Robert Reich: Why Obama Wins on Foreign Policy and Gays but Loses on Economics and Taxes

[Better Believe It]

Why Obama Wins on Foreign Policy and Gays But Loses on Economics and Taxes
By Robert Reich
December 22, 2010

Why have Senate Republicans been willing to break ranks on these two, while not a single Republican went along with Obama’s plan to extend the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income? Why has Obama consistently caved on economic and taxes, but held his ground on foreign policy and issues like gays in the military?

The answer is this. When it comes to protecting the fortunes of America’s rich (mostly top corporate executives and Wall Street) and maintaining their strangle-hold on the political process, Senate Republicans, along with some Senate Democrats, don’t budge.

Bipartisanship is possible on foreign policy. It’s even possible on certain social issues, such as gays in the military. But it’s not possible when it comes to the core economic and political reality of the United States today — the almost unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top, and the way it’s being used to corrupt our democratic system.

Not even Democrats in Washington will talk about the degree to which the nation’s income and wealth are now concentrated in the hands of a relatively few people, who have more power over our democratic system than since the days of the robber barons of the late 19th century.

Read the full article at:

[Skittles]

1. exactly why I grade Obama a C

[lonestarnot]

2. C- or a D. Still very pissed me.

[Skittles]

3. yup

the reason I don't go to D is I really try to keep in mind the tremendous hole left for Obama by that incompetent bastard bush - but I know Obama could have, and should have, done so much better

[lonestarnot]

11. Yes. I try to keep that in mind when I start to boil. Now when do we eat the rich for lunch?

[Poll_Blind]

4. Actually, for as much as I criticize Obama I felt he was exceedingly honest in his...

...commentary after this latest press conference. At one point during the thing, somewhere in the last 1-2 questions, he laid it out pretty honestly:

Q Sir, is there a divide between middle-class and wealthy Americans?

THE PRESIDENT: I think middle-class folks would confirm what the statistics say, which is that they have not seen a real increase in their incomes in a decade, while their costs have skyrocketed. That's just a fact.

What is also a fact is that people in the top 1 percent, people in the top 1/10th of 1 percent, or 1/100th of 1 percent have a larger share of income and wealth than any time since the 1920s. Those are just facts. That's not a feeling on the part of Democrats. Those are facts.

Cold comfort but at least he brings it up.

K&R!

PB

[democracy1st]

5. Research his economic team my friend!

[Poll_Blind]

10. About....must have been like two or so weeks ago, I was trying to...

..do just exactly that but I wasn't having any luck. Can you help me out with who the current members of his main economic advisors/team are? Especially if you've got a link to a recent-ish article

[democracy1st]

13. sure poll here you go

Treasury Sec Tim Geithner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGczVEWKgl8

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/15/tim-geithner-opposes-nomi_n_647691.html

Larry Summers
National Economic Council Director
http://washingtonindependent.com/38138/summers-defends-role-in-bank-deregulation


Budget Director
Pter Orszag

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/09/news/companies/citi_orszag/index.htm

http://www.economist.com/node/12685546?story_id=12685546

[Poll_Blind]

14. Big thanks! I really appreciate the links.

:thumbsup:

PB

[Better Believe It]

12. No real increase in incomes in a decade? Actually it's been 30 years President Obama.

[Fumesucker]

17. Closer to thirty five years I believe really..

But what's twenty five years among the wealthy and powerful?

[phleshdef]

16. Yea, Obama has never once pretended that tax cuts for the rich are good and will help the economy.

Thats why this whole thing is not "flip flopping" or "betrayal". He said himself as he was agreeing to the tax compromise that tax cuts for the rich wouldn't create one job. He said it was unaffordable. He said it was something that should not happen. He feels he has no choice because its the only trade off he can get to keep from rocking the boat for the unemployed and middle class folk.

I can understand people being angry with him on the basis that they feel he didn't fight it hard enough. But anything beyond that is dishonest hyperbole that contributes nothing to the debate.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Obama's own plan is almost as worthless, leaving intact cuts for the remainder of upper incomes.

We need stimulus not grease for the palms of the comfortable suburbanites and the professional class.

[pa28]

6. Reich has been correct about so much and he's correct again.

We have lateral agendas here and only the non-economic questions have a chance of seeing daylight. The events of the past few days have been great for Democratic morale and real victories but if progress happens on only one side they become the political equivalent of bread and circuses.

While we bask in the glow of social victories that have no financial implication the "very serious" people in Washington are sitting at a table planning how to cement the upward distribution of wealth. That's the real game.

[Skink]

7. Clinton did have some good people.

Robert reich. Brookslee Borne.

[pa28]

8. Richard Holbrooke too.

I've seen him pounded on this forum for some pretty good reasons. Despite the flaws I really admired him because he was an example of the "best and brightest" who never gave into the temptations of the revolving door. Yeah, Clinton picked some good people.

[blindpig]

9. Material circumstances rule. n/t

[newthinking]

15. K&R