home

Reich: Help Main Street, Not Wall Street

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:21:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Robert Reich:

Capital markets may or may not unfreeze under the combined heat of the Treasury and the Fed, but what happens to Wall Street is becoming less and less relevant to Main Street. Anxious Americans will not borrow even if credit is available to them. And ever fewer Americans are good credit risks anyway. All this means that the real economy will need a larger stimulus than the $787 billion already enacted. To be sure, only a small fraction of the $787 billion has been turned into new jobs so far. The money is still moving out the door. But today's bleak jobs report shows that the economy is so far below its productive capacity that much more money will be needed.

. . . We should stop worrying about Wall Street. Worry about American workers. Use money to build up Main Street, and the future capacities of our workforce.

But Krugman Reich always hated Obama so he must be wrong.

Speaking for me only

< Report: Generals Knew About Guantanamo Torture | Obama To Wall Street: I Am "The Only Thing Between You And The Pitchforks” >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reich: Help Main Street, Not Wall Street | 101 comments (101 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Reich and Krugman supposedly hate (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    one another, but that's neither here nor there.

    Yep (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:24:04 PM EST


    Parent
    because Krugman wouldn't stfu... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:29:08 PM EST
    ...during the primary? or does it go back further?

    Parent
    Further as I recall the reporting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:29:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Reich's isn't an economist... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:34:07 PM EST
    ...in the sense that Krugman and Stiglitz are.

    For one thing, Reich does not have a Ph.D in economics.  He's a lawyer.  

    Further, in addition to his lacking the academic credentials, Reich hasn't done the cutting-edge research that economists and mathematicians have at Krugman and Stiglitz's level.

    Apparently, there is some resentment on Reich's part for never having been accepted as equals among the most accomplished and respected economists.

    I'm not sayin' it's right or wrong.  I'm just sayin' that this is what I've heard.  ;)

    Parent

    You have it right... (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by aeguy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    Krugman dismissed Reich when he was the Labor Secretary under Clinton as "not a serious thinker".

    Reich has always had a low self-esteem. He's still intimidated by Bill Clinton. That's why he lashed out so aggressively in the primaries against the Clintons. Keep in mind he endorsed Bill Bradley, mudslinger supreme, over Al Gore in 2000 based on his resentment of the Clinton White House.

    Parent

    Robert Reich (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 05:30:21 PM EST
    is a card-carrying member of the Democrats' Judas Club:  "Bill Clinton is a friend of mine, Bill Clinton has done so many wonderful things, however, with heavy heart..................."

    Taking his place within  the ranks of the other charter members: George Steponopolous, Leon Panetta, Joe Lieberman,  ad nauseum.


    Parent

    damaging little bleeder (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    He was a good admin guy though. Something was working.

    Parent
    What's that about? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    Did they date the same girl in college or something?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:29:09 PM EST
    Hillary. didn't Reich go on a date with Hillary once?

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:34:26 PM EST
    I had forgotten that.

    I honestly don't know anything about this purported Reich/Krugman rivalry.  I guess I don't go out drinking with enough gossipy economists.

    Parent

    catty economists (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    meeeooow....ssssssssss!

    Parent
    Stuff (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:36:07 PM EST
    here.

    Parent
    Krugman was right then (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    and he is right now.

    1996 was different than now I hope everyone can see.

    Parent

    1996 (none / 0) (#48)
    by Politalkix on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    was about instant gratification. It has led to 2009. I know some people who are lamenting about the state of the economy now who were cheering in the 1990s as jobs were getting heavily outsourced and America started losing its manufacturing base. Some in the "instant gratification" crowd really believed that you did not need to hold a steady job to remain middle class, all you needed to do was "play the market" and take advantage of the housing boom.
    I heard a lot of hot air about a post manufacturing economy in the 1990s. I will be happy if Obama can take the nation off the "instant gratification" mindset that leads to boom and bust cycles.

