home

Hillary Clinton Delivers Strong Critique on Income Inequality

She's running, if you had any doubt:

Clinton told the audience that middle class incomes had stagnated over the last decade even as the average worker’s productivity had increased significantly in the same period. She pointed to studies that showed 4 out of 10 children born into the lowest rung on the economic ladder remained there as adults. [...] “And where is it all going?” Clinton asked. “Economists have documented how the share of income and wealth going to those at the very top, not just the top 1 percent but the top 0.1 percent, the 0.01 percent of the population, has risen sharply over the last generation,” she said. “Some are calling it a throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons.”

She also explicitly contrasted her husband’s record on inequality as president with President George W. Bush. “The 1990s taught us that even in the face of difficult long term economic trends it’s possible through smart policies and sound investments to enjoy broad based growth and shared prosperity,” she said. She denounced the Bush administration for squandering those economic gains as well as a budget surplus [--]“That’s what happens when your only policy prescription is to cut taxes for the wealthy and then to deal with the aftermath of a terrible terrorist attack and two wars without paying for them,” she said. “Regulators neglected their oversight of the financial sector and allowed the evolution of an entire shadow banking system that operated without accountability.”

< Geithner's Failure | Uruguay President: Treat Pot-Smokers Like Cattle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not bad for someone with brain damage (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by ruffian on Fri May 16, 2014 at 02:53:19 PM EST


    Think she has (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 16, 2014 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    barring some unforeseen disaster, called the central issue of the coming presidential race.  And thank god a dem finally realizes they can win on it.

    As for running, I am so glad she is ignoring all the free advise from the peanut gallery to "hit back" at every lunatic screech from the right wing noise machine.  Rove et al will, all by themselves, have people so sick of that sh!t by voting time that she should be paying them to do it.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:25:08 PM EST
    the fact that she's not announced yet should be reason enough to not say anything.

    But I have to tell you the Big Dawg has already made Rove the butt of jokes with his stupid statement. He's going to have a good time making fun of them. I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel but it's still funny.

    Parent

    Yeah I saw it (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    But far from the "war room" mentality some think is needed.  I thought his response and tone were as usual perfect.  Call it out and dismiss it.  For at least the next year that's probably his job.


    Parent
    Good god (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 16, 2014 at 06:14:17 PM EST
    Tweety is now suggesting the Clinton's took his advise and started fighting back.  Why is this gasbag still wheezing.  And why am I watching?  At least I don't do it live I fast forward so I  won't miss any good spitting drooling lunacy

    Parent
    He's still around? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    Tweety (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2014 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    must think that's he a lot more important than he actually is.

    Parent
    I can't be the only one who hears (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    a bit of Elizabeth Warren in these remarks, but if she continues on this road, she'd best figure out a way to manage the potholes.

    What could those be?

    Well, one would be that the top three contributors to Hillary Clinton from 1999-2014 are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase.

    Another would be the two speeches she gave that Goldman paid her a reported $400,000 for.  Why would you take money from a firm that played a significant role in one of the worst economic periods in recent memory?  

    And here we go again with the government not "paying for" things, as if that was the problem.  That wasn't the problem - the problem was perpetuating the notion that we couldn't spend money on the people because we were spending it on the wars, when we ought to know - she ought to know - that there was no reason we could not have done both.  The problem was that at least one of those wars was illegitimate - but the need to spend here at home wasn't, and we sacrificed those needs for lies.

    Do I think she cares about those getting the short end of the stick?  Yes, I do.  But I question how much of what she's saying is talk, and will be curious to see what she throws out there as a way to deal with it.  I cringed when I saw her husband speaking at a conference sponsored by the Pete Peterson foundation - why do they keep associating with people and organizations that aren't interested in closing the income inequality gap, but in finding ways to take more from the safety net so fat cat-1 percenters can stuff more cash in their pockets?


    Ya know, I'm starting to have a prob (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    with everyone all up in arms over those 2 Goldman speeches. If anyone would bother to look, she did several speeches, and was paid for them also, in that time period. She's done  some other speeches recently too, that she was paid for, but nobody bothers with those. Why the heck shouldn't she take the money and run (the old saying, not for pres). That's what people in her position do. Along with Grad ceremonies :)

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:13:16 PM EST

    She pointed to studies that showed 4 out of 10 children born into the lowest rung on the economic ladder remained there as adults.

    So, 60% move up.  That hardly sounds like a rigid class system.   Singing the praises of social mobility may not sit well with her base.

    Parent

    Easy for someone ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:18:42 AM EST
    ... who was not born into poverty to say.

    BTW - No one claimed it was a "rigid class system", but 40% is a huge number.  Not to mention all of those who "escape" by moving up one rung on the economic ladder".  There are other countries where childhood poverty is much less of an impediment to moving up the ladder, and those are the countries and policies we should be looking to emulate - as opposed to saying, "Well, at least it's not a rigid caste system like 19th century India".

    Parent

    Yman says (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 18, 2014 at 08:33:45 AM EST
    There are other countries where childhood poverty is much less of an impediment to moving up the ladder, and those are the countries and policies we should be looking to emulate

    And those countries are and the proof of your claim is??????

    Parent

    Heh, heh ... Jim demanding proof (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    Like Rush Limbaugh calling someone fat.  But since it's so easy to show, I'll be more than happy to help the Google-challenged:

    Economic mobility hasn't changed in a half-century in America, economists declare

    Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

    At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) -- a country famous for its class constraints.

    Understanding Mobility in America

    By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents' income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.

    Here's a chart for the Google-challenged and reading-challenged.

    So does this new-found appreciation for evidence extend to your own posts, Jim?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Duhhhh (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 18, 2014 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    Could we have something without qualifiers??

    Now the evidence suggests

    And what about this?? From your own link.

    One way to assess the extent of mobility is to ask whether people tend to be better off than their parents were at the same age -- whether they experience upward absolute mobility. Research for EMP conducted by my colleagues at the Brookings Institution Julia Isaacs, Isabel Sawhill, and Ron Haskins shows that two-thirds of 40-year-old Americans are in households with larger incomes than their parents had at the same age, even taking into account the fact that the cost of living has risen. That's pretty impressive, but it actually understates the improvement between generations. Household size declined over these decades, so incomes now are divided up among fewer family members, leaving them better off than bigger households of the past. Another EMP study shows that when incomes are adjusted for household size, four out of five adults today are better off than their parents were at the same age.

    Now if 66% of 40 year olds are better off than their parents were 40 years ago, then it appears that upward mobility is in the 66% range.

    What countries, and names please, are better???

    Of course I could snark and suggest that you could lower the collective ability of any one of those countries by moving there...... But I wouldn't do that.

    Are we better off?? Well, yes and no. We are better off than our parents BUT WORSE OFF THAN WE WERE IN 2007  when the Democrats took over. I repeat. Then unemployment, without faking the U3 numbers was below 5%, the market was rising and gasoline, a very LARGE part of any middle class family's budget, was stable at around $2.00.

    The record shows that, under the leadership of the Democrats, who controlled both houses, the economy collapsed. Bush expanded drilling and energy prices dropped... gas to $1.81...but Obama wanted high prices....he needed an excuse to support his "green energy" friends and MMGW hoaxers so he announced his desires in this 8/2008 interview on MSNBC.

    He wanted high prices and he got them and has maintained them.

    In the mean time:

    CNSNews.com)  The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who have a job or are actively seeking one dropped to a 35-year low in October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Link

    So I will just note this.

    We were better off prior to Obama's election. Under him we are worse off and well on the way to becoming a Third World country complete with a President (for Life) ruling via Executive Orders.

    Parent

    "Duh", is right (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    This ...

    Could we have something without qualifiers??

        "Now the evidence suggests"

    Followed by this ...

    Now if 66% of 40 year olds are better off than their parents were 40 years ago, then it appears that upward mobility is in the 66% range.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    BTW - Hate to break it to you, Jim, but answers are not usually black-and-white.  Much as you wingers like to pretend otherwise, experts use qualifiers because they recognize this basic truth.

    What countries, and names please, are better???

    Of course I could snark and suggest that you could lower the collective ability of any one of those countries by moving there...... But I wouldn't do that.

    Speaking of "lowering the collective ability of any one of those countries", perhaps you could help the "collective ability" of the one you reside in by learning to read.  From my prior post immediately above:

    By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents' income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.

    Maybe the bolding will help you with basic reading skills.

    The 2007 claim was funny though ... the Democratic Congress which took control (with a Republican POTUS) only months before the crash was supposed to turn around the Republican crash in mere months, while Bush gets credit for lowering gas prices, due to crashing worldwide demand caused by the Bush Great Recession).  Then, suddenly, - when Obama becomes POTUS - the POTUS is once again responsible for the economy, despite the fact that Bush passed off an economy in total freefall.

    If I didn't know better, I'd think you're trying to be funny.

    Parent

    So you find this funny?? (2.00 / 3) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 19, 2014 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    In the mean time:

    CNSNews.com)  The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who have a job or are actively seeking one dropped to a 35-year low in October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Link

    So I will just note this.

    We were better off prior to Obama's election. Under him we are worse off and well on the way to becoming a Third World country complete with a President (for Life) ruling via Executive Orders.

    Keep running, Yman. But you can't hide.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    When you quote CNS on a site called TalkLeft if really becomes obvious that you are trolling.

    And you deserve to be treated accordingly.

    Parent

    "Run"? "Hide"? Heh (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Yman on Mon May 19, 2014 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    Why would anyone run or hide from silly, wingnut fantasies?

    I know you wingers with the tough-talk/armchair warrior complexes are scared of your own shadow, but the rest of us aren't.

    Parent

    No ship Sherlock (none / 0) (#91)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    If you are raised by a single parent drug addicted high school dropout, you are more unlikely to develop the skills and personal habits that lead to success.  Since we choose to subsidize that practice, we should not be surprised at the result.

    Parent
    Because removing children from their less (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    Fortunate parents creates happy healthy well adjusted adults full of confidence.

    I don't think any 5 yr old says, "Gee, when I grow up I wanna be a drug addict."  And as if everyone who needs help and is experiencing hard times right now IS a drug addict.  But even if they are you aren't helping the children by just standing there watching them suffer.  You aren't preventing anyone from becoming a drug addict by doing that either.

    George Dubya Bush went through a drug addict stage too, can I blame his parents?

    Parent

    Exactly, Tracy (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Zorba on Sun May 18, 2014 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    Wouldn't it be much better if we could expend our resources in helping, supporting, and educating the parents?


    Parent
    Five year olds learn acceptable behavior (none / 0) (#94)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:31:23 PM EST
    from parents.  Is that a surprise to you?

    Parent
    So who did Dubya learn to (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 18, 2014 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    Leave his wife for a prostitute from at five?  Who taught him to snort lines of white powder at five?

    Parent
    We spend all this money on imprisoning (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 18, 2014 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    People, and not much on treating them.

    Parent
    I wish (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Zorba on Sun May 18, 2014 at 05:00:28 PM EST
    I could give you multiple "5's" on this comment, because you are absolutely right.

    Parent
    "Sherlock"? - Heh (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    Love how you wingers always try to lay the blame at the feet of social programs.  Slight problem with your silly fantasy, though ... all those other countries with much higher intergenerational economic, mobility have much more comprehensive social social programs and free higher education, to boot.

    Oops.

    Try again, Captain Obvious.

    Parent

    Without qualifiers (none / 0) (#92)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:18:46 PM EST

    The key findings:
    • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
    • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
    • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 - the top 1/100 of 1 percent - only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
    • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
    • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

    Source

    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#96)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    The most upwardly mobile groups were younger, had 12 or more years of schooling, and those that started single and ended married.

    The most downwardly mobile groups were headed by older individuals, single men and especially men that started married and ended single.  

    Source

    Parent

    Wow - speaking of "No ship" (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:49:54 PM EST
    Commanded by Captain Obvious.

    Parent
    Obvious indeed (none / 0) (#102)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 18, 2014 at 04:21:17 PM EST
    If you decide to drop out of high school and have children out of wedlock, those choices are not likely to propel you up the income ladder.  

    Too bad Hill chose to ignore the obvious.

    Parent

    Putting lipstick on a pig (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:46:50 PM EST
    And yet, with the sole exception of Great Britain who is slightly lower, it's the lowest income mobility among all of the wealthier, industrialized countries.  The lack of economic mobility is confirmed by numerous studies, only some of which I cited.

    BTW - If you manage to read past the bulleted talking points, there are a LOT of qualifiers in that study.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#78)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 18, 2014 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    If outcomes were completely random then 20% that started in the bottom quintile would end in the bottom quintile.  So 40% by some carefully selected surveys does not seem too alarming.

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 18, 2014 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    Capitalism's collateral damage.

    Parent
    "Some carefully selected surveys" - Heh (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    As opposed to your non-existent studies?

    Not much of a contest.

    But it's nice to hear that you personally believe it "does not seem too alarming."  Of course, conservatives usually aren't alarmed by things that don't affect them personally.

    Parent

    yman stop the personal attacks (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:42:13 PM EST
    your comments insulting other commenters will be deleted. You've been warned about this many times. Your tone degrades the thread.

    Parent
    Oh, come on, Jeralyn - these comments by (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Anne on Tue May 20, 2014 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    jim and Abdul are at their usual troll level; they do this all the time, filling up threads with right-wing garbage.  For the life of me, I will never understand why that's acceptable, but calling them out on it isn't - because it's not polite enough?

    We've tried polite, we've tried posting links to and excerpts of the facts, and we've tried ignoring - in particular - jim's own brand of insults - to no avail.

    Speaking only for myself, I welcome Yman's contribution to these arguments - he comes armed with facts from impeccable sources, and demonstrates an incisive and comprehensive understanding of the issues.  The same cannot be said of the jims and Abduls.  You might as well invite Rush Limbaugh to come spew his right-wing nonsense here, that's how bad it is.

    Would it be too much to ask that you focus on the content of what jim and Abdul, and often Mikado Cat, are posting?  That might give you a better understanding of why the tone and tenor of the responses are as pointed as they are.

    Context is everything, and that factor once again seems to be missing from the equation.

    Parent

    The scope and causes (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    of income inequality presented by Thomas Piketty appear to have resonated with Mrs. Clinton.  In her presentation she offers not only the economic impact of income inequality, but also, suggests that continuation on our gilded age-like pathway will unsettle the foundations of democracy.

    It is a good policy to advance.  Certainly, the timing is overdue to jettison the pro-austerity movement (which was based, at least in part, on bogus math--discovered in the work of Harvard's Reinhart and Rogoff by a U Mass graduate student) which only exacerbated the march toward income inequality.

    Mrs. Clinton calls attention to the fact that regulators neglected their oversight of the financial sector, but, hopefully, will add the need to strengthen regulations as well as regulators.

    Krugman On Picketty (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Fri May 16, 2014 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    The general presumption of most inequality researchers has been that earned income, usually salaries, is where all the action is, and that income from capital is neither important nor interesting. Piketty shows, however, that even today income from capital, not earnings, predominates at the top of the income distribution. He also shows that in the past--during Europe's Belle Époque and, to a lesser extent, America's Gilded Age--unequal ownership of assets, not unequal pay, was the prime driver of income disparities. And he argues that we're on our way back to that kind of society....

    Capital still matters; at the very highest reaches of society, income from capital still exceeds income from wages, salaries, and bonuses. Piketty estimates that the increased inequality of capital income accounts for about a third of the overall rise in US inequality. But wage income at the top has also surged. Real wages for most US workers have increased little if at all since the early 1970s, but wages for the top one percent of earners have risen 165 percent, and wages for the top 0.1 percent have risen 362 percent. If Rastignac were alive today, Vautrin might concede that he could in fact do as well by becoming a hedge fund manager as he could by marrying wealth....

