If that headline is asking if Obama can preside over a congress that passes legislation that devastates the economy in the long term then sign that legislation into law, the answer is absolutely YES.
Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which undid the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act to protect us from another banking-induced depression. That formed a neat Clintonesque bookend to the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which, by the way, is so obscure as to not even have a Wikipedia page and which undid the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 that prohibited bank holding companies from acquiring a bank in another state. Clinton raped us down by the river as badly as any president ever has, aside from Jimmy Carter’s signing into law the whole 401(k) scam (Revenue Act of 1978; democrats held both houses, FWIW.) that opened a vein of cash flowing directly from working people to the Wall Street banks for ever and ever. Can Obama be as devastating? I have my doubts but there’s plenty of HOPE and CHANGE in the air, right?
Oh. I didn’t notice that was a WSJ article, then when I did, it didn’t register for a moment.
Why even comment on that Murdoch mind sludge?
Clinton never, to my recollection, ever spoke in public using Republican talking points. Even if he adopted some of their ideas, he used more Democratic-oriented terms.
Clinton had not trouble calling himself a Democrat; Obama has a huge problem doing that.
Clinton talked about letting people use additional funds of their own, above and beyond regular SocSec taxes, to invest in the market. He did not, afaik, talk about cutting to strenthen either SocSec or Medicare. But that could be my bad memory — I’ve seen commenters say he proposed privatizing SocSec, which I was not aware of.
Also, Clinton knew the economy had to be good and the government had to be seen as effective for everyone in order for the people to trust it enough to support bigger programs. At least that’s what I thought he was telling us.
Seeing how Clinton can now talk Obama’s lingo makes me skeptical of my memories of Bill Clinton….
Missed a typo in a tag–last 2 grafs should be this way:
Also, Clinton knew the economy had to be good and the government had to be seen as effective for everyone in order for the people to trust it enough to support bigger programs. At least that’s what I thought he was telling us.
Seeing how Clinton can now talk Obama’s lingo makes me skeptical of my memories of Bill Clinton….
If that headline is asking if Obama can preside over a congress that passes legislation that devastates the economy in the long term then sign that legislation into law, the answer is absolutely YES.
Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which undid the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act to protect us from another banking-induced depression. That formed a neat Clintonesque bookend to the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which, by the way, is so obscure as to not even have a Wikipedia page and which undid the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 that prohibited bank holding companies from acquiring a bank in another state. Clinton raped us down by the river as badly as any president ever has, aside from Jimmy Carter’s signing into law the whole 401(k) scam (Revenue Act of 1978; democrats held both houses, FWIW.) that opened a vein of cash flowing directly from working people to the Wall Street banks for ever and ever. Can Obama be as devastating? I have my doubts but there’s plenty of HOPE and CHANGE in the air, right?
Oh. I didn’t notice that was a WSJ article, then when I did, it didn’t register for a moment.
Why even comment on that Murdoch mind sludge?
Clinton never, to my recollection, ever spoke in public using Republican talking points. Even if he adopted some of their ideas, he used more Democratic-oriented terms.
Clinton had not trouble calling himself a Democrat; Obama has a huge problem doing that.
Clinton talked about letting people use additional funds of their own, above and beyond regular SocSec taxes, to invest in the market. He did not, afaik, talk about cutting to strenthen either SocSec or Medicare. But that could be my bad memory — I’ve seen commenters say he proposed privatizing SocSec, which I was not aware of.
Also, Clinton knew the economy had to be good and the government had to be seen as effective for everyone in order for the people to trust it enough to support bigger programs. At least that’s what I thought he was telling us.
Seeing how Clinton can now talk Obama’s lingo makes me skeptical of my memories of Bill Clinton….
Missed a typo in a tag–last 2 grafs should be this way:
Also, Clinton knew the economy had to be good and the government had to be seen as effective for everyone in order for the people to trust it enough to support bigger programs. At least that’s what I thought he was telling us.
Seeing how Clinton can now talk Obama’s lingo makes me skeptical of my memories of Bill Clinton….