    Parent
    what a concept (none / 0) (#96)
    by JoanAllenNow on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:17:04 AM EST
    different responses for different times and circumstances.

    Parent
    interesting...Thanks, andgarden. n/t (none / 0) (#73)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 05:10:23 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL yes (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by aeguy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    Reich was such a tool during the primaries, kinda of like he was in 2000 when he endorsed Bill fkn Bradley!

    Parent
    Too much information (none / 0) (#11)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:32:53 PM EST


    Parent
    I am full of that (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    too much trivial information.

    Parent
    Trade IIRC (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:30:56 PM EST


    Parent
    The smackdown in Georgetown (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    Be one hell of a slap fight.  And a lot of particulate beard matter would be flying.

    Parent
    Really???? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 06:24:40 PM EST
    I thought they both hated Hillary......
    sheesh, I guess you can't trust some progressives bloggers at all. 8)

    Parent
    Main Street is what makes (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:33:47 PM EST
    Wall Street possible......it is not the other way around and it is so simple and easy to know that. The quality of your Main Street creates all the quality possibilities of your Wall Street.  Why are the people in charge right now so stupid about this? Main Street will always exist in some form.....it does in every single community on the globe.  When this Wall Street blows itself completely up, as it is determined to do, I'll still be buying boiled peanuts from that guy with his stand in front of the gas station.  His prices may change and they may be boiled over an open bonfire then, but they'll be there and we'll be lining up for them.

    That's my opinion too (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    but there really is a different mentality than ours out there, one that I see all the time working here on Wall Street.

    You and I believe that wealth is created through the power of labor, that the CEO would be nowhere without the workers who are willing to dig ditches or build widgets or do whatever they do all day.

    But there's another mentality, one which says that the workers are nowhere without some entrepreneurial job creator who decides to hire them.

    I happen to think it's some of each.  You need Bill Gates but you also need the grunts who carry out his instructions.  It's a cooperative endeavor.

    Parent

    You sound like Bill Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:40:20 PM EST
    I mean that in a good way.

    Parent
    most of the people making the ... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    ...decisions now, do not seem to comfortable around people who break sweat for a living.

    Far  too many people calling themselves entrepreneurs and expecting CEO compensations got us into this mess.  picked everyones pockets clean again and again.

    Parent

    You know what's strange to me (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    and my experience with business leaders that are true business leaders?  True business leaders get such a kick out of doing the whole thing well, money coming second after the rush and satisfaction they get from just getting it right.  With this new breed of STARS though that are beyond anything I can ever hope to become or understand (so I'm often told), it is only about money. I don't even think they enjoy their jobs.  To me it's bizarre and I wonder how people so jaded and angry about what makes up satisfaction made it to the top of anything?

    Parent
    The thing is that in the finance world (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:25:01 PM EST
    it is all about money.  

    Their product is money, their goal is money and their reward is money.  

    Their cycle lacks the diversity of someone like a farmer earning money to buy the seed, grow the product, eat some of the product (as one reward) and sell the rest for money to buy more seed.

    Our real problem is that some geniuses (she said sarcastically) got together appointing themselves Masters of the Universe and decided that the best damn thing for this country would be to focus entirely on growing the financial industry to the exclusion of all else.  Now they're too big to fail and failing - and their influence is huge because they've sucked up and lost all the money for the seeds.

    Parent

    But they are whacking their own heads off now (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    Doesn't that bother them?  Doesn't it hurt just little......wouldn't you want to stop or do the complex investment vehicle mathematical equations induce a sort of hypnotic trancelike state?

    Parent
    Yes I would, but I'm not hardwired (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    the way they are.  One of my closest friends is in finance and I ask her questions like yours constantly and she keeps reminding me that many of the people working in the markets and in finance are no where near as agile, strategic or even as clever as they are touted to be.  

    The culture is very unimaginative, few dive any deeper into a deal than finding out what their cut will be, and most have no clue what happens before or after their part in the chain of transactions has been executed.  

