The most credible criticism of Obama is coming from his left

[KingOrfeo]

Specifically from Paul Krugman (who is not very far to the left at all, actually; he's "East Coast liberal establisment"):

Paul Krugman has all the credentials of a ranking member of the East Coast liberal establishment: a column in The New York Times, a professorship at Princeton, a Nobel Prize in economics. He is the type you might expect to find holding forth at a Georgetown cocktail party or chumming around in the White House Mess of a Democratic administration. But in his published opinions, and perhaps in his very being, he is anti-establishment. Though he was a scourge of the Bush administration, he has been critical, if not hostile, to the Obama White House.

In his twice-a-week column and his blog, Conscience of a Liberal, he criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a financial system that he regards as essentially a dead man walking. In conversation, he portrays Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other top officials as, in effect, tools of Wall Street (a ridiculous charge, say Geithner defenders). These men and women have "no venality," Krugman hastened to say in an interview with NEWSWEEK. But they are suffering from "osmosis," from simply spending too much time around investment bankers and the like. In his Times column the day Geithner announced the details of the administration's bank-rescue plan, Krugman described his "despair" that Obama "has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they're doing. It's as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street."

If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see. By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring. But sometimes, beneath the pleasant murmur and tinkle of cocktails, the old guard cannot hear the sound of ice cracking. The in crowd of any age can be deceived by self-confidence, as Liaquat Ahamed has shown in "Lords of Finance," his new book about the folly of central bankers before the Great Depression, and David Halberstam revealed in his Vietnam War classic, "The Best and the Brightest." Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right? What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize—well, maybe not nationalize, that loaded word—but restructure the banks before they collapse altogether?

 

[MeeMie]

Not necessarily... this from The Wall Street Journal

Obama Wants to Control the Banks

There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.


I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). A prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt any possible financial panic, with the stated intent for the money to be repaid to taxpayers as the banks recovered strength.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out.

But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists to repay the loan. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions?

Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sounds like a left wing endorsement of right wing accusations.

No . . . RWs are accusing Obama of planning to "nationalize" the banks. Krugman is accusing him of not doing so.

 

[Sam1]

This is so lacking in verifiable detail as to be a fairy tail. It is not like the WSJ is an unbiased source without agenda. If the bank was highly profitable and sound why would it need recapitalization? It would appear form the information supplied that this Bank should have had no worry about a complience audit and could have used any report as a marketing tool. Especially if the audit was done during the Bush years.

I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it.
MeeMie

Why is it class warfare only when the common people fight back? Sorry, Obama is no William Wallace!

 

[The_Trouvere]

Sounds like a left wing endorsement of right wing accusations.

Paul Krugman wants the Obama Administration to move to the left on economic issues.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sam1]

Sounds like a left wing endorsement of right wing accusations.

Krugman is getting close to accusing Obama of attempting to restore the status quo anti and giving the financial community a whole new stack of chips.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What's to the left of Obama's economic plan, Communism?

Krugman's position is not Communism. Not socialism. Not even progressivism. Krugman is just a liberal. Obama, not even that, so much; he's maybe five degrees left of DINO Bill Clinton.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BatShitKrazy]

I'm a middle of the road kind of guy - I feel like a complete failure

 

[unregistered]

 

[The_Trouvere]

What's to the left of Obama's economic plan, Communism?

That statement is equivalent to claiming that anything to the right of George W. Bush's policies is fascism. You are of course joking, but you are not revealing wit.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You forgot the rest of your pitch, FETTUCINI! LINGUINE! MARTINI! BIKINI!

Is that from a Marx Brothers routine or something? Don't sound like the Stooges.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Apparently, you don't think we have a near fascist corporate structure now. I think we do, and have for some time. You see, government controlled capitalism is Fascism.

What we have had up to now, throughout Dem and Pub administrations, is not government-controlled capitalism but capitalist-controlled government.

 

[MeeMie]

It is not like the WSJ is an unbiased source without agenda.

Which was exactly my point to contradict the thread title:
"The most credible criticism of Obama is coming from his left"

I wouldn't think it is wise of anyone to throw words around like "unbiased source without agenda" in recognition of the Obamamedia blatant reputation for quite the opposite.

If the bank was highly profitable and sound why would it need recapitalization? It would appear form the information supplied that this Bank should have had no worry about a complience audit and could have used any report as a marketing tool. Especially if the audit was done during the Bush years.

And yet ... it is actually true. More details:



Our Government Engaged In EXTORTION With Our Banks!

The Federal government committed extortion and they’re not being held accountable.

I recently met with the Chair and CEO of one of the country’s top 10 bank holding companies. His bank is worth in excess of $250 billion, has no bad debt, no credit default swaps, no liquidity problems, and no subprime loans. He told me that he and others were forced by Treasury and FDIC threats to take TARP funds, even though he did not want or need them.

There is simply no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to exercise the level of control it now seeks over private industry.

The FDIC — with Treasury backing — threatened to conduct public audits of his bank unless his board created and issued a class of stock for the Feds to buy. The audit, which he is confident his bank would survive, would cost it millions in employee time, bad press, and consequent lost business.

He pleaded with the Feds to leave his successful bank alone. He begged his board to let him tell the Feds to take a hike. But they gave in. The Feds are now just a tiny shareholder, but want to begin asserting more and more control.

This is a classic extortion: Controlling someone’s free will by threatening to perform a lawful act. (Blackmail is the threat is to perform an unlawful act in order to control someone else’s free will.) There are no exceptions in the statutes prohibiting extortion for government persons

This happened in September 2008, but the demands for more control are more recent. The same players Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke are thick as thieves in both administrations.

There is simply no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to exercise the level of control it now seeks over private industry. In fact, this level of control will wind up costing the businesses that took TARP (voluntarily or involuntarily) money since they will lose key employees who will go to work elsewhere and because the reporting requirements will take time and time is money. The Constitution basically says that if the government wants to take time or freedom or money from someone or something, it must sue for it. It cannot just give itself the authority to do so via legislation.

Our liberties are slipping away right before our eyes.




Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senior Judicial Analyst FOX News

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Which was exactly my point to contradict the thread title:
"The most credible criticism of Obama is coming from his left"

Just so. Paul Krugman is more credible than the WSJ editorial section. (So, for that matter, is Timecube Guy.)

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No . . . RWs are accusing Obama of planning to "nationalize" the banks. Krugman is accusing him of not doing so.

I can't speak for Vetteman, but from my perspective you're missing the larger picture of criticism.

What many of us said all through the campaign was that Obama's "Kool-aid message" of hope and change and a radical new way of doing business in Washington was nothing more than a cynical effort by a very inexperienced, but hopelessly conventional liberal politician, to build a base of support to win an election.

Events have proved that assessment correct long before Krugman's article.

Political inertia is highly resistant to change, no matter who is doing the pushing or pulling. Depending on your point of view, that inertia can either stand in the way of progress or keep some idiot from driving us over the edge of the cliff.

But to pretend that inertia does not exist or that it can easily be swept away by some glib political huckster (not to mention whether the huckster sincerely wishes to do so) is the height of naivete. That, at least, has been the essence of my criticism of Barack Obama and his glassy-eyed followers.

 

[unregistered]

 

[pinkstarfish]

So, I guess he should just let the economy completely collapse and not do anything so we can have more children starving, losing their homes, living in tents and not receiving medical treatment?

Paulson was the one who called for the first bailout to save his own ass and interests and he was under Bush.

I really don't know what you vaginas are bitching about. This meltdown is the Republicans fault. No one is glassier-eyed, or more dishonest and corrupt than they are.

Keep drinking your kool-aid.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, I guess he should just let the economy completely collapse and not do anything so we can have more children starving, losing their homes, living in tents and not receiving medical treatment?

Paulson was the one who called for the first bailout to save his own ass and interests and he was under Bush.

I really don't know what you vaginas are bitching about. This meltdown is the Republicans fault. No one is glassier-eyed, or more dishonest and corrupt than they are.

Keep drinking your kool-aid.

That's patently obvious from most of your posts.

To be sure, I was certainly NOT talking about what Obama should or should not do to save the economy.

I don't believe anyone here was talking about Henry Paulson and whose fault the economic meltdown was.

The subject was what Obama realistically CAN do and whether or not his philosophical plan of action lies outside conventional solutions and, if so, whether or not he has courage of his own convictions to follow such a plan. That was and is the subject of the thread.

Since I don't expect you to understand that or be able to follow it, I'd suggest you restrict your "debate" to those conservatives who do, in fact, live on copious quantities of their own brand of Kool-Aid. I can't stand to listen to them either.

But at least you guys could have a blast hurling conclusions at each other.