Tweet
That could have been the lead of a front page Washington Post news story reporting on a press conference in which former President Bill Clinton touted the budget deal that President Obama negotiated with the Republicans. Remarkably, President Clinton’s record on these issues was never mentioned in the article.
As many former aids have acknowledged, President Clinton had been considering a variety of options for partially privatizing Social Security in the beginning of 1998 when the Lewinsky scandal exploded. With his presidency in jeopardy, Clinton had to rely on his core constituencies — labor, the African American community, women’s organizations — all groups that would have been infuriated by an effort to privatize Social Security. As a result, Clinton was forced to abandon this effort.
President Clinton also set the economy on a path of bubble led growth, touting the stock market bubble that drove growth in the late 90s. He also pushed for the financial de-regulation that helped clear the way for the abuses of the housing bubble era. In addition, he also actively promoted the high dollar policy that led to the enormous trade deficit, which was another major imbalance distorting the economy’s growth path.
During his campaign, President Obama openly criticized this bubble-led growth path. Competent news reporters would have pointed out the irony that at this moment Obama now appears to be embracing the economic legacy he criticized. They also would have pointed out that Obama is relying on a Democratic president who was actively planning to privatize Social Security, ostensibly to curb fears that his deal could lead to the privatization of Social Security.
128 Comments
Ugh! Bush just got his third term.
I wonder if Clinton, Obama and the rest of their kind are merely stupid (they believe what they are doing is defensible) or very corrupt. For me, the attacks on Social Security cinches it. No one in their right mind could believe that destroying Social Security would benefit most Americans. Only a cynical and corrupt mind would take form the old and the insecure in order to enrich further the already wealthy. Clinton and Obama, more so than the Bushes and Reagan, stand as glaring symbols of the predator state. Only a political creature believed to be “for the people” could “rob the people” this easily. Clinton and Obama clearly fit the role they had played so far.
Leading proponent? Eh…I think you have to have more than what some aides acknowledge to make that claim. I am extremely disappointed with Bill Clinton for essentially rebuking his own tax policy in favor of the Obama?bush approach, but I don’t think this argument is fair.
I’ve always regarded conspiracy thinking as a counterproductive waste of time; however, I’m beginning to think that there is a co-ordinated plan to gut Social Security and that Obama is in on it. Why else appoint Simpson and Bowles to head the Deficit Commission? Why pack the Commission with deficit hawks? Why cut payroll taxes by 2%, for the first time breaking down the firewall that finances Social Security? Remember also, that Pete Peterson sponsored Tim Geithner when Geithner became head of the New York Federal Reserve. Maybe I’m lapsing into paranoia, but the $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Fund represents a big payoff for a lot of people.
If I remember correctly, Clinton people Bob Rubin and Erskine Bowles worked with Newt Gingrich in the 1990s to privatize SS before the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton was definitely a leading proponent of SS privatization. Obama put Bowles on the catfood commission as a co-chair.
You are lapsing into reality. Well at least we are finding the weapons of mass destruction.
That Clinton considered some of these shitty ideas before the fiasco that was the Bush Era can almost be excused; but what Obama’s doing and what Clinton is trying to help him sell in light of everything we now know as a result of the Bush Era is totally inexcusable.
If President Obama were half the man Candidate Obama promised to be, he’d be ashamed of himself for betraying the American people time and time again.
As it is, Obama’s proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he’s a charlatan, and the rest of us are just left having to be disappointed and even angry at Obama for being what he is: a corporatist sellout and friend of the wealthy who tries to trick us into thinking that eating his shit tacos is a good idea.
I don’t think conspiracy theories as such are inherently absurd, or a waste of time, at all. There are plenty of conspiracies in history whose occurrence is not in dispute; what’s so implausible about supposing that there might have been a few more that we haven’t been able to discover and document yet? And knowledge of the existence of a conspiracy can be immensely useful in explaining ongoing events.
But conspiracy theories are so fascinatingly seductive that people have a strong tendency to believe them on inadequate evidence. One has to allow for that when evaluating the merits of any specific conspiracy theory.
It was Bill Clinton’s impeachment which saved Social Security.
You are a realist. You are not paranoid. What the oligarchy is trying to do is very transparent. But, like in a magic show, we all refuse to believe that what we are seeing is actually taking place. Because we don’t want to believe that anyone would be so corrupt as to purposely trick us. Peace
Ok, show me where he touts his proposal to privatize social security. I mean, Pete Peterson? Absolutely a “leading proponent”. George Bush…”leading proponent”. But I think one has to have an actual record of speaking out in favor of a policy to be called a leading proponent.
Yeah…I think that’s unproven.
Maybe Obama’s will save it again.
In a related note Orzag just got a job at Citigroup.
check out the book “The Sociopath Next Door” it describes clinton, obama and Bush and explains how they are able to fool so many people. According to the book one in 4 fit the category and they end up in politics.
“just left having to be disappointed or even angry” I think that we can be a bit more proactive than that. Peace
Obama is becoming toxic to every dem in the house and in the senate.
We all know OBAMA aim is to cut social security, his current tax bill that
helps gut social security is only his second move, we can’t forget his
catfood commission of crooks, who hate SS)
The good news is this past week, has all but ended the OBAMA adminstration.
The Idiot at the WH that said put Clinton at the MICROPHONE should be
fired ASAP! None of the DEM base likes CLINTON, that just made thing
worse. (our members throw up when they see CLINTON, they are also
having STOMACH problems when they see OBAMA)
Bernie Sanders really scared the WH yesterday, thus the need to throw
Clinton at the Microphone for no reason on a friday. (however this is not
1994 Clinton, and we are sending our MEMBERS a link to the BERNIE SANDER awesome speech, CLINTON would have been destroyed in this political enviornment! the same way OBAMA is being wiped out)
CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the NYT, are irrelevant now, when it comes to
controlling the news, they are all more TMZ. None of the above news
channels think the USA is in a DEPRESSION, we are!
Plus their are 23 DEM senators up for election in 2012. Most probably
want MR. FIRED UP! READY TO GO! gone! (our members are pissed at the
fact the rich get a tax cut, and they are getting tax increase if they
make less than $40,000.00) Who in their right mind is going to vote
for a bill that raises the taxes on the DIRT POOR and cuts the taxes of
the ULTRA RICH)
I couldn’t agree more. Especially about following the evidence part. Peace
What the Republicans have dreamed of for years Obama is delivering on.
The majority of the Democrats in the Senate and in the House are in agreement with Obama’s thinking on the economy, the wars, SS and a host of other issues. They are as much a problem as he is. Peace
Yup, and his last column at the NY Times was inaccurately critical of disabled people who receive Social Security. Nice guy just like Obama.
And Bill Clinton before him. Peace
I agree about the need to be proactive.
But it’s also important to blow the whistles so that the average voter becomes aware of the disappointment and anger among Obama’s former supporters, and people like Jane Hamsher do a great job of making our case. Believe me, the disappointment and anger that’s finally being vocalized even on the steps of Congress by House Democrats has a great effect.
http://www.amazon.com/Pact-Clinton-Gingrich-Rivalry-Generation/dp/0195322789
Next up: Obama trots out George Bush and Hank Paulsen to shill for his tax cuts for the rich deal with the GOPers.
Yep, I know…”the Pact”. Sorry. Still extremely hard to make the argument that Bill Clinton is a “leading proponent” of privatizing social security.
As an aside, I don’t recall ever having seen a former president walk in and take over a press briefing for a sitting president. “Go ahead and attend your party, Barry. I got this…”
The browbeating meme I’m hearing right now is how much (immediate) cash the payroll tax holiday (whatever) will put in the pockets of the American worker. I would not be at all surprised to see the usual suspects yammering on this point during tomorrow’s talking head yap fests. Pay no attention to that whole back door privatization agenda. “Look at this shiny thing instead!”
This tap-dancin’ bullshit is gettin’ real tedious…
The Clinton Impeachment stopped the Clinton attack against Social Security. Bill Clinton needed his supporters to defend him against R’s. This is after he was helping the R’s steal our Social Security.
An impeachment of Barack Obama may be needed to stop Obama’s theft of Social Security. I am willing to see Obama impeached to save Social Security. But I may not defend Obama the way I defended Bill Clinton. Actually I would not care if Bush41, Clinton, Bush43 and Obama were all impeached.
These liars and war mongers have another war besides the Phony War on Phony Terror. It is Class War against the American people. Choose sides. Obama is the enemy but he is a puppet of Peterson.
Where is Monica Lewinsky when you really need her?
probably not in the mail room, either.
It’s my understanding that the 2% cut in payroll taxes will be made up by an equal amount paid out of general revenues to social security.
If so, there is absolutely to run that cut through social security. Social security is just being used as a middleman, for no good reason that I can see.
Since treasury is paying for it, why not have the cut go directly from treasury to the recipients in the form of refundable tax credits, i.e., the type of credit you get even if you don’t pay income taxes?
Why not take the thought one step further. Someone explain to me why Jeb Bush would be a worse choice in 2012 than Obama. He’d be more likely to keep the wachos under control. Since he’s already a member of the masters of the universe he wouldn’t have to suck up to them. Heck, he even got to know old people in Florida. He might be more sympathetic to Social Security!
If we’re going to live in a one party state, might as well pick the most competent oligarch.
How about reading Jane Hamsher from last May on this subject?
http://firedoglake.com/2010/05/18/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security-clinton-gingrich-bowles-and-the-pact/
^Edit–”there is absolutely no reason to run that cut”
Thanks for the tip. Looks like a pretty good read. I’ve applied the term loosely to people I’ve met in the past, but it appears this book might apply some academic rigor to the subject. PDF of a chunk here:
http://www.translibri.com/pdf/Sociopath_Sample.pdf
greenbell,
Respectfully, I never want to see a Bush name in charge of anything!
I love Ms. Hamsher. But, she’s much too gentle and nice when confronting the forces of darkness. Peace
The thing often said of course, is that a repub president would never be allowed to mess with social security the way a dem is allowed to.
Remember Bush’s trial balloon on privatization a few years ago? The washington dems united against it.
I would rather have an incompetent dictator. They are easier to fight. Obama is quite incompetent. But Jebbie is just as big a Fascist as is Marvin or Chimpie. Actually
Obama is a fascist but he needed to conceal his criminal nature to get elected. The Bushies including Jeb, flaunt their criminality.
Yep. It’s rapidly becoming the ninth George H. W. Bush administration – 1980 through 2012 (32 years). Makes you wonder who Cheney used as his model of the Vice Presidency. And all the “experienced hands” for future administrations will come from this legacy.
Don’t be so respectful. F*** Bush and anyone who suggests that he or anyone in his clan ever be president again. Peace
Yep, it’s from the Pact. Again, you need more than that to claim Bill Clinton as a “leading proponent” of privatizing social security. You could easily argue Bill Clinton is a leading proponent of free trade, but social security privatization? I don’t think so.
Don’t I know you from soewhere pilgrim. MLW perhaps? Peace
Right now SS does not contribute to the deficit since it is paid for from specific SS payroll deductions. If Obama changes that, even a little, to pay some of SS from general revenue doesn’t that open the door to attacks from the right that SS contributes to the deficit?
If the aggregate of ones actions lead to a desired result they never have to “have an actual record of speaking out” on that result. In politics, it is usually best if they don’t clearly speak out on their true goal when it is unpopular to the constituency.
I can’t tell he ever left office.
Also “Political Ponerology” by Andrew Lobaczewski. “Ponerology” is an old term for the study of evil. I’m still trying to plow through it.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski_2.htm
He also talks about “pathocracies”, societies dominated by psychopathic leaders.
this morning Obama said he loves the USA middle class. “NOT!!!”
Bernie Sanders loves the USA middle class
Obama how dumb is your political team? very dumb!
you do know a vast majority of your citizens
are looking for jobs
trying to hold on to their homes
trying to feed their families
trying to make car payments
a lot of them have loss every thing
you do know this OBAMA?
so why are you worried about some CHRISTMAS PARTY?
We know you don’t care about us OBAMA, because none of us are worrying
about a Christmas Party! we are living check to check, a lot of us
are living un-employment check to un-employment check, the 99ers don’t
have anything! they are just losing everything they ever had!
you did not hear anything BERNIE SANDERS said yesterday!
“coming soon OBAMA running down a beach in HAWAII on Christmas day, and telling the middle class of the USA I love you, now let me get back to the SUN and FUN”
clearly this man works for the ULTRA RICH
OBAMA you and your staff are clueless!
By the Way take some time like the rest of us and listen
to BERNIE SANDERS a true American Hero.
Ha! I wish his clueless advisors would tell him it’s a good “post-partisan” strategy.
It’s not just that Obama and his staff and supporters are clueless. Obama thinks he can lie to our faces and we will believe him. Such contempt.
Well, to be fair, it was the staff Chrismas Party I believe. Probably all had their wages frozen but they got a cracker and a glass of punch.
Obama and Clinton use Neocon Krauthammer to tout the “deal” as well.
I’ve considered both expalanations, cate’s and jedi’s and concluded it’s both. Dude don’t know what the fuck he’s doin’ but also assumes we’ll always support him no matter and takes progressives for granted -which, in my view, is contemptuous.
Once you figure the folks who claim to be on your own side are lying to you, you experience betrayal. Betrayal is far worse than opposition. That’s we’re more likely to know the name Benedict Arnold than that of any British general.
You are right.
That is a lie.
I was there – reading the lobbyist reports for the insurance industry.
Clinton was pushed by the GOP to take a 2% cut in the payroll tax going to the trust and instead send it to private savings accounts run by SSA. He rejected that idea and instead proposed ADDON VOLUNTARY payroll deductions in his State of the Union.
Dean Baker is correct that aids say he was “considering” the GOP proposals.
Dean Baker is wrong when he goes from that to “leading advocate of privatizing Social Security”.
The accusation is a left over smear from the Obama folks that was proposed by their corporate allies – and which the GOP – Newt – provided cover for via his book on the “considering” proposals fact.
Indeed Hillary haters had to find something to negate the memory of peace and prosperity and justify the election of a limited experience right of center consensus seeker.
cate it is already happening. FDL and environs get a lot of trolls complaining about how in order to pay for those “pieces of paper in a filing cabinet” (aka Special US Treasury Bonds), the funds will have to come from the Treasury General Fund, therefore Social Security is/will be contributing to the National Debt and the annual deficit.
Jane is wrong.
I didn’t know the clan ever left – apparently he’s saving our economy since if we don’t do the Bush tax cuts for all, the stock market will crash.
The “fighter” Obama promises to “fight” the deal he is making in 2012.
But he caved to the argument that ending the Bush tax cuts hurts prosperity’s return.
How much money do you want to put down on Obama not caving to the argument that ending the Bush tax cuts hurts prosperity’s continuation?
And that includes the new 2% reduction in ee payroll tax – ending it after it “works” would be crazy – right?
So now SS is then lacking in projected funds and must end – despite the fact the removal of the wage cap being able to generate the equivalent of a 2% payroll tax increase would be getting us back to the current situation, the GOP would never pass that solution. but Obama will OK whatever solution – destruction of SS – that the GOP endorse at that point because he is a change maker and a consensus builder.
People have a far greater understanding now when we are reaping the predictable results (Paul Volker and others) of the harm that was the direct result of the repeal of Glass Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act among other pieces of legislation that were the legacy of the Clinton administration and it’s embrace of the DLC, Third way, triangulation, co-operation with Repubs, etc.
So, to trot out Clinton is not a net positive re-affirment of the compromise that I can see. Obama won because many rejected Bill Clinton personally, remember?
And I’m sure it’s just a coincidence but I saw Doris Kearns Goodwin pontificating on MSNBC this morning about how Clinton was the third most popular modern era President – Kennedy then Reagan then Clinton – and how Presidents are often misunderstood in their own times but that historians in 20/20 hindsight often get the larger perspective of all the good they have done. Doesn’t W blather on about this all the time?
To me a major problem is the widespread ignorance of voters on how Social Security is funded and works. And ignorance of many other things. These people would be our allies, for the most part, if they saw how each of these issues impact them personally. A group or politician who could reach out effectively could win votes so that we could dump this right-wing crowd.
I dunno, you can only front run public awareness so much. One step ahead and you’re clever, two steps and your a genius, three steps and then put you in a padded cell.
Tax cuts for the rich is simple corruption. The payroll tax Trojan Horse is betrayal.
pw downstairs just posted this simply unfathomable link
One in Three Workers Will See Tax Hikes under Obama’s GOP “Tax Cut” Plan
http://my.firedoglake.com/teddysanfran/2010/12/10/one-in-three-workers-will-see-tax-hike-under-obamas-gop-tax-cut-plan/
edit
that links to a post from our very own teddy partridge
Hmmm… she says that 4% of the population are pure sociopaths. That pretty much covers the rich and wanna be rich.
Sociopaths do have a distinct advantage in our corporate and political culture. Given enough time, the wealth and power of the nation would be completely in the hands of sociopaths.
“President Clinton also set the economy on a path of bubble led growth, touting the stock market bubble that drove growth in the late 90s. He also pushed for the financial de-regulation that helped clear the way for the abuses of the housing bubble era. In addition, he also actively promoted the high dollar policy that led to the enormous trade deficit, which was another major imbalance distorting the economy’s growth path.”
WOW – where to start. The stock market bubble was deminimus to the growth in GDP/jobs under Clinton (Dean – you and I have seen those studies – do you disagree with them?) – plus the bubble burst before a year before the end of his term and had little effect on economic activity (the charts that proclaim a tiny minimal 6 month recession after 3 months of Bush have the same shape before and after that recession – it was an arbitrary call). The financial collapse was an investment bank caused problem – regulated or not regulated by the Federal Reserve – and was , could not be affected, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) that repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Again – Investment banks were never under Glass-Steagall. The mortgage crisis was not a crisis until Bush opened the door to liar loans and non-regulation of derivatives (yes- Clinton should have pushed for derivative regulation but such was impossible with Phil Gramm – future Swiss Bank lobbyist- and Greenspan – hater of all regulation).
That high dollar policy had benefits – lower cost of living – and Germany does very well with a high Euro policy – thank you very much.
Dean – your personal history and education is impressive – so I am confused as to why you are framing your thoughts this way.
Oh please. This is nuts. Bill Clinton has a pretty great record on speaking out for policy on which he wanted to implement.
Exactly.
With both Obama and the Clinton’s, all roads lead to Robert Rubin.
There are shades of differences. For example, both Clinton’s have displayed a level of competence which eludes Obama but… these folks basically serve the same masters.
Shoulda coulda woulda, there is always some rotating villain to blame. Blame Phil Gramm, sure and UBS. But I blame Bill Clinton also. He enabled the New World Order. He has covered up the the Phony War on Phony Terror same as Bushies/Obama.
Plus Bill Clinton is helping Barack Obama steal our Social Security for Petey Peterson.
Clinton delivered speeches on reform of Social Security and Medicare reform, e.g., http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts.html#forum40798 and others on that page.
Since most of you don’t read Charles Krauthammer — for obvious reasons — let me quote something from his recent piece in the Washington Post:
“If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. … And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years. … No mean achievement. After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing debt. And this budget busting occurs less than a week after the president’s deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality. … Stimulus II will still blow another near-$1 trillion hole in the budget. … the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012. Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.”
Buzz here. Now, here’s the funny thing about this. There is a really strong reason for many Rs to oppose this “deal” — it lowers the risk of a double dip and improves Obama’s chances in 2012. (To listen to Bill Clinton, it greatly improves those chances.) And Krauthammer is calling attention to it by pretty directly mocking the R leadership who were parties to the “deal.”
Some Tea Party leaders are already on record opposing the “deal.” If someone like Rush comes out against it, all bets are off. While that may seem unlikely, it’s instructive and Schadenfreudey to think about where that would leave Mr. Bipartisan.
How pathetic that Obama had to call on the guy who called him “the biggest fairy tale ever” to save his bacon. Clinton himself looked like a shriveled up piece of old bacon.
No one is more irrational about Bill Clinton than progressives. They vastly undervalue him, just as they overvalued Obama. This has led to the catastrophe of Barack Obama.
The Clinton economy of the 90s came about because Clinton raised taxes on the rich, which neither a Republican nor Obama would ever do. The fact that the deficit was not being paid off suggests it was not a bubble.
Clinton’s version of NAFTA had protections for workers and the environment, which were gutted by the Republicans. Obama would never even think to have such safeguards.
There is also the fact that Clinton was President at the height of the Republican Revolution, when a certain amount of concession would be required. Obama has no such excuses. He took office when the Republicans were down. Instead of running with his advantage, he piddled it away–in the same way Bush II piddled away the Clinton surplus.
I’m also guessing a good number of them end up running corporations and sitting on corporate boards.
That socialist Obama should publicly apologize to Cheney. /s
I must apologize for the wholly unnecessary use of the “C” word. :)
True.
The 90′s were the dot com boom hyped even further by all the tech spending leading up to Y2K. In the ’90s American corporations connected Asia to the internet and no one in the White House or Congress either understood or cared about the impact on jobs in the US. They still don’t.
Yeah, people are still pretty sore at the Clintons and Bush’s for all the nasty trade deals.
The deposit they paid for the glass was returned, less a small fee, at the end of the party.
“…the funds will have to come from the Treasury General Fund, therefore Social Security is/will be contributing to the National Debt and the annual deficit.”
Using their logic, China, Japan, Goldman, Citi, etc…, also contribute to the deficit every time Treasury redeems the notes they hold. Where is the talk of defaulting on them?
The drive to go after SS is is driven by sociopaths attempting to rip off those they perceive to be powerless.
There was also Clinton’s gutting of Glass-Stegall, which ever since then we’ve been surrounded by Rubinites – look at Orzag being the latest Rubinite to get his payday.
“a repub president would never be allowed to mess with social security the way a dem is allowed to.”
That’s my take also. A lot of Dems currently sitting on their hands would be screaming bloody murder if the Repubs were going after SS.
Same for HCR, escalating abuses of executive privilege, backtracking on pollution regulation, and practically everything else Obama has “accomplished”.
“Obama is quite incompetent.”
That depends upon your perspective.
If you assume that he has a progressive agenda, then yes, he is incompetent.
If you assume that he has an authoritarian corporatist agenda, has been very successful.
I believe the latter is true.
Agreed. Here’s Dean Baker, a very smart man, making the totally unfounded claim that Bill Clinton is a “leading proponent” of privatizing social security when there is absolutely no evidence to make that claim. As I say above, is it fair to call Bill Clinton a “leading proponent” of free trade? Sure. But privatizing SS? Well, that most be the best kept secret in Washington.
One can argue the past, but right now Clinton is currently doing everything he can to help Obama succeed. I would say that is an excellent reason to “undervalue” him.
it is what the Democrats stand for – it takes willful delusion to believe otherwise. what actual good have they done for regular folks in the last 30 years that can compare against their long record of malign policies?
Google “Clinton privatizing Social Security”
Yeah, yeah, the Pact. You really shouldn’t have to google such a thing if a President is indeed a “leading proponent”. Do you have to google Bush privatizing social security” to make the statement he is a “leading proponent”? Of course not.
I’m not sure that Obama, or many other politicians, are sociopaths—although the type does seem to be over-represented in politics along with social dominating authoritarians. I suspect that what we are seeing, in the current tax “deal” for example, is a sort of practical or expedient sociopathy and is not the manifestation of a permanent psychological defect.
What has been occurring over the last generation or so is a breakdown of the symbiotic relationship between the owning class and the rest of US society. When the owning class can invest profits extracted from the nation overseas, set up off shore accounts to avoid taxes, force the nation into war, gamble with the money from other people’s retirement accounts and mortages, etc., they cease to provide the benefits to the rest of society for which their class is supposed to be responsible. Historically, the rich are allowed to be rich provided they use their wealth, power and position to give something to the rest of their society that those without their resources can’t do for themselves. In other words, in a balanced, symbiotic society, the rich have a responsibility to those down the socioeconomic ladder and vice versa.
This relationship in the US is damn near destroyed. When the rich can buy politicians to serve their interests, then the situation is further exacerbated by wrecking the representative democracy that might help maintain a societal balance. Who is a politician going to work for, the majority of US citizens or the owning class that provides them with the millions of dollars they need to keep their jobs? Obama, Clinton, et. al., like the owning class, probably don’t give a fuck about most US citizens not because they are sociopaths but because they don’t have to.
Unless a symbiosis is restored, we can expect more George W.s and Obamas as well as the continued redistribution of wealth upwards that has been taking place at such an accelerated pace since the end of the Carter administration.
I’m on your side here. “Unfounded claim” is just a tad strong.
What we sometimes mistake for conspiracy is merely the coalescence of shared interests. If two or more parties are working toward the same end, no formal conspiratorial meeting is necessary. In the end, the results are often the same.
Has Bill Clinton criticized Obama’s scheme in “The Catfood Bill” to stop funding Social Security?
The Toxic Obomination will try to pull the Clinton Triangulation Con yet again, but unfortunately that scam is fresh in our memories and is not going to work. We do not want to be “CLINTONED IN THE ASS” again!
Leading proponent or whatever … it’s subjective … the dude had a deal in place with newt fucking gingrich to raise the age for social security eligibility, change the COLA so that cost of living adjustments were decreased and push for social security privitization … aka decrease the payout on social security … all during a time that there was almost zero call for it from the public … all so that the big corporate lap dawg could keep wall street and his other corporate, plutocrat sponsors tickled. That’s the bottom line and that is well-documented.
So, you people that are truly infected with cds can try to shade it and say he wasn’t a “leading proponent” … whatever … he was a powerful proponent and was going to do his damndest to deliver it for his big moneyed sponsors just like he did on so many other issues regarding free trade, deregulation of wall street, welfare reform, etc. And he’s made a damn good bit of money since he left office in appreciation for selling us out to big money. I guess that’s just a coincidence to you morons.
He’s a disgrace and the idiots that still back him and clinge to their romantic notions of the clinton years, when much of the groundwork for the economic problems that followed later was laid, are damned fools.
Z
You’re damned right.
Z
I know … that tells you a lot about the big corporate lap dawg, he’s pumping up krauthammer as a man whose opinion should be respected when the dude has been wrong about almost damn thing these past 10 years. But hey, clinton’s a neo-liberal and krauthammer is a neo-con and there really ain’t much difference between the two except the letter before their name … d and r.
Z
Have you heard the saying We will beat them from within.The Republican’s have beaten the Democrat’s again from within.At first it was not so noticeable because of the dot com boom.Clinton gave ower jobs away.Ross Pero said he would.Clinton (slick willie) 1st.Republican clameing to be a Democrat.2nd. Obama started working on the Republican wish list from day one.Bail outs only to inhance wall street.First time in my near 60 years that the Dow has gone up and jobs have went down.Forced health insurance when he campained on Health Care. Get sick you’ll know the differance.Tax cuts for the last ten years and jobs wages and benifits have gone down in the USA.The tradors of ower nation need there tax cut where thay can invest in China.
“I dunno, you can only front run public awareness so much. One step ahead and you’re clever, two steps and your a genius, three steps and then put you in a padded cell.”
Boy, ain’t that the truth. Truly a tightrope act. Which is probably what deters so many politicians from leading, rather than just following onlyl after the safest path is clear.
You do have to wonder. I remember that it struck me when Edwards was running how little respect he had from the establishment. Well, it’s obvious now there was good reason for their suspicion. But it also struck me as odd how receptive the establishment was to Obama back in 2008. Well, I think we also know they had reason for that too!
One thing’s for certain, we are not being careful enough to check out our candidates. We keep buying these pretty phonies.
clinton’s secretary of treasury, rubin, had a part to play in the stock market bubble … getting in greenspan’s ear and selling him the “productivity miracle” bullshit which led greenspan to recklessly increase the money supply which played a large part in the bubble … and rubin did not fall like an asteroid into clinton’s cabinet; clinton put him there most likely becoz wall street wanted him there and that would lead to campaign contributions from them. The ultimate responsibility was greenspan’s, but rubin played a role in persuading him.
The huge stock market bubble … which doubled nasdaq in one year and led to easy financing to many internet companies with merely a dream had little to do with employment in that time? I think that’s bullshit. That led to a lot of money circulating into our economy and was really the beginning of the consumer driven economy IMO. The stock market bubble burst in clinton’s last year … that is correct … and it was no coincidence that the economy was also foundering during that year which gave some impetus to the bush tax cuts … not that I’m blaming the tax cuts on clinton.
And you also don’t think that the lack of regulation and deregulation during clinton’s era didn’t assist wall street in creating the mishmash of misleading securities they used to bundle up and hide the risky mortgages that were dished out during the housing bubble. If not, WOW!
It was not “impossible” for clinton to push for derivative regulation … only someone with true cds would say that … brooksley borne was pushing for it within his administration, but she was drowned out by summers and rubin amongst others.
The glass-steagall repeal allowed the stability of our banking system to rest considerably more precariously upon risky bets by investment arms of the depository banks instead of having those bets more isolated in separate companies. The repeal did this by removing the separation that previously existed between wall street investment banks and depository banks and it therefore allowed those risky bets to be larger and be more of a threat to our country’s depository banking system. So, though glass-steagall didn’t directly apply to investment banks, it directly applied to depository banks and it kept them from merging with investment banks. So, your contention that glass-steagall didn’t apply to investment banks is very misleading becoz it did indeed separate investment banks from depository banks.
The strong dollar policy was good for wall street … which is why rubin pushed it so much … but bad for manufacturing and helped lead to the exodus of our manufacturing base. And, of course, it was terrible for labor, but bill clinton’s concerns for labor always took a trunk seat to his concerns for wall street and corporate amerika.
Z
Here’s my letter to our President TODAY:
President Obama,
This tax deal stinks. It is a continuation of the Bush tax policies that imploded our economy, wrecked job creation, and outsourced our industrial base. It is a continuation of the Reaganomics voodoo economics that have wrecked our country. It is an attack on one of the most successful government programs in existence – Social Security.
I’m an engineer that has been busy making products in the US for the last thirty years, but I’ve taken the time to learn about economic policy in the last twelve years. I’ve watched Austan Goolsbee’ video, and calling this a “win” is an insult to our intelligence, and as I stated above, a continuation of those same polices that have wrecked our country. You were voted in to change course, not give us more of the same. Clinton style triangulation will not work – you don’t have the economy to pull it off. You need to make fundamental reforms.
If you persist in continuation of these policies, I will not vote for you, and I will urge every other lifetime Democratic and independent voter I know to not vote for you. I don’t have to bother with the Republicans that I know, because they will never vote for you.
Yours,
Glen
Excellent article.
I made a similar point in blog post about yesterday’s “perfect storm”, A perfect storm: Bernie Sanders & the People vs. Reagan, Obama, Clinton & “mainstream media”
DITTO!
Robert Reich:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-bill-clintons-favorab_b_795405.html
Z
Thank you. That was a perfect reply and saved me the typing.
Damn, a couple of Clinton lovers. I had hoped the product of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act would drain that swamp which nourished these swamp creatures. But it didn’t.
Good job Z.
Great read.
A similar thing happened with drilling for oil in Alaska under Bush versus The Gulf of Mexico under Obama.
Note the timing of clinton’s defense of tax cuts that benefit the rich: just as Bernie Sanders is on C-Span railing in favor of the poor and middle class. And that’s no coincidence IMO.
Z
Actually the privatization word is misleading. I’ve found that you may get your Senator on the record against privatization, but just try getting them on the records against cuts in benefits and raising the retirment age.
Here I think we have a case that at least sometimes you get more candor from Republicans who don’t try to con you, they proudly tell you that they’re going to cut you.
Democrats have been extremely sneaky on the whole subject. You can hardly find a one of them out there championing what should be the the signature program of the Democratic Party.
They were trying to take attention from Bernie, his attack on the tax cuts and his focus on the plight of the poor and middle class.
Z
Great letter!
Poppy Bush and his cronies in the CIA got the CIA into the drug business to pay for all the CIA activities it didn’t want on the books. The CIA happened to pick Mena Arkansas as one of the big hubs. Then Governor Bill Clinton gave Poppy Buwsh no hassles, and was rewarded with the White House.
There’s a bunch of books about it. Here’s two…
The Boys on the Tracks: Death, Denial, and a Mother’s Crusade to Bring Her Son’s Killers to Justice – Mara Leveritt
http://www.amazon.com/Boys-Tracks-Mothers-Crusade-Killers/dp/0312198418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292108721&sr=1-1
Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA
http://www.amazon.com/Compromised-Clinton-Bush-Terry-Reed/dp/1561712493/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292108721&sr=1-2
Thank you, papau, and all the others who have brought this discussion back to being reality-based.
Why is Baker using this argument?
You really think there’s no such thing as government corruption, huh?
No such thing as organized crime?
Focus on collecting evidence. Let that evidence speak for itself.
“… when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 05/22/1859 – 07/07/1930
British mystery author & physician
Sorry to be off topic, but here’s a Nader article on why Bloomberg can be win the presidency:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-09/ralph-nader-21-reasons-michael-bloomberg-can-be-elected-president-in-2012/
I don’t know his positions on all the issues. I never thought I’d consider Bloomberg over a Democrat, but if this all goes down as people imagine in their worst dreams (regarding the tax cuts for the rich and the cuts to SS), I would not vote for President Obama again.
Let’s look to see if Bloomberg reacts to this tax deal. He’ll likely be cautious and not say anything. But if he does speak out against it, that would be a vote getter for the future. If he’s for it, forget it.
Bill Clinton’s bank deregulation laws were THE CAUSE of the whole sub-prime mortgage fiasco.
Bill Clinton was more responsible than other person for the whole damn global economic meltdown.
Ralph Nader’s Pres. campaign took donations from the far right in 2004.
I no longer care what Ralph Nader has to say on anything.
Thanks Zeabow for your comment. Clinton apologists (like Obamabots) see the world as they prefer to see it. Dean Baker is correct. Clinton was working with Gingrich to raise the eligibility age for SS and change the COLA downward. Unlike the cat-food crowd they also were pushing for privatization. Clinton and Obama are the same sort of indifferent, destructive politicians. But Obama is a bumbling master at offending everybody, including the conservatives whom he dearly loves and the base that got him elected.
Zing! I think you nailed it.
I don’t see the relevance of that. John Kerry’s campaign took donations from Goldman-Sachs and Lehman Bros., I’m sure. Obama’s campaign certainly did. Regardless, just because Nader’s campaign took some money from far-right groups does not invalidate what he has to say one whit.
Besides, Nader didn’t endorse Bloomberg at all; merely pointed out why he could be an attractive candidate to a lot of voters.
If we are really paying attention, I think we can determine Obama’s New Democrat approach to the various crises/issues that the country faces.
I think we can predict with some assurance how he will try to pull off the upcoming tax law reform and other “solutions”.
His proposals will– benefit corporations and the rich; promote “free trade”, “pro-growth”, and market solutions as opposed to regulation; continue a “robust” foreign policy, i.e. more militaristic campaigns; foster privatization of more programs and defunding Social Security; push more people onto hollowed out Medicaid while making grand lying statements that more people have “health care”; and he’ll work to undermine teachers’, laborers’, nurses’ etc unionization.
He will continue to attempt this bipartisan collaboration with those who also have no empathy for the suffering of the multitudes.
If we actually support traditional Democratic values we’ll have to oppose him tooth and nail to maintain what few safety nets exist. And Obama will continue to dish out his high falutin’ rhetoric that all the above is not happening.
I believe the last time Obama dispatched Clinton on a political mission, it was to helps Arkansans fight back against the tyrrany of labor unions.