« The Greatest Generation, Minus One | Main | Ten Books »

March 22, 2010

Comments

it's not polite to criticize your betters. and we Americans are a polite people.

Because we don't really understand corporate welfare. The people need someone to explain it in simple terms. By the time I got halfway through figuring out the bailouts my head hurt.

" but nary a peep about the abuses of massive corporate welfare and giveaways."

Nary a peep? Really? It is the only issue that may cost the Democrats seats in the next election. I think the middle class has been pretty clear on TARP and GM.

I think the middle class has been pretty clear on TARP and GM.

Not if they blame the Dems for TARP by voting for Republicans. TARP was a Bush admin policy, and if there's one thing that the GOP stands for, it's less regulation on finance. And more tax breaks for finance too, from cap gains to hedge fund manager loopholes (Chuck Schumer too on that one).

if there's one thing that the GOP stands for, it's...

that libruls are evil and therefore must be opposed no matter what they do.

"Not if they blame the Dems for TARP by voting for Republicans. "

I am not clear why we went from the middle class objecting to corporat greed to it's the Republicans fault, but Obama has, just like in executive powers, continued the Bush administrations policies.

Not if they blame the Dems for TARP by voting for Republicans.

I'm betting on Republicans campaigning heavily on a populist "Obama is the friend of Wall St" theme this fall.

It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. The slogan will be "that Democrat took your money and gave it to a rich guy!"

It will actually be hard for Democratic incumbents to argue against. The TARP thing started under Bush, but most of folks' memory of it will be under Obama.

Tag, you're it.

I am not clear why we went from the middle class objecting to corporat greed to it's the Republicans fault

It's about how to address the problem. Who to protest, who to vote out, who to blame. My point is that if the middle class is upset about corporate abuse, their only options are to:

1. Vote for more and better Dems (Feingold, Frank, Sanders); or

2. Vote for Ron Paul Republicans.

Voting for centrist Dems or any other Republican is a protest vote that will actually make things worse.

I mean, it's a democracy right? So the whole point is finding out who to blame, and voting for lawmakers that will do better.

That's how we got there.

Adding, Marty and Russell, that the handling of financial regulation from Dodd and the Obama admin thus far has been pretty crappy.

And yeah, Geithner is up to his eyeballs in it. Even the linked article says so.

But, again, voting in protest in favor of Republicans that are deeper in the bankers' pockets is the kind of insanity that I'm lamenting.

Getting primary challenger to Chuck Schumer is fine, though.

Obama has, just like in executive powers, continued the Bush administrations policies.

And he hasn't ended the Iraq War or closed Guantanamo, so clearly the Democrats are more to blame for those things than the GOP.

The weird thing is that the wild eyed right/left political discourse thing makes no sense, considering how much like the Bush administration, the Obama administration is. Considering the decibel level, one would assume we would see also a corresponding wild swing in policy initiatives, which clearly is not the case. I think its safe to say that the mainline consistency and trajectory between the two poles can best be characterized broadly as, corporatism. Bush and Obama are both corporatist, as was Clinton, because all pursued policies that colluded business and political interests in a mutually reaffirming circle that precludes both socialist, or libertarian alternatives to the (long developing and) ongoing crisis of capital. The central problem with this mutually reaffirming circle is that grip tends to tighten its grip as the major institutions of society consolidate into a singular vision of a one party system.

Whoops, that should read excludes not precludes socialist, or liberal alternatives.

It is the only issue that may cost the Democrats seats in the next election.

Because the governing party usually does really well in midterm elections when unemployment is at ten percent.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad