I’d read something several months ago that stuck in the back of my mind, and I simply couldn’t retrieve it. I knew it had something to do with why Obama does what he does, but I couldn’t locate it, either online or in my brain.
I finally remembered. It was something at least reasonably credible that described a meeting Obama had with some multinational type, who carefully explained to him that he had to break the back of the American economy, driving us down to a low-wage, low-benefits society — so we could compete with Third World countries for jobs.
And you know, I really do think this is what is going on. The Harvard guy, easily impressed by the elites, dazzled by the fact that he’s one of them, and a man without clearly defined goals or vision, bought that version of reality.
Rather than do the hard work of bringing other countries up to our standards, he’s decided we have to be broken. And he thinks it’s what’s “best” for us. He’s doing it because he cares. He sees social programs as simply postponing the the day when the workers (not the special people, like him and his friends) are living in tin shacks without running water, and he wants to wean us off the safety net.
Notice how toothless these trade treaties are? They’re not benefiting us, but then, they’re not meant to help us. They’re meant to help corporations, which are the real constituencies.
There are ways to change this. He could stop the economic and trade policies that make it almost impossible for American manufacturing to compete. He could put money into public infrastructure. He could push for something resembling an international minimum wage.
He could be the president of the entire world, and make everyone’s lives better, instead of just the upper classes. But he won’t. He won’t push for those things because they might work.
We need to figure out what to do about that.
Oh, the old make a flat out declarative statement purporting to summarize the actions of another, then duck, dodge and weave when called on it defense. Gee, you really put me in my place.
Unlike you I’m willing to stand 100% behind anything I write. A few sentences are capable of carrying weight. But hey, whatever works for you….
I would enjoy spending more time indulging with petty squabbling with you but I don’t have a lot of time. I’m sure you can find another old post and poster somewhere to make up for my lack.
“If you wish to continue to tell me that a post on the internet is neither comprehensive or nuanced, knock yourself out.”
Apparently the irony of that statement coming from someone who spends half her waking life parsing every word Megan McArdle writes to within an inch of its life eludes you.
“…but I don’t have a lot of time.”
Well of course not. Megan’s still writing, isn’t she?
A McArdle supporter? That’s terific. Perhaps you can explain something to me–why don’t her readers care that she lies about data? That one of the most prestigeous magazines in the US prints her dishonest arguments and personal attacks on anyone she sees as an enemy to bankers?
McArdle is an immensely useful example of the disfunctional media, but not even I can parse her every word. She can spew forth a dozen lies before I can finish correcting one.
As for Obama, your response is exemplery, except it doesn’t explain any of his actions. Why is he tightening the security state? Prosecuting whistleblowers? Bombing or occupying 5 countries? Refusing to prosecute war crimes and banking fraud? Why does he accept an over 30% unemployment rate for Black men? And a high unemployment rate in general? Why did he bail out the banks instead of taking them over temporarily? Why was the stimulus too small? Why do we not have a comprehensive plan to create jobs? Why is he cutting spending? Why did he put Medicare and SS on the table for cutting?
He is the willing tool of the elite, he wants to fit in with them and be a part of them. His reasons for doing so are based on his personality and circumstances of his life.
Yeah, right, I’m a McArdle supporter. Man, you sure got me pegged. Your reading of me is every bit as insightful and correct as your reading of Obama.
Now please, don’t let me keep you any longer. Megan may have baked another cake and I would hate to be responsible for keeping you from writing a 3,000 word critique of something so important.
Alway, always, they ignore the substance of the comment and go for the snark. You need both. I told you why I think Obama is a go-along-to-get-along guy, which I stated is a reflection of his personality, and the effect his behavior has made on his choice. Your response to my list of Obama’s choices is to mock me for criticizing the media over a long period of time, and especially for concentrating on one egregious example.
I believe you when you say you are not a McArdle supporter; it proves, however, that you don’t care why you criticize me, you just picked something at random. Whatever.