Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
That's a cheap shot.
The Many Ways Joseph Stigliz Is WrongToo many liberals buy into this kind of nonsense from folks like economist Joseph Stigliz (from Real Time last night):
So yes, I'm going to take a few minutes to point out the myriad ways Stigliz was wrong in that short 1:15 minute clip.
First of all, in both of his presidential campaigns (2012 even more so that 2008), Barack Obama revolutionized fundraising by relying on small donations. This is simply a fact. It's true that in 2008 many employees of Wall Street donated to his campaign. But in 2012, after he signed Dodd/Frank, they abandoned him. The idea that he was somehow "captured" by his wealthy donors is absurd.
Secondly, during President Obama's first two years in office, while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, he fought hard for 3 big pieces of legislation: the stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Wall Street reform. Simply on it's face, those are three progressive pieces of legislation. But let's look a little more closely at them.
When it comes to the stimulus bill, I would suggest that there was a sense of urgency. At the time, we were loosing 700,000-800,000 jobs per month and so something needed to be done fast. In the Senate, Al Franken's election was being contested and Sen. Spector hadn't switched parties yet. As a result, with GOP obstruction requiring 60 votes for passage, the Democrats were required to negotiate in order to get a few Republicans to support the bill. They were able to do that and get it to the President's desk 28 days after he was inaugurated. Mission accomplished. I'll leave it to Michael Grunwald's book The New New Deal to tell the rest of the story about how well it worked.
Next up came health care reform. There are probably books one could write about that one. But when it comes to Stigliz's critique, I'd simply suggest that everyone google "Obamacare redistribution." Conservatives hate it because it redistributes wealth from upper incomes to lower and a lot of liberals simply whined because it wasn't single payer. But if you want to read a reasoned argument about all that, you could start with what Jonathan Cohn had to say.
Read More: http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-many-ways-joseph-stigliz-is-wrong.html
31 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
PS: Get his name right.
nailed it.
Glad there's been a few who don't have to lie to get attention and brainwash people.. like Steve Benen comes to mind. That guy never never makes up shit. He's calm, rational, and a brilliant political writer. He also produces the Rachel Maddow show.
http://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
Yup, don't you just love that part.
"cognitively captured" by wealthy donors.
Yep, PBO will be at their side for the long hall, unless they deny him. IMHO, that would be foolish.
I so love you!
Obama fundraising powered by small donors, new study shows
"The numbers cement Obama’s reputation as unusually reliant on small-scale donors to fill his campaign war chest. An earlier analysis by The Washington Post produced similar findings, suggesting a persistent trend in Obama’s 2012 fundraising strategy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.htm
Love right backatcha, she!
Thanks for your OP.. what we needed now.. was a good ol profiteering left lie to debunk
where he was sitting. "Simply not true." The President was talking about what might happen as a result of that cockamamie idiot ruling - which is EXACTLY what HAS happened, and genius 
Mensa member alito asserts with snark - "simply not true."
Well who got it right, asshole? Who called it, ASSHOLE??? What a jerk. So he hasn't attended another one since then? Fuck him. Who needs him there anyway. Go ahead and stay away, alito. You WON'T be missed. AND you were WRONG. For ALL to see, who could read your lips.
Chris AndersenMay 2, 2015 at 11:20 AM
I've been trying for years to figure out what bugs me so much about critiques like we here from Stiglitz and I think it has something to do with the fundamentally pessimistic belief behind it. That pessimism says that, no matter how hard we work make things better, there will always be some rich guy behind the curtain who will fuck it up for us, so why bother?
I mean really, if you were to go through life believing as Stiglitz (and many others do) that politics is fundamentally corrupt then how could you ever face another day? It is an attitude that is, at its core, hopeless.
Rather than think, "Oh, nothing good gets done in politics because of all the corrupt money involved", try thinking, "Isn't it amazing that so many good things do get accomplished *despite* the corrupting influence of money?"
I've been trying for years to figure out what bugs me so much about critiques like we here from Stiglitz and I think it has something to do with the fundamentally pessimistic belief behind it. That pessimism says that, no matter how hard we work make things better, there will always be some rich guy behind the curtain who will fuck it up for us, so why bother?
I mean really, if you were to go through life believing as Stiglitz (and many others do) that politics is fundamentally corrupt then how could you ever face another day? It is an attitude that is, at its core, hopeless.
Rather than think, "Oh, nothing good gets done in politics because of all the corrupt money involved", try thinking, "Isn't it amazing that so many good things do get accomplished *despite* the corrupting influence of money?"
RobertMay 2, 2015 at 1:12 PM (response to Chris)
You're overthinking it. It's Obama's hands-off attitude toward banker and Wall Street crime, as well as him trying to Grand Bargain away parts of Social Security. That stuff matters to people.
Churchlady320May 2, 2015 at 1:22 PM (response to Robert)
This is a reply based on fact-free reasoning. He did NOT have 'hands off' attitude. He converted the Bush-Paulsen giveaway to loans that forbade bonuses so we got repaid with interest. Second, some bankers WERE convicted of civil matters - you seem to forget what they did was NOT a crime because of both Clinton and Bush who changed the terms of the financial world. Dodd-Frank has replaced huge barriers (whatever mushy rejection of that you may think you have) that, as Nancy has show, are breaking up banks. There are now legal provisions to nationalize failing banks that was impossible before. As for the Grand Bargain - it was a dodge to show the total fraud of the GOP. It did NOT give away parts of Social Security but did offer a slight - yes SLIGHT - modification in the NOT guaranteed COLA formulation. Passing that was ENTIRELY contingent on the GOP raising tax rates on the rich. Did they do that? NO. And that was the President's entire point - they refused at ALL gain to themselves to do that one thing that was too precious to them. The largest divide in America is racial. The second largest divide is between those of us who do close analysis of public policy and those who simply get mad over hype and know no facts at all. Sorry, Robert - you're in the latter camp. You may feel righteous. You are simply ignorant.
This is a reply based on fact-free reasoning. He did NOT have 'hands off' attitude. He converted the Bush-Paulsen giveaway to loans that forbade bonuses so we got repaid with interest. Second, some bankers WERE convicted of civil matters - you seem to forget what they did was NOT a crime because of both Clinton and Bush who changed the terms of the financial world. Dodd-Frank has replaced huge barriers (whatever mushy rejection of that you may think you have) that, as Nancy has show, are breaking up banks. There are now legal provisions to nationalize failing banks that was impossible before. As for the Grand Bargain - it was a dodge to show the total fraud of the GOP. It did NOT give away parts of Social Security but did offer a slight - yes SLIGHT - modification in the NOT guaranteed COLA formulation. Passing that was ENTIRELY contingent on the GOP raising tax rates on the rich. Did they do that? NO. And that was the President's entire point - they refused at ALL gain to themselves to do that one thing that was too precious to them. The largest divide in America is racial. The second largest divide is between those of us who do close analysis of public policy and those who simply get mad over hype and know no facts at all. Sorry, Robert - you're in the latter camp. You may feel righteous. You are simply ignorant.
I have to give props to both Chris and the ChurchLady for their pushback. We need more of that.
And WTH did Robert mean by "overthinking it"? Is he saying that it's a bad idea to dive into the situation and think critically about what is going on instead of accepting what some talking heads say?
Thanks for bringing those comments here, Jamaal!
I don't watch TV, thank goddess~
They~
DU, gotta love it sometimes.
Enough said.....not going for a hide.