    There are exceptions to this obviously and there are some very clever and very honest people working in that sector, but that's the predominant profile in the culture.

    Parent

    Now I know how you come to (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:55:51 PM EST
    understand as much as you have seemed to about the mentality of the investment banking Playa's .  It has shown in your past posts, but I was pretty certain you were not a current or recent investment banking Playa.  I would like to thank you for sharing what you have taken the opportunity to glean because it has helped me to understand certain dyanmics that I was witnessing but baffled the crap out of me.

    Parent
    And it sort of reminds me of the (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:59:32 PM EST
    used car salesmen mentality as I digest your above post.

    Parent
    I have to say that I don't hate the (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    people on Wall Street at all.  I know a lot of the honest and clever people and there really isn't a single one of them that is not as angry about what is going on as you are.  These are people who would have much prefered slow and steady growth to this boom and bust model.  One of my friends was almost scary in his anger about Martha Stewart for instance.  There was nothing you could say about her that wouldn't provoke him.  I forgot at one point when I was staying with these friends and suggested that they check out Martha's sheets because they were nice and inexpensive - lol - boy did that cause a stir.  There are people in the financial sector that really do believe in sane practices and honest transactions.

    The real problem that we face here in this country and around the world is that the deregulation frenzy changed all the rules.  Our government opened the flood gates and particularly in the publicly traded financial organizations there was huge pressure to get into the risky toxic assets market.  There were big banks that actually stayed out for a time, but competition - profit - quarterly earnings - ultimately eclipsed the concerns about risks - "everybody was doing it" and in order to stay competitive there were banks that probably would not have but the pressures of the market place definitely egged them on into this territory.

    Anyhow, that's why I am more of a proponent of regulation than I am an opponent of the people.  The reality is that people are people and left without any limitations there are always going to be bad actors - even with them there are bad actors - at least with the limitations the bad actors can be somewhat contained ad otherwise reasonable people aren't going to be sucked in as easily.

    Parent

    Angry about Martha Stewart? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Romberry on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    One of my friends was almost scary in his anger about Martha Stewart for instance.

    I don't get it. Really. Why on earth would he be angry about Martha Stewart, and if he was angry, what on earth about that anger makes him honest or clever?

    Martha wasn't convicted of anything to do with securities fraud or dishonest transactions, she was convicted of lying to investigators and "obstructing justice" by having the temerity to publicly proclaim her innocence. The transaction that prosecutors used to go after her involved less than 50 grand total, which frankly is probably not much more than Stewart, who at least at that time was a billionaire on paper, might spend on a weekend getaway or a fancy soirée for friends.

    Anyway, I'm not sure what outrage over Martha has to do with where we are now. I do know that hers was among the prosecutions during the Bush regime for which political motivations might be ascribed. (Martha gave her money to Democrats and in the Bush admin, that's not too far from being an enemy combatant.)

    Parent

    He believed that she traded on (none / 0) (#87)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:36:25 PM EST
    inside information and that does have a lot to do with what we are dealing with now actually.  But that wasn't why I told the story.  I only told it because it was an example of a person in that world who does not approve of profiting without consideration to laws or what is right or wrong.  From the legal perspective, I understand your point.  But his perspective was heartening in a way because it showed a real committment to transparency and a level playing field for all investors that he did not feel was accesible in our markets.  As far as I am concerned, that's fair enough and I much prefer it to someone who is intent on defending someone accused of the same thing reflexively in order to preserve the elite order on Wall Street.

    Parent
    Business and finance (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    are not the same.  Different courses in college and MBAs, for example.  The true business types, as you put it, are not financiers.  (Btw, it's interesting to see the differences in thought processes, in innovative thinking, in willingness to learn more than the minimum needed, etc.,  even when they're in college.)

    Parent
    There is a difference (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Politalkix on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    between Bill Gates and run of the mill CEOs. How many CEOs start a company from scratch?

    Parent
    Very few. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    That's part of why Gates is normally viewed to be in a totally different class from most of the rest of the CEO club.

    Parent
    Bill Gates' father is/was a very (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    prominent Seattle attorney who surrounded Bill with the best and the brightest in business...THAT'S how Bill Gates managed to get his company off the ground and skyrocketing to the levels achieved. Bill Gates and Paul Allen were young, and brilliant programmers.

    Parent
    That's true. (none / 0) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:58:10 PM EST
    But even if it was a team effort, you can't say it isn't a significant achievement given what Microsoft has become - and you definitely can't say that a lot of CEOs have really understood their businesses from the ground up the way an entrepreneur like Gates does.

    A lot of the CEO's I've dealt with would be no where without their executive assistants' help.  Back when most people had secretaries, men were almost never started at that level while many women were.  It has always been interesting to me because my male counter-parts were often totally clueless when it came to doing something as simple as sending a fedex package.  They started with secretaries who took care of that minutia.  Anyhow, the point is that entreprenuers - people who start businesses from the ground up - definitely have a different perspective - and often - at least in my experience - are much more down-to-earth (not necessarily meaning nice) people than the other CEOs I've known who climed the corporate ladder.

    Parent

    Sure, he was there from day 1 (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:08:11 PM EST
    and he went to Harvard long enough to fill in the blanks, but he may not actually be as knowledgeable about the business aspect as you think. He had the advantage of some great minds doing all that for him while he was deeply involved in the programming of the software.

    Paul Allen, on the other hand, left Microsoft fairly early on and started multiple successful companies. He probably deserves more of the limelight for the point you are trying to make. Jeff Bezos and Amazon were once a good example, too. Problem is those mega corporations that started in basements turned out to be no better in the end. Microsoft and Amazon both have disgusting employee and hiring practices. They got greedy, too, and the divide between the executives and the workers grew and grew and grew.

    Parent

    When I worked at Microsoft (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 06:55:28 PM EST
    I did not find the employee and hiring practices disgusting. Far from it, in fact. But reports from friends who worked at Amazon during that time suggest that you may be right about Bezos's outfit.

    Parent
    I'm not a big Gates fan. (none / 0) (#67)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:36:13 PM EST
    I'm just saying that there's a definite difference between him and someone who worked their way up through a an established corporation.  You can claim that Gates has no clue about anything but the programming, and maybe you're right, but I find it hard to believe that he'd be unaware of the nuts and bolts of growing a company and have maintained control over the company as he did.  He'd have to be a deaf, blind, mute not to have absorbed something from the experience of going from a garage to an entire corporate campus with thousands of employees.

    And Bezos - he is part luck and part determination - not what I'd point to as an example of excellence - but OTOH he's certainly hung in there.  I have to say I underestimated his ability to prevail big time.  A lot of other internet businesses have come and gone and Amazon is still around so there's something in his favor.

    Parent

    But, they got just as greedy, maybe even (none / 0) (#69)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:46:03 PM EST
    moreso, as the CEOs who didn't build the companies they lead.

    Parent
    No you really can't say that (none / 0) (#74)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    across the board at all.

    Ambitious yes - control freaks yes - but they're not all greedy.  There are a lot of extremely successful entreprenuers who are driven by the process of creating whatever it is they make as much as anything.  Success does not necessarily equal greed at all.  Success does from time to time actually belie real talent and skill.  I don't have a problem with talent being rewarded.

    Parent

    You're the only one trying to spread (none / 0) (#94)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:58:49 PM EST
    comments about a couple of examples to "across the board". Nowhere at all did I claim my knowledge of Gates, Allen and Bezos extended beyond those three.


    Parent
    Bill Gates (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:48:27 PM EST
    got most of his help from his mother

    From her NY Times obit:

    "She was ... appointed to the board of the United Way of America; in 1983, she became the first woman to lead it. Right Time, Right Place. Her tenure on the national board's executive committee is believed to have helped Microsoft, based in Seattle, at a crucial time. In 1980, she discussed with John Opel, a fellow committee member who was the chairman of the International Business Machines Corporation," her son's company. "Mr. Opel, by some accounts, mentioned Mrs. Gates to other I.B.M. executives. A few weeks later, I.B.M. took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software firm, to develop an operating system for its first personal computer."

    Bill was one of those rich priviledged kids who didn't work his way to the top because he didn't have to.

    Parent

    he ain't no Jobs or Woz... (none / 0) (#86)
    by iceblinkjm on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:16:50 PM EST
    said as a HUGE apple fanboy.

    Parent
    In fact (none / 0) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:50:06 PM EST
    he bought the operating system (DOS) from someone else for something like $5,000.

    At the time Gates' little companty was writing stuff like COBOL compilers and other software for micro platforms.

    Parent

    And his father pulled the executive (none / 0) (#95)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:00:48 AM EST
    team together to make sure he got the strongest foundation to start out with.


    Parent
    Wasn't Bill Gates' mother on the (none / 0) (#101)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    board of a company that had a lot to do with the startup that was founded by Gates?  My memory is fuzzy on this but his family wasn't poor and unconnected.

    Parent
    Well sure (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    but generally speaking, the guy who founds a company has an idea.  And he puts up some capital.

    Parent
    I'll always be an entrepreneur (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    I did some study on it when I started a landscaping company once and that changed my whole perspective of everything, and it seems to be a personality thing.  Some people like organizing and risk, some people like hanging with us and actually show up and help us hatchout our sometimes harebrain ideas because they like being a part of things and giving a hand.  We are making serious plans to open a bar here at likely the lowest point in all of this.  I joke about having a jook joint, but this is something we have been planning now for about five years and what my spouse and I will retire into from military family and soldier.  And my spouse has been boning up on managerial info and he agrees with me that our biggest asset if we do this will never be anything greater than happy well paid content workers.  They're loyal, show up for each other when kids are sick, and will even be there if the whole building burns down and you have to start over again.  It is a two way street.......the dynamics of GREAT SUCCESS.

    Parent
    I found this part of his comments: (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    The March employment numbers, out this morning, are bleak: 8.5 percent of Americans officially unemployed, 663,000 more jobs lost. But if you include people who are out of work and have given up trying to find a job, the real unemployment rate is 9 percent. And if you include people working part time who'd rather be working full time, it's now up to 15.6 percent. One in every six workers in America is now either unemployed or underemployed.

    beyond bleak to the point where I could feel my stomach clench.

    Sadly, there is no frakkin' way that there will be any (more?) money for Main Street - not only will the GOP not go for it, but there are enough Dems opposed to it that it will never happen.

    And Obama wouldn't be courageous enough to fight for it even if he believed it, which I don't think he does.

    And Reich's last, throwaway line about universal health care tells you all you need to know about the chance the health care system will get the kind of reform that is needed - that and that he used the term "universal," which in Obama-speak means "Relax, big insurance company - your gazillons are safer than ever."

    the part that eats me about all of this was I had (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by iceblinkjm on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:50:27 PM EST
    a feeling since the primaries that Obama was a corporate hack and I still voted for him. There were only two real populists running and we know how that turned out for Clinton and Edwards. I am wishing everyday lately that we had them in place.

    As a Clinton supporter, I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:10:20 PM EST
    sure I would have called her a populist. And Edwards populism was always extremely transparent. He was the fakiest fake that ever faked.

    Parent
    I found HRC (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by aeguy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    to be more liberal on economic issues in the primaries, Krugman has said as much. I found it funny that the Kossacks did not want to see that HRC is in fact a liberal. I wouldn't call her a populist, but I found her to be more of a Rossevelt Democrat than her competitors and so I supported her (then supported Obama in the general).

    Parent
    Honestly (none / 0) (#77)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    For Clinton its was her FP that alienated the Kossacks, she didn't apologize or back down from Iraq quickly enough, and then she had things like Cluster Bombs that further antagonized the left.

