Things are getting bad for Barry when the New York Times dumps on him like this.
Things are getting bad for Barry when the New York Times dumps on him like this.
The Financial mess persists because :
0bama is not an executive, never was, and
0bama cannot make a decision.
Is this the same Frank Rich who dumped on Bush?
BTW, wasn’t Chris Dodd and Obama teh two politicians who received the most money in campaign contributions from AIG?
The “dirty little secret,” Obama told Leno on Thursday, is that “most of the stuff that got us into trouble was perfectly legal.” An even dirtier secret is that a prime mover in keeping that stuff legal was Summers, who helped torpedo the regulation of derivatives while in the Clinton administration. His mentor Robert Rubin, no less, wrote in his 2003 memoir that Summers underestimated how the risk of derivatives might multiply “under extraordinary circumstances.”
As the nation’s anger rose last week, the president took responsibility for what’s happening on his watch — more than he needed to, given the disaster he inherited. But in the credit mess, action must match words. To fall short would be to deliver us into the catastrophic hands of a Republican opposition whose only known economic program is to reject job-creating stimulus spending and root for Obama and, by extension, the country to fail. With all due deference to Ponzi schemers from Madoff to A.I.G., this would be the biggest outrage of them all.
This is truly an astonishing opinion piece from one of the stalwarts of the reflexive left appearing on Sunday, no less, in the New York Times. One hardly knows where to start to identify the most startling admissions in it.
Reflecting on the piece seems to me that the motivation for it comes in the last paragraph. Here Rich says, "To fall short would be to deliver us into the catastrophic hands of a Republican opposition whose only known economic program is to reject job-creating stimulus spending and root for Obama and, by extension, the country to fail." In other words, Rich thinks that the only solution for the financial crisis is a Keynesian solution. He believes the federal government must spend our way out of a recession. This is, of course, is repugnant to Reagan's historic solution to the recession he inherited and Bush's successful solution for the recession he inherited. The conservative solution is to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Essentially, Rich wants us to try socialism.
Rich is saying here that it is immaterial if history teaches that socialism has failed every time it's tried. He is saying that it has only failed because the wrong socialists were in charge. The program that Obama is undertaking is not wrong but it's implementation by Obama and especially by Obama's appointees has failed. So in the face of the evidence to the contrary the underlying Obama/Keynesian thesis is correct. Only it's implementation has failed. In fact, the problem is not wholly implementation but largely perception. Obama and his administration must realize they have a perception problem and get out in front of it.
Rich senses that the economy is spinning out of control as is the perception of the Obama administration and its thesis for dealing with the financial crisis is spinning out of control. He wants the blame where it belongs, on the Bush administration. But he admits in one of the most damning admissions seen recently in the New York Times that the derivatives-the real cause of all our plight, and this was torpedoed by the Clinton administration. He knows that none of this can withstand scrutiny. Rich is telling us that Obama has put the wrong socialists in charge of socialism
Frank Rich is terrified that the collapse of the economy will prove to be a collapse of the Keyes/Obama plan. If the country believes that the plan failed, it means that socialism failed. This is precisely the opposite of the fundamental premise of the Obama administration: capitalism failed and the government must save us.
That’s right. It used to be his friend.
Having an affirmative action Presidency is like going to an affirmative action ophthalmologist for eye surgery. Either one is about as much fun as sharp stick in the eye.
It’s an OPINION piece.
IMHO, the ‘Bamster just bought himself an impeachment grabbing back those bonuses......don’t exactly know when..or even for what...but that was the crowd that funded his election. He’ll be lucky if they only impeach him.
No matter what criticism Rich directs at Obama, he ends with the premise that it's not really Obama's fault, even though Obama bravely takes responsibility.
1) Money is mixed, and like a cake, you can't "unmix" it once it's mixed. SURE there will be "foreign banks" getting bailout money, just as foreign car companies get money from Ford, GM, and Chrysler because NOTHING is built 100% in any one country (Milton Friedman's old example of the pencil being made in a dozen countries).
2) The outrage is NOT just over "bailouts" or even "bonuses," but SOCIALISM. It is finally starting to (Red) dawn on a few people that this guy is a COMMIE in the truest sense of the word. He believes in "sharing the wealth," in telling people what they can earn, and in forced labor. If that ain't communism, I don't know what is.
3) In addition to being a devout and aggressive socialist, Obama is also somewhat incompetent (thank God). No one wants to serve on the Obamatanic, and those he gets are just nincompoops. Sad to say, Hillary is probably the smartest person in his entire administration, which is like saying Curley is the smartest of the Three Stooges.
4) By threatening ALL "executive" pay, Obama has (to my surprise, actually) exposed the dirty little secret of MOST companies in America, which is that in some way they are beholden to the government. I can't wait till he caps the pay of university presidents, or Hollywood producers! Theoretically, if you take a DIME of government money, the government can tell you what to do. But we've always known that.
We must be told why taxpayers have so little control of the bailed-out financial institutions that we now own some or most of.
"Taxpayers" obviously don't have control or they wouldn't have to pay taxes. Conceivably someone might voluntarily contribute - but voluntarily paying taxes is an oxymoron.The government has control if the government owns an institution.
“Things are getting bad for Barry when the New York Times dumps on him like this.”
His last sentence summed up the New York Times perfectly. No matter how bad, It would be worse with Republicans.
WYSIWYG.