Long rant that ends with my concerns with Pete Buttigieg

[Baitball Blogger]

First, the rant: Look, one major step to protect the middle class is a candidate that will defend the savings and investments for ordinary people. Every candidate, outside of progressives, seem to think that the only way to get ahead is to make 'mo money'. Progressives see the big picture and know that's only one part of the puzzle.

Those of us who were born to parents who grew up during the depression era know better. They were frugal and ever watchful of the next national crash that would spread misfortune like waves from an earthquake.

The one time my parents became optimistic about an investment, they paid for it. I saw them lose their first major investment through a kook called Robert Vesco and his Fund of Funds. This was a chance to get over their reservations and it only confirmed their distrust. They again learned a lesson that's hard to let go when there is no sign that political candidates take banking regulation seriously. And the crashes keep happening. For example, at the height of the stock market in the 90s when people were making a killing, my dad was content to earn 5% CDs. I realize that today that's a good investment, but by nineties standard it was very conservative. And as anyone could have told you, the rally in the nineties ended with a crash in 2000-2001. My father's investments were protected. He lost nothing. Everybody else lost about 30% of their investments.

My dad never forgot the loss of the 10,000 dollars he invested with Robert Vesco in the seventies. That was a fortune to him and my mother, who both had seen poverty in their childhood. And both were raised by their families after the loss of one of their parents. And both relied on education to dig themselves out.

And as their daughter I never forgot my parent's distrust of the financial markets, which is reinforced each time we have an economic crash. It happens so often that I sometimes wonder if it is an intentional way for old money and networks to replenish their coffers during the hard times. How else can you see it when we learned that some of these banking investment plans have a structure with "A" level clients and "B" level clients? And the "A" levels were protected, but the "B" level were not?

It is for this reason that I did not support Hillary Clinton during the primaries in 2016. She was just too close to Wall Street at a time that I felt that we needed someone who could stop the bleed out. It just doesn't make sense to me why nobody, but progressives, see that solid savings and investments are one way for Americans to be independent and self-sufficient. Despite this major philosophy difference, I voted for Hillary in the General and will make the same decision to vote for the Democratic candidate who wins the primary this year.

This election I have my perfect candidate: Elizabeth Warren. For where my family is, and always was, a candidate that will protect my savings and investments is critical. And on a very personal level, financial security is key to our independence from all the dirty things that go on in the social networking in my community. I've written about it on DU, describing an environment where I see people willing to give up their integrity to earn some juicy "inducement" in return for projects that reallocate resources in strange and illegal ways.

Now, there's a connection someone should look into. As generations of Americans have seen their financial security disappear because companies were allowed to breach their pension promises, and Wall Street is allowed to run amok without consequences, is it any surprise that ordinary Americans are going for the "easy money" at the local and state level? And by "easy" I mean supporting tribal decisions that undermine fiduciary responsibility to all the neighbors. This is how integrity in our communities disintegrates and creates distrust among neighbors.

So, even though I think Elizabeth Warren is the answer, it definitely looks to me like she is getting ghosted by the media. I do resent that this is already happening after a very flawed process in Iowa. But there's nothing I can do about that. The flavor of the day seems to be Pete Buttigieg, and here's my reservations. He's young and he sounds like a Centrist. During the nineties he would have been in his teenage years and may not have learned the lessons of flawed Centrist policies. At a time when we should have been paying closer attention to the banking industry, we instead deregulated them. That's a mistake I don't want to see repeated.

So, that's my one concern with moderates/Centrists. They may not feel the sense of urgency that is embedded in my DNA when it comes to protecting our hard earned money.

That said, whoever makes it through the primaries has my vote. We do have a very talented group of candidates.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I can't argue with your concern, but

keep in mind that it isn't presidents that regulate things like financial markets; it's Congress. It is true that presidents appoint cabinet officials who reflect their positions, but even they can't deregulate anything without going through the administrative rulemaking process. Most importantly, none of the Democratic candidates favor the deregulation of the financial system - they are all committed liberals who have spoken out against it. I'm not sure what you mean by "flawed centrist policies" (I still don't even know what a "centrist" is; it seems to be just another bit of jargon like "corporatist" that doesn't have any meaning except as an insult) and I haven't seen any evidence that any of the candidates favor the sort of policies you fear. Biden, for example, worked with Obama to try to get the banking system re-regulated after the crash of 2008. I commend Warren for her focus on government corruption and her work to establish the CPB. But I don't think you have anything to fear from any of the candidates (and Buttigieg is the only one who has no money, so I hardly think he's "in the pocket of the billionaires" as Sanders claims).

[Baitball Blogger]

2. I don't want to get into an argument with you.

There are two or three points we disagree with, but there's no point in debating. I just wanted to air how I felt.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Fair enough. I was trying to assuage your concerns a bit.

My only point was that I don't think we have to worry about any of the candidates' positions on financial markets. They aren't going to give away the store.

[paleotn]

10. Oh, God...."the pocket of the billionaires" shtick.

The way I figure it, if someone was easily bought they'd probably be a Republican already. There's a hell of a lot more money on that side of things if that's what a politician is into. I think the OPs point is Buttigieg is the latest shiny object the collective media has latched onto and centrist just for centrists sake doesn't work. He may be that, he may not be that, but that's the narrative that's attached to him right now and being pumped out 24/7 on cable. Not wanting to look too liberal or too conservative, even if those ideas might be what's needed to solve real world problems, is a recipe for failure. And the fact that their are interests in the financial community who find the status quo, the natural environment of centrists, to be profitable, the needs of the many be damned.

BUT....I agree with you that we don't risk much with anyone on the slate today. As I've said before, there are inches to feet of difference between them, and light years of distance to the Republicans. Republicans are receding to the right faster than the universe is expanding.

[oldsoftie]

3. You only lose real money when you SELL. You shouldnt invest money you may need.

When the market tanked in '08, I "lost" much of my 401k. But I was 45ish. Just left it alone; kept contributing (at the much lower prices) and the Obama stock run gave me back all the "losses" and a healthy return above that.
If you're older, you shouldnt have the majority of your money in risky stocks. But people dont want to miss out on what they see going up so they take the risks anyway.
We HAVE to be disciplined. But its hard.
Anyone over 65 would certainly take that 5% CD rate today, thats for sure.

[UniteFightBack]

4. If black people don't like him he's dead in the water. As far as the rest of your post I just can't

[CousinIT]

7. True. I like Pete. But his support with black voters is....

...almost nonexistent, isn't it? Without that, he's DOA electorally.

[paleotn]

6. The thing about the media...

The flavor of today quickly becomes the flavor of yesterday when they move on to another flavor. And it's only gotten worse since they now have to yak on and on 24/7, verses 6pm and 11pm weekdays + a couple hours Sunday morning. It serves no purpose but to gum up the works.

What I like about Warren is she spends less time on broad, sometimes meaningless, feel good statements and more on practical problems most American's face. I'm not into empty slogans, but I am into...that's a problem....I understand it and I've thought about it...and have some ideas for solving it. Those ideas may not be workable as is, but anyone who's involved in problem solving knows that's were solutions start. They don't start with empty slogans.

[TwilightZone]

8. A president can only be as progressive as Congress allows.

Give any of our candidates - and I mean *any* of them - a solid majority in both houses of Congress that would pass progressive legislation and they would all pursue very similar policies.

[beastie boy]

9. Most centrists in the race have gone throu the times you have.

So ignorance of the past, while it may be a conceivable argument against Buttigieg, is not a convincing argument against centrism. Obama is a centrist, and his administration takes credit for one of the most important banking regulations in nearly a century, and that includes putting Warren in charge of the nation's consumer protection bureau. She was part of the same centrist administration as Biden.

[snowybirdie]

11. We lived outside of South Bend

on the St. Joseph River a few years ago before and when Pete was mayor. It's a failing, rust belt town with serious loss of industry. Crime is a problem and it's very segregated. Abandoned homes and drugs. The downtown is somewhat gentrified, largely because of the Notre Dame University influence. The only time I heard about Mayor Pete on local news was once when he left for a year to serve overseas in the mideast and twice when he came out and married his partner. No mention of big civic programs or new projects. He's a great talker, but not ready to be President.

[Gothmog]

12. I love this ad

Link to tweet