    Parent
    HRC is Obama's SOS (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by aeguy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:02:40 PM EST
    She could not have had that different of a world view than Obama. They had almost an identical voting record on Iraq. I think most their criticisms were bull. My problem with the Kossacks is that they almost never self-reflect on bad analysis. I did not see any diaries after the elections that reexamined some of the nonsense they threw at HRC (and her supporters on the blog). I admitted the mistakes I made with analysis of the Obama campaign and learned from it. The Kossacks never seem to want to learn from their mistakes. They have dad judgment and are very stubborn. TalkLeft is miles ahead of the DailyKos. There's none of that mob mentality here.

    Parent
    Nah, it's just pols being pols (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:43:06 PM EST
    He needed to appoint some women to get women voters next time, she needed -- well, I'm not sure what, but maybe she needed to show that she must not be a racist, after all, or she needed to move from the Senate to more power, or she needed to get at least some of the things done on her agenda for foreign policy.

    That's all.  Sure, they're similar on many issues.

    Where I saw them as different, though, was in wonky work, which she loves -- and especially on economic issues.  I do not like the Chicago School, of which he is so enamored.  Even more, it looked to me like, more than a year ago, the economy was headed for trouble, and it was my main issue (as so many other issues I want are dependent in Congress upon a better economy, such as health care).  And I really liked the '90s economy.

    Parent

    LOL... bad judgment (none / 0) (#84)
    by aeguy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:03:24 PM EST


    Parent
    I was gonna say! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:25:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Dance with them that brung you... (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    I was a big Clinton supporter, too, and I'm not sure I would have called her a pure populist either -- although she certainly did find her populist voice during the primary campaign. I think the big difference between Clinton and Obama is that if Clinton had been elected, she would largely have had the working class vote to thank for it, and so she would have had more of an obligation to them -- and I do think that she would have recognized that obligation.

    Parent
    BC was/is not a populist (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by JoanAllenNow on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:19:53 AM EST
    Hillary very much is and always has been.

    Parent
    any pol willing to talk like that... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    ...in a primary is being who they are.  It's too risky to talk like that with a media controlled by multi-national corporations. I considered it to be politically suicidal.   And no I really couldn't give a flying ** what he does in bed. I don't think sex has much to do with policy. Obama really is failing across the board right now--on policy--and both he and Bush were the very model of modern marital fidelity.

    Parent
    His fakeosity had nothing to do with (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    the cheating thing. He went from smiling Southern moderate when the country was leaning more rightward to man of the people screaming populist when it had taken a leftward tilt. He had the most conservative voting record and was running more liberal then thou against Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden, all of whom had more leftward Senate records then him.

    Parent
    not quite but it's academic now. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:33:44 PM EST
    he always had an eye for manufacturing.  That's the basis of sound economy.  He emerged in the middle of the conservative peak and in an area that is culturally conservative.  A lot of your reaction is a form of cultural disgust--and not based on policy.

    Parent
    I really don't think it has much to do (none / 0) (#59)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    with culture. I'm basing it on voting records.

    And yeah, Biden's a twit. But he was still to the left of Edwards.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:46:58 PM EST
    again. Tell me again when Biden supports the call out the national guard in Michigan in Fall 2009 and there's a pile of dead autoworkers who's to the left of who.  

    Okay, this is speculation but it's becoming an increasingly likely scenario...

    There are reasons why Biden was allowed into the winners circle though he's got a very spotty rhetorical/policy record:  He was a point man for getting us into Iraq and he was talking about splitting Iraq into three cantons and he pooh poohpoohed the idea of government run healthcare---but supports the government bailing out banks.  He's very dodgy.  He's actually a serious worry.

    Parent

    btw (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:35:08 PM EST
    Biden is rightwing.   He's awful.  And there is no particular reason for him to be so.

    Parent
    Delaware. (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 06:09:03 PM EST
    Owned and run by the credit card companies. . . .