    Who determines what a corporate CEO is worth? Well, there's normally a compensation committee, appointed by the CEO himself. In effect, Piketty argues, high-level executives set their own pay, constrained by social norms rather than any sort of market discipline.

    NYRB

    Worth a read

    Parent

    And, with respect to (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:21:21 PM EST
    assessments that the 30 years after WW ll proved the ability of the system to grow and share wealth, in keeping with Ozzie and Harriet nostalgia,  Piketty claims the period to be an historical outlier. Two world wars and the Great Depression resulted in the leveling of  the fortunes of the old establishment.

    Before Republican critics call out Piketty's ideas on inheritance as the Karl Marx Third Plank, it needs to be thought through, in my view, as a part of the discussion of income inequality.

    Parent

    Oh really (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    "The 1990s taught us that even in the face of difficult long term economic trends it's possible through smart policies and sound investments to enjoy broad based growth and shared prosperity,"

    Not to mention of the launching of a new technology and industry plus ignoring the mounting terrorist attacks and the economic damage they did when the chickens came home to roost... and I would never mention...

    By STEVEN A. HOLMES
    Published: September 30, 1999

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders

    snip

    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

    ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry

    (Emphasis added)

    Link

    Make that two flights of chickens...

    ;-)

    BTW - In response to (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Yman on Fri May 16, 2014 at 10:19:01 PM EST
    ... AEI's Peter Wallison:

    "The Big Lie"

    Thus has Peter Wallison, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, almost single-handedly created the myth that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis.

    ...

     In Wallison's article, he claimed that the charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against six former Fannie and Freddie executives last week prove him right. This is another favorite tactic: He takes a victory lap whenever events cast Fannie and Freddie in a bad light. Rarely, however, has his intellectual dishonesty been on such vivid display. In fact, what the S.E.C.'s allegations show is that the Big Lie is, well, a lie.

    Central to Wallison's argument is that the government's effort to encourage homeownership among low- and moderate-income Americans is what led to the crisis. Fannie and Freddie, which were required by law to meet certain "affordable housing mandates," were the primary instruments of that government policy; their need to meet those mandates, says Wallison, is what caused them to dive so heavily into those "risky" mortgages. And because they were powerful forces in the housing market, their entry into subprime dragged along the rest of the mortgage industry.

    But the S.E.C. complaint makes almost no mention of affordable housing mandates. Instead, it charges that the executives were motivated to begin buying subprime mortgages -- belatedly, contrary to the Big Lie -- because they were trying to reclaim lost market share, and thus maximize their bonuses.

    You know what's even funnier about Wallison?  Guess what he was saying less than a year before the meltdown.  He was he attacking Fannie and Freddie for not doing enough to promote borrowing by low-income home buyers:


        There are many lenders aggressively competing to make the higher-amount loans, and the GSEs are not doing the job they should for low-income homebuyers.

        Fannie and Freddie should do a much better job of providing affordable home financing to a neglected portion of the mortgage market.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Dear Yman (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    He said what he said.

    And he was correct.

    You can twist and parse all you want but facts speak.

    Parent

    "He said what he said" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Yman on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:57:18 PM EST
    Do you mean what he actually said less than a year before the meltdown (Fannie and Freddie needed to make more loans to low-income home buyers) or what he claimed afterwards?

    Heh.

    Parent

    He said what he said (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:50:33 AM EST
    and the results were what he predicted.

    You can run but you can't hide.

    lol

    Parent

    Who's trying to "hide"? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    I'm laughing at your source who's lying about the cause of the meltdown with no proof after saying Fannie and Freddie should do more to lend money to the poor less than a year before the meltdown.

    Not to mention anyone citing him ...

    Parent

    Yman he said what he said (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 18, 2014 at 01:32:33 PM EST
    in 9/99 and he was correct.

    And your snide remark..."not to mention anyone citing him" is just your way of calling me a liar.

    No problem. I know you. I know what you are. And I expect it. You've been mad ever since I banned you from my blog.

    ;-)

    lol

    Parent

    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    He did indeed "say what he said" in September, 2009.  Of course, he also what he said in March, 2006, less than a year before the meltdown:

        There are many lenders aggressively competing to make the higher-amount loans, and the GSEs are not doing the job they should for low-income homebuyers.

        Fannie and Freddie should do a much better job of providing affordable home financing to a neglected portion of the mortgage market.

    So he warned against easing credit requirements by Fannie May in 1999, then urged them to make more loans to lower income borrowers in 2006.  Then, after the meltdown he blamed the crisis on subprime loans (with no evidence to support his claim), citing his origial warning in 1999.

    Heh.

    Your "expert" is a funny guy.

    BTW - LOL!


    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    "He did indeed "say what he said" in September, 1999."  Then, afterwards, he urged more Fannie May to lend more money to lower income home buyers, right before the collapse he blamed on them.

    Heh.

    Parent

    He said what he said (2.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    Now that seems to bother you.

    Why???

    Because it is a fact. And facts bother you.

    So I repeat.

    He said what he said.

    And he was correct.

    Parent

    Yes, he did (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Mon May 19, 2014 at 05:38:56 PM EST
    He wasn't right, but he did say it ... 7 years before he urged them to lend more.

    Oops.

    Parent

    Yep - really (none / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Fri May 16, 2014 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    Don't you ever tire of posting the same right-wing fairy tales?

    Yaaaaawn ...

    Parent

    If I hadn't done it a million times already, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:18:40 AM EST
    I'd post a link to that priceless video of Dubya Dubya Dumbf*** pumping home ownership.

    Whoops! I did it again.

    Parent

    Hey, I want everyone to own a (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:50:18 AM EST
    home... Does that make me responsible for the bubble??

    Parent
    Some things are fun (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    to point out.

    The president under whom the poorest quintile enjoyed the largest increase in after-tax household income was George W. Bush. And the two administrations under whom the richest quintile and richest 1 percent fared the worst were the two Presidents Bush. Among Barack Obama's four immediate predecessors, the two biggest income equalizers were George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

    Just to be clear, I am not pining for the good old days of the economy of George W. Bush.

    But George W. Bush was the most successful of our recent past presidents in achieving very substantial increases in incomes for the poorest quintile (+18.4%), while keeping gains for the richest quintile and richest 1 percent at modest levels. For example, under Bush the Younger, the incomes of the richest 1 percent rose only 6.5 percent in eight years, compared to a staggering 84 percent under Clinton and 91 percent under Reagan

    Washington Post

    Parent

    Other things, too (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:28:43 PM EST
    When you drive the economy off a cliff (ala your boy Bush), income inequality will narrow).  When the economy starts to recover after Bush slashed taxes for the rich, income inequality grows rapidly.

    That was easy.

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:49:59 PM EST
    Slash income taxes for the wealthy including massive cuts to capital gains taxes and guess what happens when the stock market takes off (after Bush drove it off a cliff).

    Rapid growth in income inequality - so says the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

    Bush tax cuts, stock market widen income gap.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 18, 2014 at 08:42:34 AM EST
    Speaking of collapses...

    Between March 2000 and March of 2001 the NASDAQ, the prime driver of the economy under Bubba, lost 50% of its value.

    Some were speaking of 1929.

    So Bush arrived facing a severe economic down turn.

    And then 9/11 zapped the economy.

    Now fast forward to Jan '79. The Democrats have won control of both houses of Congress. The unemployment rate is under 5%, the stock market is climbing and gasoline is around $2.00/gallon.

    Now take a 17 month jump forward to July 2008. The stock market is falling, unemployment is soaring and gasoline is near $4.50.

    Hmmmm.... improvement under the Repubs. Disaster under the Demos....

    Sounds like a message to me.

    Parent

    Sounds like a LIE ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    ... to anyone in the land of reality.

    Bush's recession - July 1990-March 1991 - followed by a jobless recovery with a peak of 7.8% unemployment in 1992.

    GW Bush's recession - began March 2001.

    9-11 - Under Bush's watch.  Heck'uva job, Bushie!

    The great Recession - GW Bush's 2nd recession.

    Hmmmm.... improvement under the Democratic administrations and disaster under the Republicans.

    Sounds like reality.

    Parent

    And why do you (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 18, 2014 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    want to go back to Bush the Elder??

    Oh, wait. I pointed out what happened at the end of the economic boom that we enjoyed under Clinton. Most of which came from LOW oil prices, low inflation and a new technology plus government deregulation of the telecom industry.

    And that was all good. Of course Clinton mostly ignored the  threats from the Muslim radicals....

    RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan

    Translation: Clinton had let things slide. What did Bush do??

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Link

    Clinton dithered. Bush acted. Now what was yielded from this action??

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Link

    So the people in the agencies were warned. They just weren't told that it would happen by hijacked airliners.... and we know that Clinton's DOJ had refused to talk across the "Chinese Firewall" established by Jamie Gorelick..and that if they had then they would have known commercial airliners would be involved. Like the Vietnam war protests we find the Left with actions that killed Americans.

    Now Yman, you like to use the lie word. When you utter it I hope you are looking in the mirror because I have shown how you twist and ignore things.

    You are expert in that.

    But in the final analysis you must admit that if Bush was responsible for the 2008 crash... because he was the Prez.... Then you must assign the 2009 to 5/18/14 recession to Obama.

    Parent

    The same two links (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    Problem is, as an employee of the Bush Whitehouse, he was just spinning for his boss (Bush) when he made those comments.  Afterwards, when he was free to speak openly and give his own opinion, the man you cite as the arbiter talked about Bush's obsession with Saddam and how he ignore the threat of Al Quaeda.

    He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass through a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

        Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies.
    ...

    the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".
    ...

    Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the Administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit."  After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.

    So Clarke said that Bush ignored the threat of Al Quaeda because it was obsessed with Saddam Hussein.  The Bush WH tried to make him into a liar, but there was too much evidence and they had to back down.

    Oops.

    BTW - You keep going back to that July 5 meeting as though that was evidence that Bush was on top of the terrorist threat.  This was the very same meeting where the participants testified:

    1.  The focus was on overseas threats.
    2.  They were given no specifics about the threat.
    3.  They were given no directives, and
    4.  They couldn't even share the vague information they were give.

    Heck'uva job, Bushie!

    BBTW -

    But in the final analysis you must admit that if Bush was responsible for the 2008 crash... because he was the Prez.... Then you must assign the 2009 to 5/18/14 recession to Obama.

    That's quite a precise end date for the recession, but your start date (the one date that matters) was so vague ... just a year indicated.  Almost like it was intentional.

    The Great Recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

    Guess you should probably rethink that silly thesis of yours.


    Parent

    Facts remain (2.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:18:06 AM EST
    Issues were left hanging for over two years.

    Bush acted to increase resources.

    Warnings were issued.

    As for the economy... if you think we're not in a recession then you must be on welfare.

    Parent

    ..Because people on welfare (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by jondee on Mon May 19, 2014 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    never have any financial worries -- they're not forced to be concerned over finances and the economy the way other people are..

    Parent
    Other facts remain, too (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Yman on Mon May 19, 2014 at 06:36:50 PM EST
    Your boy Bush was warned.  He ignored the warnings and focused on Saddam.  He downgraded the role of the terrorism adviser.  He had a meeting about threats overseas where the particpants couldn't even share the vague information they were given.  Bush let 9-11 happen.

    BTW - The point of the recession post was your claim that it started under Obama and was therefore his recession.  The problem is, it actually started under Bush, sooooooo ...  But it has ended, and I'm not the one getting a monthly government check, so if you want to talk about being "on welfare" ...

    Parent

    Very Good! (none / 0) (#2)
    by mogal on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:03:42 PM EST


    Uh huh... (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:07:36 PM EST
    She denounced the Bush administration for squandering those economic gains as well as a budget surplus [--]"That's what happens when your only policy prescription is to cut taxes for the wealthy and then to deal with the aftermath of a terrible terrorist attack and two wars without paying for them,

    So the problem was not that the wars were illegal, immoral and unnecessary.

    The problem was that they weren't paid for.

    Give it a rest. She was addressing (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:32:46 PM EST
    economic inequality.

    Parent
    Let's be clear... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:53:30 PM EST
    she gave good Republican bashing rhetoric in preparation for a presidential run.  I didn't hear a policy idea to meaningfully address income inequality...and for good reason, Wall St. might stop cutting checks for speeches and the future campaign fund.

    And I think it wise for her to stop referencing Bill Clinton's economic record...anybody with google can see right through that sh*t.  Aside from the job growth and an uptick in median income related to the internet boom, the 1% got owned more of this piece in 2000 than they did in '92. Financial deregulation, capital gains tax cut...if that's populist economics you can have it.

    Then again, you'll never go broke betting on the ignorance of the American voter.  Maybe people will buy this crap...shake me when she proposes a guaranteed income, till then I'll keep my eye on Jill Stein's announcement to run again.

    Parent

    To which she connected two wars, no? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:47:05 PM EST
    Hillary brought it up by referencing wars that blew out the surplus.

    Is there anyone here who thinks that if the wars had been paid for that it would not have happened on the backs of the 99%?

    But, truth be told, we're not going to hear Hillary Clinton talk about the illegitimacy of the Iraq war - that's old news.  We're not going to hear about torture, or indefinite detention, or the massive and illegal invasions of Americans' privacy or drone killings of American citizens - how can she talk about those in negative terms when she was involved up to her neck?

    If Clinton keeps taking money from Goldman and Citi and JPM and Bank of America, it's going to get harder to give her much credibility on this issue of income inequality.

    Parent

    She said (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:08:18 PM EST
    what she said.

    She addressed income inequality and slipped in a nice bit of a historical revisionism.

    But you can enjoy the wrapping.

    I'm somewhat disturbed by what the wrapping conceals.

    Parent

    Historical Revisionism? (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    She mentioned nothing about the war'e legality. Her point was obvious and yours is a non-sequitur.

    Parent
    Anne's (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:44:27 AM EST
    post above may help you understand what I was attempting to express.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    I understand what you said. It was vey clear. I do not see how Hillary engaged in historical revisionism because she chose not to talk about the legal issues surrounding the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

    I assume you misspoke, because Anne's comment does not make your comment any clearer, imo.  

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:08:56 AM EST
    I am trying to get across to you is that Hillary spoke of the wars only in the sense that Bush didn't arrange to pay for them properly.

    Parent
    I Understand That (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:18:37 AM EST
    She also mentioned her husband, but did not discuss adultery.

    Parent
    Go squeak (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 18, 2014 at 12:06:43 PM EST
    Lentinel (none / 0) (#58)
    by DFLer on Sat May 17, 2014 at 08:47:16 PM EST
    re your reference to "Anne's post above" ..confusing for me as the post I think you're referring to was BELOW for me. I use the sort by oldest first option to read here, not by highest ranked, for example. Anyhoo, I found it...just saying.

    Parent
    I sort (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:18:11 AM EST
    by newest first...

    Next time, I'll try to post a link...

    Parent

    Has any Democrat of significant influence (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jondee on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:37:58 PM EST
    in history ever publicly said an American military adventure was immoral?

    They can't even bring themselves to say torturing and teaching torture is immoral.

    Parent

    She's not going to call the wars themselves... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by unitron on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    ...wrong, considering that she calculated that opposition to either or both of them would have been inconvenient when she went to run for President had they gone as well as the GOP fantasies expected them to.

    How come I knew back then what a disaster they'd be and she didn't?

    Parent

    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    I know of no one who didn't know what bs we were being peddled.
    No one.

    But she claims she didn't know.

    She has to admit to having made a cynical decision based on her political ambitions, or admit to being sloppy, or a little bit stupid or just plain gullible.

    Neither of the above alternatives are attractive to me in a candidate.

    Parent

    Also too (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    Hillary was on The View today. Apparently it was Barbara Walters' last show.

    I happened to catch part of that. (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:13:57 PM EST
    Walked in the room and saw her so watched. She did quite well (for The View). She looked relaxed and rested.

    Parent
    Just watched the clip on YouTube (none / 0) (#29)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 16, 2014 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    She was great. I can't help but watch the body language of people on tv. Esp those running for office. This was the first time I saw her consistently use an open palm with her fingers spread out rather than fingers controled and all together. So much energy in her presentation. She's running.

    Parent
    Well, I'm glad (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    she's addressing this issue because it is THE ISSUE for the country right now.

    If only that were why she was doing it... (3.50 / 2) (#33)
    by unitron on Sat May 17, 2014 at 01:01:43 AM EST
    ..., because it needs to be addressed, rather than because she's running.

    Parent
    How do (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:52:50 AM EST
    you know that she doesn't think it needs to be addressed?

    Parent
    A granny.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:38:23 PM EST
    I said Clinton/Warren (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:46:53 PM EST
    Months ago and got poo-pooed.  I still think it's a terrific idea.  And far from impossible.

    Parent
    I'd vote for Tara the Cat (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by magster on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    (assuming she's a Democrat because she's bad-ass) if she was nominated.

    Clinton-Warren-Tara ticket is fine with me.

    Parent

    Tara (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 16, 2014 at 05:58:30 PM EST
    For Secretary of Defense

    Parent
    I'd rather Warren stayed... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by unitron on Sat May 17, 2014 at 01:06:17 AM EST
    ...in the Senate, doing good work, and as independent of Presidential politics as possible for now.

    Parent
    Some questions on income inequality. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Green26 on Sat May 17, 2014 at 01:05:20 AM EST
    Can someone explain why income equality is bad? I can understand a fairness argument. What else?

    If bad, other than taxing big income, what else should be done?

    It's both income... (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by unitron on Sat May 17, 2014 at 01:11:27 AM EST
    ...and asset inequality, and a little of it's not a bad thing, but it's getting so out of hand, in part because of government policies, that we're on the way to becoming a banana republic, with an extremely wealthy class and most everybody else down near the bottom, and with the political power inequality that accompanies a setup like that.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 17, 2014 at 08:23:49 AM EST
    No economy remains strong without a strong middle class.  You can build an economy without that, but it is fragile and unable to rebound quickly from shocks.  That's just One aspect of what is lost due to income inequality.  There are societal dangers as well as economic dangers.

    Parent
    See me in the open (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 17, 2014 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    Want your view on GOT

    Parent
    The problem is not that a gap exists (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:22:07 AM EST
    The problem is the size of the gap.  And that it is growing.

    Parent
    Also in this country, $$$ = political influence (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    All of the influence in the hands of 1% of the population is the very antithesis of democracy.

    Parent
    As to what can be done... (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    1. raise the minimum wage
    2. restore Glass-Segal so that investment banks and deposit banks cannot merge - this led to market manipulation in housing and energy markets that directly take money from the middle class and give it to the rich
    3. raise interest rates on savings so middle class people are encouraged to save instead of give their money to investment banks and hope for the best.

    and that is just off the top of my head

    Parent
    All 3 good ideas (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    Now, what's keeping Obama from doing it??

    And why do you think Hillary would?

    Parent

    All I know is that anyone the Repubs put up (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    Will NEVER consider doing any of those things.  As voters we go with the one offering the policies we want and then we pressure the rest of the way if need be.  Duh

    What is your path to getting these things done?

    Parent

    He doesn't have one (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Yman on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:03:43 PM EST
    Bigger fish to fry ... the impending arrival of Shariah law, ect.

    Parent
    Revenge for the Emancipation Proclamation (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Tue May 20, 2014 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, the Sixties in general, and Watergate..

    It's a matter of priorities for Jim: social liberalism being down the list after chasing the dirty Occupy types out of our parks..

    Parent

    Well, your Dear Leader (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:22:42 AM EST
    has had over 6 years.. two with a huge majority..

    And he didn't act.

    Yet you prefer to complain about the Repubs....

    No surprise there.

    Parent

    From the guy ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Yman on Mon May 19, 2014 at 06:38:49 PM EST
    ... who blames the financial meltdown on subprime loans and blames Democrats because Bush tried to do something but couldn't with a Democratic Congress.

    Heh, heh ...

    Parent

    No, Yman, and please quit making things up (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:41:23 PM EST
    Subprime loans played a part. A key part. But if you look back at the Jan-June time frame in 2008 you can see that the Feds had slowed the spiral. Sky high oil prices and a Democratic congress that kept sending messages they would keep production down by restricting drilling poured oil on the situation.

    And yes, Barney is a Demo.

    ;-)

    Parent

    No, Yman, and please quit making things up (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    Subprime loans played a part. A key part. But if you look back at the Jan-June time frame in 2008 you can see that the Feds had slowed the spiral. Sky high oil prices and a Democratic congress that kept sending messages they would keep production down by restricting drilling poured oil on the situation.

    And yes, Barney is a Demo.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Not making up a thing (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    The truth - as opposed to conservative fairy tales - hurts, huh Jim?

    Parent
    Oh, my (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    this is such a gimme. Obama worries about Republicans and whether they would go along. Hillary does not give a rat's a** about what the GOP thinks about ANYTHING. She is fearless. Hillary is actually interested in policy. Obama is not.

    And then like Tracy says the GOP ain't got nothin' to up it in your language.

    Parent

    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2014 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    But I know they are more likely to do something than any GOP candidates I have ever heard of.

    Parent
    Perfect (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    Particularly the interest rates.  They aren't keeping them low for us anyhow.  They are keeping them low because of all the institutional debt.

    Parent
    And your assessment (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:37:47 PM EST
    And GOT episode title search was pretty good too.

    Parent
    So if she's running, is this her (none / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:20:30 PM EST
    VP?

    She could (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:01:13 PM EST
    Do worse

    Parent
    So the plan (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:49:20 PM EST
    to "fix" income inequality to to take money from people who earned it by knowledgeably investing in jobs and put it in the hands of politicians?

    I'm doubting there will ever be a successful scheme to fleece the rich, its always middle class that bear the burden once all of any schemes effects play out.

    Interesting "question" (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:31:25 AM EST
    So the plan to "fix" income inequality to to take money from people who earned it by knowledgeably investing in jobs and put it in the hands of politicians?

    Has someone actually said that?

    The part about "knowledgeably investing in jobs" was funny, though.

    Parent

    That means (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:57:33 AM EST
    They bought walmart stock

    Parent
    No, the plan is going to involve something (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Anne on Sun May 18, 2014 at 09:28:32 AM EST
    called NewDeal, which ought to be giving people some pause:

    Created by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, the NewDEAL is one of several cash-rich efforts to resurrect the Democratic Party's flailing bench of electable candidates.

    This NewDEAL has little in common with President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal platform, which pledged to save capitalism from itself by cracking down on predatory banking institutions and restoring workplace rights for Americans. No, this NewDEAL is a 501(c)(4) issue-advocacy nonprofit, a tax vehicle which allows campaign activity without disclosure of donors, and its name is an acronym for "Developing Exceptional American Leaders."

    The group, touted as a platform to "highlight rising pro-business progressives," is led by Democrats who have made a name for themselves by bucking the populist trend. They include NewDeal co-chair Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, whose zeal for the charterization of public schools and love of Wall Street makes him indistinguishable from many across the aisle. The other co-chair, Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado, has staked a position in his state's energy wars as a staunch defender of drillers.

    VICE has obtained a "supporter list" showing donors of the NewDEAL, which reads like a who's who of corporations seeking government access: Comcast, Fluor, Merck, Microsoft, New York Life, Pfizer, Qualcomm, Verizon, Wal-Mart, the Private Equity Growth Capital Council, among others, including, of course, the host of Tuesday's event, ANGA.

    And guess what?  Here comes the Clinton Global Initiative:

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged business leaders to "come off the sidelines" and do more to help combat income inequality in an economic address Friday.

    The potential 2016 Democratic presidential contender said she is working to "encourage more companies to come off the sidelines and frankly, for some to use some of that cash that is sitting there waiting to be deployed," in a speech at the New America Foundation 2014 Conference.

    She said the Clinton Global Initiative is "assembling a network of businesses" that will be unveiled next month at their conference in Denver. And she praised businesses like Corning and Gap, Inc., for investing in programs that spur economic growth and raise wages.
    "We can't wait for government, which seems so paralyzed and unfortunately at a time when we could be racing ahead," she said.

    Digby's take mirrors mine:

    I understand what she's saying here, and perhaps I'm being unfair. Perhaps encouraging business to do more is a good thing as long as Republicans are so intransigent.

    But the notion that income inequality fixes will come voluntary from big business is ludicrous, and the fact that this is Ms. Clinton's first big move on the subject shows all the wrong, neoliberal instincts.

    If the GOP is refusing to allow income inequality fixes to move forward at the federal level, the right answer is to punish the hell out of them at the ballot box over it while rapidly advancing with fixes at the state and local levels. The answer isn't to beg corporate interests to do the right thing over a "business roundtable."

    So, my overall sense is that Clinton's picking up on the right buzz words, but the eventual policy that appears to be behind them is going to be more of the same crap, dressed up and perfumed to smell better, but without threatening a real change to the current status quo.

    Hillary Clinton may be taking a page out of Elizabeth Warren's book, and leveraging the latest populist theme to her advantage, but she's no threat to the corporate community or to the wealthy, and that's what she needs to be if the gap is going to narrow.

    Parent

    I wonder how she (none / 0) (#89)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    feels on speech pay inequality.  

    Your jealous slip is showing (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#106)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 19, 2014 at 05:16:07 AM EST
    Mind if I use that alot?  I'll attribute it to you.

    Parent
    This is so nuts (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon May 19, 2014 at 12:24:34 AM EST
    Running businesses well, creating jobs and wanted products is bad?

    People are poor due to failed government programs and their own issues and decisions. Our welfare system is a poverty trap, try and work your way out and lose benefits faster than income rises. This should end, make the benefits available to all with no penalty for working or income, but make them as basic and targeted as possible.

    Going after the rich with income taxes is wrong headed, it targets rising incomes, not wealth, and wealth is a more appropriate basis for a tax.

    This IS nuts (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Yman on Mon May 19, 2014 at 06:17:54 AM EST
    People are poor due to failed government programs and their own issues and decisions. Our welfare system is a poverty trap, try and work your way out and lose benefits faster than income rises. This should end, make the benefits available to all with no penalty for working or income, but make them as basic and targeted as possible.

    The same, old, conservative myth that social programs are a welfare trap that create poverty ... blame it on the government bogeyman.  As always, with not even an actual hint of evidence to support it.

    Which, of course, is entirely contradicted by the greatly superior economic mobility of all of those countries with much more comprehensive social programs.

    Parent