Progressives question Obama's bona fides

[Point of Order]

NYT's Paul Krugman and TPM's Josh Marshall:

...

Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

There’s a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what’s wrong with the country was “Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington.”

And there’s every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week’s Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.

But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on the grounds that his “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.”

And while The Register endorsed Hillary Clinton, the prime beneficiary of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama, with his message of reconciliation. According to a recent survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mr. Obama’s coverage has been far more favorable than that of any other candidate.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


You're Kidding Me, Right?
12.19.07 -- 11:30AM
By Josh Marshall

I really hope the Obama camp is kidding when they say Barack is the most scrutinized candidate in the race. If they're not, they're living in a fantasy world that makes me question whether they're up to the rigors of a national campaign.

Let me be clear: there's legitimate scrutiny of legislative records, policy positions, personal finances, history of decisions made in tough, pressure-filled situations (the only really legitimate meaning of character), etc. There's been some of that and should probably be more.

Then there's the collective assault that constitutes modern press 'scrutiny', especially for a Democrat who generally has to deal with the tag team of the national political press and the regrettably much more able and ruthless GOP oppo research cadre, which has an established feeding operation mainlined to most national political reporters.

It ain't fair; it ain't right; but it's the reality. And if he thinks he's already gotten that, well ... what's he been smoking?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061452.php

 

[Ben_Hecht]

NYT's Paul Krugman and TPM's Josh Marshall:

...

Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

There’s a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what’s wrong with the country was “Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington.”

And there’s every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week’s Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.

But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on the grounds that his “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.”

And while The Register endorsed Hillary Clinton, the prime beneficiary of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama, with his message of reconciliation. According to a recent survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mr. Obama’s coverage has been far more favorable than that of any other candidate.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


You're Kidding Me, Right?
12.19.07 -- 11:30AM
By Josh Marshall

I really hope the Obama camp is kidding when they say Barack is the most scrutinized candidate in the race. If they're not, they're living in a fantasy world that makes me question whether they're up to the rigors of a national campaign.

Let me be clear: there's legitimate scrutiny of legislative records, policy positions, personal finances, history of decisions made in tough, pressure-filled situations (the only really legitimate meaning of character), etc. There's been some of that and should probably be more.

Then there's the collective assault that constitutes modern press 'scrutiny', especially for a Democrat who generally has to deal with the tag team of the national political press and the regrettably much more able and ruthless GOP oppo research cadre, which has an established feeding operation mainlined to most national political reporters.

It ain't fair; it ain't right; but it's the reality. And if he thinks he's already gotten that, well ... what's he been smoking?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061452.php

The Clinton camp will dredge up every slimeball missile in the book if the slippage in Her Royal Highness's poll numbers continues.

As for Krugman . . . he's the reigning king in terms of delineating the symptoms of the current disease. He's been masterful. He makes all the cons squirm, because he ferrets out most of the timelines of the modern dirty-tricks squad beautifully, and he understands why the dirty-tricksters continue to try to do what they're trying to do.

On the other hand . . . Krugman's SOLUTIONS to current difficulties . . . not so easy to endorse.

 

[Point of Order]

Nice ad hominem on Krugman, but I've been arguing the substance of what Krugman and Marshall are saying for a while, as Zeke12 can attest. Obama taking the conservative bait on the social security "crisis" concerns me.

 

[zeke12]

Jeebus, taking the conservative bait on Social Security?

You're carrying a lot of Hillary water, POO.

And that wasn't an ad hominem on Krugman, that's fair comment on his writing.

Saying Paul Krugman is a pathological loser is an ad hominem attack on Krugman.

 

[heyabbott]

god damn, what's the problem with removing the income cap off of the social security tax?

 

[zeke12]

god damn, what's the problem with removing the income cap off of the social security tax?

Apparently, it's now an insult to liberal orthodoxy.

I was late getting the memo, too.

 

[heyabbott]

god damn, what's the problem with removing the income cap off of the social security tax?