    Parent
    Sometimes, (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:37:23 PM EST
    regardless of all else, a single act makes a person unfit for public "service." In Obama's case it was his complicity in the blood libel vs. the Clintons. (Racists) For Joe Biden, with full knowledge of the political pressure he got from the banks, the damage he did to millions of ordinary Americans by supporting the banks' obscene, usurious credit card's rip-offs, and his support of the equally obscene Bankruptcy laws, scars him as unfit forever.

    IMHO, of course.


    Parent

    But what I thought was very interesting (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    was that CNBC set out after Edwards like he was OBL in the run up to the primaries.  It was unbelievable how intense and unrelenting their focus on him was.  So he had them fooled.  They were clearly terrified of him.

    Parent
    he certainly had them fooled. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:48:25 PM EST
    their treatment says it all really.

    Parent
    Headline: Reich Bolts Stable Door... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    ...After Herd Stampedes.  In related news...

    Door Hits Obama On The Way Out.

    Parent

    Wait (none / 0) (#76)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 05:32:35 PM EST
    what in Edward's and Clinton's actual voting records, not their rhetoric made them populist? Kucinich was a populist, the others were centrist.

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#98)
    by JoanAllenNow on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:23:40 AM EST
    populist/corporatist is not a left right thing.

    Parent
    say what you will about Reich (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    and he is tainted as am I on labor because it is our area of specialty, but he has been the lone voice (ok Kuttner also) screaming that labor was in a tailspin and predicted it last September.

    I read again today that we are bottoming and there will only be a "couple" more months of horrible job losses and then it will level off.

    I simply cannot see how that is possible.  Consumption is going to choke even further, cre and hospitality are going to collapse, the auto industry is going to implode after the bankruptcies from the trickle effect, and we have virtually no industry other than healthcare forecasting growth for the next 2 years.  

    I don't think companies have bottomed out in production yet and I don't think they will until October and frightfully, production may actually not bottom until March 2010.

    Personal credit outstanding is too high and forget job loss it is foregone at this point, the critical metric is job creation. Until we see an industry other than health and utilities in any semblance of growth consumption will continue to decline too rapidly for small to mid sized companies to absorb.

    Manufacturing saw less layoffs this month but I believe that is runoff of inventory at deflated prices to keep the lights on so to speak and expect that to continue for the next three months as they clear out excess inventory and I expect mfg layoffs to increase again.

    All of us will have to rebuild. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:06:32 PM EST
    It is a major drag.

    I just read the Moyer/Black interview (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 07:30:06 AM EST
    Frick I'm mad.  You know what I'm most angry about?  I would learn a small nugget of information here and there because I really did want to understand, and I would apply that to the rest of what I was able to glean and be able to draw conclusions as to how bad things really were with toxicity. Then I would allow someone to convince me to question myself and the facts because I'm no financial big shot........I'm not a playa so how could I really understand any of this? I have allowed people to persuade me that covering up can be tolerable.  God, I was so right on the money as to what had happened to us and I'm so ticked that I allowed anyone to manipulate me further.  I'm sorry everyone is scared here.  I'm sorry that the administration is terrified over the collapse that is going to happen whether we like it or not.  And then Obama talks about not taking fear based action!  If he isn't lying to all of us because he is afraid then is he just a liar?  Oh, and I swear to God if one more person says something about the MBA's understanding much better than I what really needs to be done here I will scream!

    Parent
    The only MBAs I've ever trusted (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:26:42 AM EST
    are the ones who freely admit that their course of study was largely bs - the others who always seem to say stuff about how they were told to do it in graduate school was probably the best way are the ones who are the Kool Aid drinkers who couldn't ideate an original thought if you paid them - and they get paid tons of money!

    As for the banking laws - I saw the diary at orange - I assumed when they "modernized" our system that laws like that had been nullified - of course since these were economists and bankers instead of lawyers who wrote the "modernization acts", it is no surprise that they didn't freaking write new laws that would address a whole host of problems including the FDIC thing I was talking about the other day.  MT - my dad worked for the chairman of the house banking committee many moons ago - Patman wrote and got passed most of the Depression era banking reforms that we relied on for protection for decades in this country.  That's the foundatin of my understanding of banks - or at least understanding of how differently our government is approaching our relationship to the financial industry now.  We used to be a nation of laws and now we are a nation of banks - it is really creepy and maddening.

    Parent

    As much as the stimulus bill (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 03:31:28 PM EST
    is helping to keep sections of our economy afloat, I was hoping to see a massive infusion of money into the manufacture and production of alternative energy technology and its components.  The amount of money in the bill seems to be quite small and we need a manufacturing stimulus to get our economy started.  Focusing on the financial sector seemed to be "chasing our tail" IMHO.

    Yes, yes, yes. We need new jobs (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    created, and I'm in a manufacturing state that specializes in making heavy machinery and related industries -- so a state hit hard by the auto industry decline.  So it is a state that, per a recent and very good article in my local paper,  had people poised to make more (it already does some) machinery for wind energy.  There were hopes, based on early signs about the stimulus bill.  

    But it seems not to be.  Instead, we're saving bankers' jobs . . . and bonuses.  

    Parent

    Reich of course... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    ...is one of the early Obama supporters. He participated in the effort to bury Clinton. I suppose that does constitute breaking ranks.  

    He also backed Bill Bradley in 2000 (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:32:54 PM EST


    Parent
    :) Everybody's models are beginning (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    to converge as to where we are headed here and what we must have.

    Parent
    Did Reich call for a larger stimulus back (none / 0) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    when it mattered?

    He did actually (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    Reich has been pretty consistent on this stuff imo.

    Parent
    i recall him making fun of this... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    ...sort of populist rhetoric in the primaries.  Although the main street/wall street dichotomy is utter bull. Obama is basically asking unions and their pensioners all across the nation to foot the bill for the financial crisis.  

    He'll be even more rubbish than Tony Blair when it gets down to writing the economic and social history.

    Parent

    I read it as an implicit criticism (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:35:08 PM EST
    of the Geithner Plan and the trillion it spends on Wall Street.

    I think Reich is probably in favor doing more for GM.

    At first I was not, but I am beginning to see it as a form of stimulus and now think more should be done for Detroit.

    Parent

    I've always favored it because (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    I think there is a value in preserving that workforce at least until other initiatives can be established and employing people - I've always been thinking primarily about green manufacturing initiatives - but anything else would be fine.

    Parent
    Has Krugman said... (none / 0) (#24)
    by magster on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    ...how quickly what he proposed would have begun kicking in to compare to what is actually happening?  How many more months can go by when we can no longer point to Bush when horrid job numbers come out?

    If Obama goes through with dismantling (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:42:06 PM EST
    GM and Chrysler, we can start pointing the finger at him right away.

    Parent
    For Obama (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    He has until November 2012. BTW, the budget is a good pone from all accounts and may start to get the job done. Reich is suggesting we need more.

    For Dem in Congress, 2010. Which is why they are silly not to demand more spending now.

    Parent

    Do you have a budget post coming up? (none / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    That both houses passed relatively unscathed (right?) and it's in conference seems to have gone under the radar because of G-20 and today's horrible NY massacre.  The only thing I've seen about the budget is Evan Bayh's vote record.

    Parent
    Tomorrow (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:17:48 PM EST
    Today I was restarting my jihad on the Geithner Plan since I was gone most of the last 2 days.

    If you have not noticed, I HATE the Geithner Plan.I hope it is stopped.

    Parent

    We hadn't noticed : ) (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:34:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Fatwah on Geithner. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    by Al Ar-Mandi of thee Big Tent.

    Parent
    Fatwah on the Geithner plan :) (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 03:11:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Great, and I have noticed (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    I obviously hope you're wrong because I don't see anyone stepping up to stop it unless Geithner himself sees the error of his ways.

    Parent
    Reich: Help Main Street, Not Wall Street | 101 comments (101 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment