this and perhaps

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:49:53 +0000

In reply to Peter, Dreamer...anyone who

Thanks for this and perhaps he goes into this elsewhere, but...

I don't think unions can reassert their power without massively increasing their numbers.

That's what he says when he talks about "shifting power from the few to the great many."

That's why I thought trying to expand unions beyond the workplace was an interesting idea.

But I don't disagree that a strike is the "persuader."

I did the Cliff's Notes

we are stardust — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:49:37 +0000

In reply to Thanks--I saw that and picked

I did the Cliff's Notes version with the salon; my eyes read a screen now better than dead tree pulp. ;o)

I accept what you say, but

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:44:52 +0000

In reply to That's part of the

I accept what you say, but that does put them in a tight spot when they have to explain why they defended it, not just cursorily, but definitively with charts and graphs and so on.

They have to say either they were a good soldier who disagreed inside but was willing to mislead the press and the public for the boss...or they've changed their minds since.

As perhaps Obama has!

Peter, check out Mankiw's

Cho — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:43:27 +0000

In reply to Tangentially to what you say

Peter, check out Mankiw's oped which I linked to. Mankiw is Romney's economic advisor. And he's saying: tax the rich!

Interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/business/economy/19view.html?_r=1&part...

Tangentially to what you say

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:39:20 +0000

In reply to I think you need to move your

Tangentially to what you say about C&T and health care...

Newt was asked why he supported a mandate in the 1990s and is now against it.

Basically, what he said was that he was for a mandate and the Dole plan because it was a way to oppose HillaryCare. It wasn't a position he wanted to pursue for its own sake, but simply a political tool for killing off the Democratic plan.

So I wonder if they are actually for C&T or anything other than allowing the market to run free of like a wild horse on the open plains.

Of course, I mean CURRENT Republicans and, I suppose, the party could change. In fact, I see some hints that Romney is trying to break the stranglehold of movement conservatism on the Republican Party by NOT disavowing RomenyCare and NOT signing the pro-life pledge. But...

Thanks--I saw that and picked

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:44:48 +0000

In reply to Peter, Dreamer...anyone who

Thanks--I saw that and picked up a copy. Haven't gotten to it yet so your link will help me get some of what he's saying quickly.

AND revisit privatizing

stillidealistic — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 04:52:50 +0000

In reply to Like dismantling Medicare.You

AND revisit privatizing Social Security...anyone out there who isn't scared shitless by the prospect of the repubs being in charge of the whole shooting match is on drugs I'd like to get MY hands on!

Obama has certainly not been all we had hoped he would be, but I hate to think where we would be if McCain had won, or if the repubs take the WH and the senate this time around.

Comprende -- No Mas Immigre A

Resistance — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 03:08:24 +0000

In reply to Peter, Dreamer...anyone who

Comprende -- No Mas Immigre

A strike means nothing anymore, unless you can stop the imports of products or workers from another source.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing is allowed, to go to the ~~Slave~~ Right to Work States.

It’ll be the New Dred Scott case.

Go ahead and strike, shut down production in Washington State.

Corporations will just go where labor can't affect their profits, even if it means offshoring.

Screw labor demands.

Then when these Right to Work SLAVE States, give these companies Tax breaks to boot and the Non- Union employees can barely make a livable wage, they can go to the Emergency rooms for their medical care,

THE SOUTH WILL RISE........ WILL BECOME THE SOUTH HAS RISEN

Slavery will then become Nation Wide.

Get rid of these Right to Work States, it's the New Slavery.

Where will these newly located corporations find willing workers, hmm?

I know where they’re looking to find a few million replacement workers, I think they’re counting on Obama and the Democrats to give them what they want, so they don’t have to negotiate with labor at all; if American workers should strike or make demands.

Comprende

That's part of the

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 01:57:31 +0000

In reply to I think Goolsbee and Romer

That's part of the expectation of the job of people to work in those positions and are put in front of the media or allowed to talk on the record to the media--to defend the President's policies agressively, regardless of whether they have private disagreements or not (those get saved for the memoirs, whether they were actually voiced at the time or not). So the fact of their defending what was done doesn't tell us anything about what they argued for, or not, in private, and what they really thought about the decision that was made.

And very few senior government officials resign in protest--it's been that way for awhile. Peter Edelman did so when Clinton signed the welfare reform bill.