Apparently, it's now an insult to liberal orthodoxy.

I was late getting the memo, too.

I guess the base of the democratic party remains firmly entrenched north of 59th street, south of 110th street and bounded by Central Park and the Hudson River.

 

[The Big Ragu]

god damn, what's the problem with removing the income cap off of the social security tax?

Apparently, it's now an insult to liberal orthodoxy.

I was late getting the memo, too.

I guess the base of the democratic party remains firmly entrenched north of 59th street, south of 110th street and bounded by Central Park and the Hudson River.

I kind of wish "liberal orthodoxy" understood how Ponzi schemes work. Social security is going to fail, no matter what Obama or Hilary Clinton or anyone else does. Alan Greenspan has/had this right. Having people hoodwinked into thinking it is going to be there for them 30 or 40 years from now, does them a disservice, because people can't plan properly now. The program has promised something our economy can't deliver. It's not insurance. It relies on the payments of young workers to pay the benefits of retired workers. As birth rates have declined, the amount collected through taxes hasn't kept up with the value of the payments. It is not only a recipe for ruin, it has all kinds of bad consequences that never get discussed rationally. It gives wrong incentives and mismanages wealth--huge disservices to society as a whole. But it is a political third rail, because people never want to face realities. They love that "liberal orthodoxy," which promises things that would get laughed at by most people who are street smart enough to understand that someone promising to turn a quarter into a dollar is full of ****.

The program hurts us overall, because of all the inefficiencies and waste (not to mention its coming failure). Social security payments never earn interest or grow over time, the way investment should. They are immediately paid out to current beneficiaries. When I retire, though, if it really WAS insurance, I should collect benefits that have been adjusted upward because of interest earned over the years. Social security can not do this. It can't even keep up with non-interest adjusted payments because the promises made exceed the tax base trying to currently meet them. Another huge issue is that payroll tax deductions are more harmful for more people than consumption taxes (Not even going to try to explain this, but hopefully someone here took Econ 101). The program even unintentionally screws minorities and the poor, because they have lower life expectancies. They spend their whole life paying in (and in relative terms, it is a percentage of their pay they could use more in life than someone wealthier, who doesn't miss the money as much), and get fewer benefits collected because they don't live as long. There are other side issues related to this. Poor people have a disproportionate amount of their life savings tied to the program, which limits wealth transfers across generations. You can't pass along your social security savings as an inheritance. Not to mention that access to funds is limited to retirement, unlike other types of savings. If you lose your job, you can't just reach into your social security "savings" to pay for education or daycare expenses while you look for work or to stem the tide. The overall result is that the program is not only ridiculous from a common sense economics perspective, it has done things antithetical to "liberal" or progressive ideals, yet people who consider themselves progressive still embrace it. It actually helps prevent class movement for minorities and the poor. It's a paradox that never gets talked about, perhaps understandably, because it is hard enough to get people to talk about the fact that it is just plain unsustainable and inefficient and on a course for failure (like all Ponzi schemes). The money coming in doesn't add up to the promised benefits, no matter how you slice it in political terms.

 

[old_tony]

god damn, what's the problem with removing the income cap off of the social security tax?

Apparently, it's now an insult to liberal orthodoxy.

I was late getting the memo, too.

I guess the base of the democratic party remains firmly entrenched north of 59th street, south of 110th street and bounded by Central Park and the Hudson River.

I kind of wish "liberal orthodoxy" understood how Ponzi schemes work. Social security is going to fail, no matter what Obama or Hilary Clinton or anyone else does. Alan Greenspan has/had this right. Having people hoodwinked into thinking it is going to be there for them 30 or 40 years from now, does them a disservice, because people can't plan properly now. The program has promised something our economy can't deliver. It's not insurance. It relies on the payments of young workers to pay the benefits of retired workers. As birth rates have declined, the amount collected through taxes hasn't kept up with the value of the payments. It is not only a recipe for ruin, it has all kinds of bad consequences that never get discussed rationally. It gives wrong incentives and mismanages wealth--huge disservices to society as a whole. But it is a political third rail, because people never want to face realities. They love that "liberal orthodoxy," which promises things that would get laughed at by most people who are street smart enough to understand that someone promising to turn a quarter into a dollar is full of ****.

The program hurts us overall, because of all the inefficiencies and waste (not to mention its coming failure). Social security payments never earn interest or grow over time, the way investment should. They are immediately paid out to current beneficiaries. When I retire, though, if it really WAS insurance, I should collect benefits that have been adjusted upward because of interest earned over the years. Social security can not do this. It can't even keep up with non-interest adjusted payments because the promises made exceed the tax base trying to currently meet them. Another huge issue is that payroll tax deductions are more harmful for more people than consumption taxes (Not even going to try to explain this, but hopefully someone here took Econ 101). The program even unintentionally screws minorities and the poor, because they have lower life expectancies. They spend their whole life paying in (and in relative terms, it is a percentage of their pay they could use more in life than someone wealthier, who doesn't miss the money as much), and get fewer benefits collected because they don't live as long. There are other side issues related to this. Poor people have a disproportionate amount of their life savings tied to the program, which limits wealth transfers across generations. You can't pass along your social security savings as an inheritance. Not to mention that access to funds is limited to retirement, unlike other types of savings. If you lose your job, you can't just reach into your social security "savings" to pay for education or daycare expenses while you look for work or to stem the tide. The overall result is that the program is not only ridiculous from a common sense economics perspective, it has done things antithetical to "liberal" or progressive ideals, yet people who consider themselves progressive still embrace it. It actually helps prevent class movement for minorities and the poor. It's a paradox that never gets talked about, perhaps understandably, because it is hard enough to get people to talk about the fact that it is just plain unsustainable and inefficient and on a course for failure (like all Ponzi schemes). The money coming in doesn't add up to the promised benefits, no matter how you slice it in political terms.

Excellent post.

Insult from Fenian coming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1

 

[Point of Order]

I understand quite well how it works. The problem is that cons have convinced us that the repaying social security trust fund is optional, notwithstanding the fact that it is supposed to be back by the full faith and credit of the United States government. The cons have convinced people that its okay for the congress to rob the trust fund (remember SNL making fun of Al Gore for the "lock box" proposal? That's what that was about then -- keeping congress out of the social security trust fund -- not so funny now, is it?).

Raising taxes now will further encourage this ill-advised practice. The problem with ginning up a social security crisis is that it is belied by the facts. Deposits will exceed withdrawals until 2017, and then in 2040, I repeat, 2040, the trust fund reserve will run dry IF nothing is done. So, why propose raising taxes today on someone who makes $90-120k? Doing this will only encourage the continued looting of the trust fund.

If y'all want to have a substantive argument, let's have one. Zeke, you know where I stand on the primaries, which is why I posted what I considered two credible articles that basically agree with my stance. Where you pull out of your ass something about "liberal orthodoxy" I have no idea. Call it toting water for Hillary if you want to, but be aware that you do it at the expense of any substantive counter. I guess you don't take any issue with the content.

I thought this site was supposed to be above average that way.

Ragu, Social Security has been pretty popular. Your rhetoric is tired. It's the same that has been proffered since FDR instituted the program. Most republicans don't believe in the idea of a basic safety net for the prevention of elderly impoverishment. I disagree.

 

[Point of Order]

I guess Obama still gets off without any scrutiny -- until after he is the nominee I suppose.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Point, They were right in FDR's day. And it isn't rhetoric. It's just fact. SS is a pay-as-you-go program, exactly as I stated. Like a Ponzi scheme, it would have died in the 80s. I give Daniel Patrick Moynihan some credit for figuring out a band-aid approach to a political problem, but he didn't "fix" it. He yanked the rug out from under people who had been made ridiculous promises, and changed the rules. People were promised one thing, and because the program is a failure, their promises ended up being reneged on.

The trust fund was created by that change of rules (i.e. -- they increased taxes, but didn't increase benefits). They made a promise and then reneged on the promise by raising the taxes. If I say to you, "Give me a dime every week for the next 20 years, and after 20 years, I'll pay you back the dime plus a below-market-rate of interest (what SS is)," forget the fact that I am ripping you off because you could have gotten a market rate on your own if I hadn't coerced your wages from you. What if after 10 or 15 years of that, I say, "Nah, I can't do what I promised you. It is going to take 15 cents every week instead of 10 cents, but the payout I am going to give you is going to stay the same." Explain to me how that is a good system that has done good things and explain how it is efficient and sustainable?

The trust fund is a miniscule amount in the grand scheme of things. That 2017 number is all BS. They have no idea exactly how long they can sustain the reserve fund, and they will tweak their projections accordingly to try to keep people from panicking. But it is inarguable that the end is near. Either way, it is 2008, and you are telling me we can keep a reserve fund for nine years (JUST nine more years left on the band aid they slapped on it 25 years agi), and the only reason we can is that they raised taxes (they reneged on their promise and changed the rules)? That is exactly where we are headed all over again. Your 2040-something number, again, is just a made up date, and all it means is that we will be back to a pay-as-you-go system without any reserves sometime before then. And by then, the promise will have been turned into complete bull****, because people will be lucky if their payments are 60 to 70 percent of what they were being promised when they were paying in.

One of two things is going to happen if this monster survives. They will raise taxes again without increasing benefits--fairly soon, because you can't wait until the reserve fund they built runs dry. By then it is too late. Or they will decrease benefits substantially. And taking either of those courses is only a temporary band-aid--the same way it was in 1983. It also is proof that the program is a failure and doesn't work. When you have to keep increasing taxes without increasing benefits, or you have to decrease benefits while keeping taxes the same, you have something inefficient and unworkable on your hands.

Doing it, buys you what, another 25 years (like increasing taxes did in 1983)? And then we face the same set of problems--the problems you have when EVERY Ponzi scheme inevitably falls apart. Except by then, people will be paying enormous amounts in and getting way below market returns when they retire.

A pay-as-you-go system can not work, period. And it obviously can't compete with market-based returns actually INVESTING money gives people. Social security is just insane. The 12.4 percent in payroll taxes would be much better served in people's pockets. It's just more efficient. But even if you want a Nanny society, for Pete's sake, at least set something up in which instead of a pyramid scheme (which is illegal if anyone else tried to run one), in which you rob people of their money, sell government-backed bonds, and pay them amortized interest on par with treasury bonds as their "return."

 

[zeke12]

You want substance, here it is:

Obama supports raising the cap on Social Security earnings in order to be proactive about the program's solvency. So do I. That doesn't make someone "right-wing" -- and the only people who think it does are the netroots wannbe Grover Norquists who don't get to make up my mind for me.

Paul Krugman should stick to economics, which he knows a lot about, and avoid politics and psychology, which he knows next to nothing about. His armchair psychobabble above amounts to one thing: He thinks Republicans are mean.

The meme that Obama is skating or not being examined is ludicrous, and beneath the both of us.

And any Democrat who has decried the Rovian element of modern American politics these past seven years and then votes for Hillary Clinton is a flaming ****ing hypocrite. Politics ain't beanbag, but it ain't what she's about, either.

I'm damn tired of listening to candidates who tell me that they'll "fight" the Republicans. It's reactive and weak and insulting to my intelligence. I'm so damn tired. And I'm also damn tired of Baby Boomers who want to refight the battles of the 1960s in perpetuity. If the modern Democratic party wants to have any relevance, it will, once again, have to explain to this country that we all have a stake in the outcome of certain things, and that we all have to work to achieve the goals we set in those areas. If I wanted to vote for a divide and conquer, win at all costs bunch of slime who rely on whispering campaigns, dog whistle appeals to racism and xenophobia and general appeals to people's fears, I had my chance already twice. I passed then, and I'll pass now.

