Political Rant
For now, I am still reserving judgment on Obama's presidency. I expected him to take some learning time; plus I saw how he ran his campaign. He's not a rush to the finish type of leader. I also have no regrets for having supported him in 2008 given the alternative the Republicans provided. As for whether Obama will be a great president or one I won't even vote for in 2012, time will tell. This article in the New York Times by an Oregon Congressman, Earl Blumenauer, pretty well sums it up for me: Frustrated Liberal Lawmaker Balances Beliefs and Politics.Maureen Dowd also had a good column on Sunday: Fie, Fatal Flaw! And there was Frank Rich's Goldman can you spare a dime? which concerns me as it did when I saw who Obama put into his Treasury Department. While I am reserving judgment, I won't blindly support whatever he does and end up like those who gave George W. Bush a blank check constantly defending him no matter what he does. There are things progressives want from Obama. We shall see how many he delivers on. Yes, you righties don't like any of it. Better luck with a candidate next time.
There are complaints from the right against Obama that I don't think are fair. What many Republicans claim they dislike most is that he is escalating our federal debt. They point to current numbers to prove what he's done in 9 short months. They ignore the actual facts about the budget, about what happened for the previous 8 years.
Here's the current situation: Debt Clock with some good articles right below it explaining some of how we got here. It didn't start with Obama's stimulus package to help the middle and lower classes. We've been on a collision course with financial disaster since Bush put through tax cuts (weighted toward the richest) in the middle of a war with escalating spending. None of that appeared to worry people from the right-- not enough anyway until a Democrat got in power (assuming anybody there has power).
Two extra reasons beyond current spending for the deficit's escalation this year is because of actually adding in the cost of war that had been kept off line and paying the increasing interest on that debt. I suspect if the real costs of that war had been added in earlier, we'd have had a lot less of the patriotic flag waving. Amazing how popular things are until someone gets the bill.
This year, with the stimulus package, the deficit jumped again because money was given to the states to try and put the brakes on a possible depression. Sure there was pork in it. Yes, Obama should have been more hands on and less turning it over to Congress (both parties) to figure out where to put it; but maybe he figured these legislators, from each state knew best where it could help right away. Unlike the bank bailout, which may or may not have been wise but didn't seem good to me at the time, and makes me even more angry right now with the big bonuses for the investment firms (who make what again to help the economy?) this one was weighted toward the people. Does that worry Republicans more somehow?
I would be far more tolerant of the right wingers complaining about Obama if they had demanded those tax cuts during the Bush years be connected to equal spending cuts; or if they had said, if we want this war, we have to raise sufficient taxes to pay for it. Instead people were told they could fight a war on the cheap and didn't worry that the difference between the rich and middle class was escalated by that tax cut.
Even today when I hear things from the right that Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan, I wonder and who pays for it? Never mind, to the tea partiers-- manna from heaven, I guess. Constantly I hear these anti-tax people say it was the right thing to fight a war of choice in Iraq as they also say they don't want to pay taxes. Talk about faith based wars.
Then there are those who claim Obama should do whatever General McCrystal demands about the war in Afghanistan (i.e. 40,000 more troops). Did a military junta take us over while I wasn't looking? Some hope Petraeus will run for president in 2012 and they might get their chance for for a war president (who knows what he actually supports). As for me, I hope Obama remembers something wise that he said while running for office that a general has the responsibility to determine how to 'win' one war but a president has to look at what is good for his overall country.
Anyone who reads anything at all about Afghanistan's history can see where increasing our troop levels there will lead. Currently it apparently has a corrupt government (that Bush's administration put in place) but more than that, it's been a sinkhole for lives and dollars for its entire history. What plan is in place to make this any different?
I think if Afghanistan had had any chance to work, it would have been finishing it before jumping to Iraq. We lost the window, allowed the Taliban to regroup (and fund themselves from the poppy fields) and now we are facing some pretty ugly choices including their ease of slipping back and forth between there and Pakistan who has the nuclear bomb. No easy options. Nor are there for other big problems.
What I see happening, unless there is a major change, is us heading to a Dickensian world where there are the rich and there are the poor. The right wing seems to only like to spend money on bombs. They are blocking anything that might help the middle class continue to exist. The left wing is so inefficient (or bought off) that they can't do anything they claim to want. How convenient as they continue raking in lobbyist
The middle class is being undermined in health care, education, and jobs. Does Congress not see itself as part of the middle class? I think it doesn't because when these guys leave office, they get jobs in those same big lobbying firms and make millions. They identify with the rich because it's where many of them expect to end up.
The way it's heading right now, our children's children will never know the world we did. I suppose some don't care so long as they don't live to see that day. They very well might.
The photos I chose for this blog illustrate a couple of my thoughts right now. The top one is a waning moon in the middle of the morning. The United States does not have to be a waning power. It can be like the moon, go through this down cycle and build again.
While the moon just does its thing, we have to put resources into changing our course. We can rebuild our cities, fix our health care system, accept that the stock market is not the main criteria we must use for what is right but rather do what is best for people's lives, and pay for what we say we want rather than be always borrowing. Money is not the only standard by which something must be measured, is it?
I believe we can still change things, but if we don't, we will be a waning power that stays down permanently because I believe our power has come through our strong middle class where real things have been made. A vital middle class has been the engine that made this country great. If that disappears, if the hope for the poor disappears with nowhere for them to move up, then it won't be good in the future for anybody but a few rich. If that's the world we want, then do nothing and it'll happen because there are those working to make it happen. Some think they can get more gold by killing the golden goose.
The other photo is a woolly bear caterpillar from last week-end, which if it completes its cycle will become an Isabella Tiger Moth. I grew up being told that you can predict the hardness of a winter by this little guy's bands. A wider brown one means a tough winter ahead (or some say it's just the opposite).
This was the first one I had seen this fall. When I find them on the road, they curl up into a little ball which I pick up and throw off, trying to help them toward the direction they were heading, but this one was in the pasture where its only danger would be the cattle stepping on it.
Its photo is here because it represents one way man looks to guess for what will happen. We can't really do that with life (not sure it works with winter predicting either) but it seems to me that if we keep going as we are, fighting wars elsewhere and forgetting the ones here, we are in big trouble.
11 comments:
You are right on all counts. It really blows my mind when the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for the economy when it was Bush that destroyed it. No matter what Obama does will be wrong in their eyes because he's not a republican.
this conversation thread belongs here:
Blogger Ingineer66 said...
Rain, I do not typically defend the Iraq war. You are confusing that with the Afghan war. And I do worry about the deficit. I really worry that Obama has tripled the previous record deficit that W. had last year. I mostly just like to stir the pot though. Remember Pelosi knew in 2002.
2:06 PM Blogger Rain said...
I am assuming you meant this for the other blog, but will answer it here anyway, ingineer. You have defended it in the past and I am not confusing it but just saying it's part of the cost that wasn't added in; so the multiplying looks like more than it is as that cost was there whether it got into the main budget or not. I am not sure how much Obama has spent on the stimulus as a lot of what was promised hasn't gotten anywhere yet; some went to companies that are expanding based upon it. It might pay off but then again, I don't know but I hope at least it'll be real products unlike the banks like Goldman that only multiply dollars, not producing anything except wealth for themselves.
2:17 PM
Blogger Rain said...
As for Pelosi, she says the CIA lied about what they told her. It is not like it'd be the first time if they did. I have no idea what's the truth but I know what many legislators said about the start of the Iraq war and their vote to give Bush maneuvering room
Well I posted the other response on the other thread because I had not read this one yet. I think many of your observations on this post are correct. Obama did not cause the recession, but his leadership appears to be making it worse not better. Time will be the judge on that though.
The stimulus was made to sound like a good idea and something that would help the working class. But only about 10% of the money went to projects that working people would see a benefit from. Most of the money went to pork projects of little use, university researchers, feel good do nothing programs and liberal community groups like ACORN. It added a bunch of money to the deficit without really stimulating the economy.
PS Bush did not destroy the economy. The housing collapse was mostly caused by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their rules about home lending.
And the financial meltdown was due to Clinton and the Congress repealing part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that allowed banks to get themselves in financial trouble.
Well after I saw that you might have intended it to go there, I put it both places, something I haven't ever done but guess it works as it does relate to both topics.
As for Acorn getting the money, that's what the right wing says. Media Matters said otherwise. I don't know why Acorn bothers the right so much but it sure does as does any kind of non-profit neighborhood help group if they aren't churches, I guess.
In our state we see signs on many highway projects saying that the money came from the stimulus; so it must vary from state to state. We also know of one business (locally with a defense contractor getting part) that got $300 million promised as they are building the type of battery that will be used in hybrids.
Maybe how effective it was would depend on the states. That's something most Republicans say they want-- state control but then find out it isn't always better...
And the housing collapse is not all that destroyed the economy. Boy you sure get a lot of right wing talking points for someone who claims he doesn't go to those places for info...
Well check this article about ACORN getting fire prevention stimulus funds when the local fire department was denied. Fire stations are being closed and ACORN gets fire money. Pretty crazy sounding to me.
http://www.wwltv.com/local/northshore/stories/wwl100709tpacornA.1f464f768.html
And on the stimulus highway project that I administered this summer yes I spent $5000 on those fancy signs that said it was a stimulus project, but the actual paving work would have been done this year anyway and the contractor that performed the work did not hire any extra people to perform the work. They used their normal crew. So those reports about how many jobs were saved or created are not really accurate.
And I did not say that the housing crisis was the sole cause of the economic collapse. Research the Glass-Steagall Act. It was put in place as a response to problems that caused the Great Depression. But Clinton and the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress voted to change it and that caused a lot of our problems. Those are not right wing talking points, those are facts.
PS state control of the money is fine with me. If the states squander it that is their loss.
I am perplexed. www.recovery.org reports thousands of saved and new jobs. I don't exactly know if these are projected jobs when the states receive money or if the numbers reflect what has already happened. Earlier this year the website was more specific about who was getting the money by states and governmental agencies. Watching the Whitehouse web site I know of many commendable little acts of planting seeds for the country's future. Waiting for such a garden to develop will take patience. I am not sure these seeds will be enough.
I know about Glass-Steagall. Do you? It is laid onto Clinton's door but the majority that passed it in 1999 in the Congress was enough to override a veto. Phil Gramm introduced it. If you want to blame anything for it, and it was obviously a disastrous mistake, blame the parties that wanted to make the financial sector look better than they were. Blame trying to reach some kind of bipartisanship which seems to be dooming any meaningful fixing of our health care problems. Blame the lobbyists who have more to say about what happens in Congress than any of us.
I do not know what California did with their stimulus money and you do not know what Oregon did. Basically California was in so much trouble that they may have used as much as possible to just keep paying salaries, something that may yet end up a problem to them.
In that link, it said that the previous administration awarded that money. It sounds like wrongly and I won't defend ACORN but I also know it drives the right nuts and yet they seem to be ignoring all the money that wrongly went to Halliburton or its subsidiaries not only in NO but Iraq. How come that is?
I will not defend Halliburton any more than you defend ACORN. I know Halliburton paid back a bunch of money that was wrongly billed. And the shoddy electrical work that caused the deaths of soldiers in Kuwait by a Halliburton subsidiary was investigated as a criminal matter as it should be. And those also happened under the previous administration.
I have no tollerance for people that cheat the government for what they are contracting for. There is plenty of money to be made by contracting with the government in a legitimate manner and no need to cheat.
Post a Comment