I'm damn tired of hearing about Hillary's "experience" when the whole world knows damn well that she has much less experience than Dodd or Biden, not to mention less time in elected office than Barack Obama.

Only Obama, out of the Democratic frontrunners, is running a campaign about who he is and what he wants to do when he is President. Only Obama, of the Democratic frontrunners, opposed this idiotic war from the start -- not from a liberal point of view nor from a conservative point of view, but from an intelligent reading of the situation. Only Obama, of the Democratic frontrunners, has a genuine chance at a mandate when he reaches office, thereby rendering the bleatings of desperate-to-be-tough-guys like Krugman obsolete. Only Obama, should he get the nomination, offers me a chance to vote FOR someone rather than against someone else. That's why he's got my vote.

 

[Point of Order]

I get it, I get it. Ponzi, pyramid, ponzi. But I don't think you are where the base of the Democratic party is. Also, I think you speak with a little hyperbole, but as long as you would support doing away with the SS tax entirely you have a defensible position.

The thing I don't like is a plan that would continue the SS tax and then force us into some privately managed, limited-choice account -- a boondoggle for the banking/investment industry and not at all secure. Oh, and most of your posts aren't long?

 

[Point of Order]

Zeke,
Just because you decry the Rovian element doesn't mean it will go away. It sure as hell won't go away with an Obama kumbaya moment. In my mind, the question of who can better withstand Rovian attacks is a genuine and legitimate issue for dems. To think it's not is simply naive.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Oh, and most of your posts aren't long?

OK. I get it. Shoot me. I have something to say, usually. And this is a complicated subject to post about succinctly, because a lot of people haven't given it much thought. It's a ****ing message board. Get over it. If you think my post lacked substance, say so, and tell me why. It's how I respond to people. Otherwise, what was that, a put down? OK. You got me.

 

[Point of Order]

Oh, and most of your posts aren't long?

OK. I get it. Shoot me. I have something to say, usually. And this is a complicated subject to post about succinctly, because a lot of people haven't given it much thought. It's a ****ing message board. Get over it. If you think my post lacked substance, say so, and tell me why. It's how I respond to people. Otherwise, what was that, a put down? OK. You got me.

Damn dude. I read your post in its entirety. I responded in substance. I throw that line in as a kicker because it was topic du jure in one of your other threads. No offense. Now, do you confirm that you would support getting rid of the entire SS tax altogether, and would oppose any effort at maintaining a tax and proceeding with privatization?

 

[zeke12]

Zeke,
Just because you decry the Rovian element doesn't mean it will go away. It sure as hell won't go away with an Obama kumbaya moment. In my mind, the question of who can better withstand Rovian attacks is a genuine and legitimate issue for dems. To think it's not is simply naive.

It isn't "withstanding" Rovian attacks I'm worried about.

It's voting for someone who makes them.

If you think HRC isn't running the dirtiest campaign out of all the Democrats, you're the one who is naive. She's Karl Rove in a pantsuit, and **** if I'll vote for that. And, while I'm at it, **** if I'll vote for someone who's case is that they can "fight" or "withstand" dirty tricks. Permanent minority mindset, at its worst.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

zeke --
Buddy, cool the jets. HRC is tough, but she's no Rove. At least the D's aren't fighting about who Jesus' brother is.
And Ragu, you're as wrong about SS as you are about Canadian health care. Jeebus, man, the notion that we should entrust the most successful social-insurance program in history to the American money-management industry is just freaking laughable. The system is fine through the distant event horizon, and further, with some small adjustments. Its trustees say that. So does everyone else who knows anything about it. Some day, you're going to have to discover that every economic program you don't like isn't "unsustainable" just because you say it is.

 

[Point of Order]

Well, I just don't believe that Hillary = Rove, Bush, Cheney, Romney, Rudy or whichever other republican she could be compared to. And no, Obama has not gotten anything near comparable to a Swiftboat-type attack -- not from Hillary and not from anyone else. It's not even close. If he wins the nomination I will get behind him 100%.