I Just Don't Get It
Is it just me or does more and more of what we see and read in the media make no sense? Why do so many seemingly intelligent people keep repeating lies and distortions as though they were true? Why do those same people speak in the present or future tense about things that have already happened.? Why do "journalists" seek out responses and reactions to these distortions instead of just ignoring them or pointing out they are not true? I just don't get it.
For example, I keep hearing concerns and warnings about President Obama's socialist plan to redistribute the wealth in our country. But we know for a fact that has already happened.
Over the last eight years, we have witnessed the greatest redistribution of wealth in our country's history. We saw unprecedented amounts moved from average investors and workers into the pockets of those who run companies and work on Wall Street. We have seen the Bush tax cuts tilt the playing field to reward the richest Americans at the expense of everyone else. Those aren't opinions -- those are facts.
Although I haven't seen statistics, I am certain that we now have more Americans who earn more in a month than the average worker makes in a whole year than ever before. And yet, now that the horse is out of the barn, there is a huge outcry that Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. I just don't get it.
Critics are also wringing their hands and screaming on a daily basis on the radio, Fox News, and CNBC, that the Obama government is taking over businesses, deciding how much money executives in private companies should make, and destroying the free market system that has served us so well over the years.
But wait a minute. That system didn't serve us well at all. It brought us to the brink of economic meltdown. Last year the conservative free market Treasury secretary Henry Paulson gathered the heads of all the major banks in a room and ordered them to accept $125 billion in TARP money immediately. He told the country that without an immediate $800 billion government bailout, our whole world financial system would collapse.
This was LAST year, when Bush was still president. You remember Bush. He's the guy who told us weekly that the economy was fundamentally sound right up until the minute that his Treasury secretary accurately told us we were on the verge of falling into the abyss.
Bush is the guy who spent more than a trillion on the Iraq war (including hundreds of millions in cash that were thrown off the back of trucks (to appease the Iraqi masses) and billions in no-bid contracts to his buddies and contributors from Blackwater, Halliburton, and others who have since been charged with ripping off the American people. He's the guy who passed the prescription drug benefit with no discussion or apparent concern regarding how we would pay for it. He's the guy who took a budget surplus and in eight years more than doubled the national debt to over than $10 trillion.
At no time during this bankrupting of our country during good economic times did the subject of how we were going to pay for all this ever come up in the Republican-controlled Congress or from the White House. Never. Instead the richest Americans got tax cuts and we were all told to go shopping and keep borrowing.
Now all of Bush's former supporters and defenders have suddenly become fiscal conservatives and are screaming their outrage claiming that Obama wants to do what Bush and Cheney have already done -- run up trillions in deficits and bury the country in debt. Only unlike Bush and Cheney, Obama has an excuse -- the economy is in a death spiral. Politics aside, this criticism coming from the very people who created the problem seems to make no sense. I just don't get it.
They claim that Obama wants to take over and run our banks and auto makers. But these banks and auto makers were broke and came to Washington on bended knee asking for life support. The leaders of these companies made hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves while they made stupid and greedy decisions that ran their companies (and our economy) into the ground and jeopardized the jobs of hundreds of thousands of their workers.
So Obama has come up with money to save the economy but now insists that the same people and practices that created this mess will not be allowed to continue on the taxpayer's dime. He has never talked about putting conditions and restrictions on a successful company. If he was taking over and running Google or Apple or Procter and Gamble then his critics might have a point. But we're talking about American corporate institutions that were destroyed by incompetent, greedy managers.
And for this, CNBC's Larry Kudlow and the Fox News chorus scream out in harmony that our president is a socialist who is stifling free enterprise and ruining the system that made America great. It seems pretty clear that he is actually insisting that we change the approach that led the economy off a cliff. I just don't get it.
Finally, we are now dealing with the election in Iran. Obama's response has been measured, smart, and consistent according to most people including a broad range of conservative commentators. But the Right wing attack dogs have been relentlessly critical from the moment the election ended and it became clear that there were irregularities to the last few days when Iranian demonstrators have been shot in the street.
It has been striking to watch Republican lawmakers like Saxby Chambliss, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and others talk about how our president has a responsibility to to get very involved in the internal election process of another country where it appears there have been irregularities that caused the wrong person to win.
I'm old enough -- and so are they -- to remember our own presidential election of eight years ago. Many around the world believe that Bush's brother, the Florida secretary of state, and a Republican Supreme Court stole the presidency of the United States from its rightful winner. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that actually happened but there is no doubt that there was at least the impression of impropriety.
How would these Republicans who are so critical of Obama have weighed in if the leaders of France, Germany, or Saudi Arabia tried to become actively involved in helping us sort out what happened? What if they questioned the accuracy of our results and the morality of our elected officials and said they could not sit quietly by and watch the will of the people overwhelmed by politics? It's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. And oh, by the way, I just don't get it.
Obama responded perfectly in his news conference when he said that these critics have the luxury of shooting from the hip and saying whatever they want. He's the only one who is President of the United States and has to think before he talks. As one commentator put it, "Obama is playing chess while the rest of these guys are playing checkers. He's thinking ten moves down the road while they are thinking about today's news cycle."
I have only met Obama once and don't know him well. He has made some mistakes and will surely make more. By the way, he has been sharply criticized by members of his own party and Left-leaning commentators like Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olberman for several of his statements and positions. He has also been praised by those same people. That I get.
But I can't understand the level and intensity of attacks that are being leveled at a man who, by all assessments, has surrounded himself with good people of both parties, who has brought our economy back from the brink of collapse, and who has three times as many Americans believing we are now on the right track as felt that way six months ago.
If there was an election coming up next month then it might make sense. But Obama is just a few months into a four year, no-cut contract. We are at war. He inherited an economy that was and still is a disaster. He was given the ball in the top of the ninth with his team behind 9-0 and told to go out and win the game. Is it fair to blame him for the loss if his team comes back to lose 9-7?
He's going to need a lot of luck and all of our support but instead he has been greeted with a solid barrage of unfair criticism from people who claim to be patriotic and care about our country.
I just don't get it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama has already sold out the average citizen by allowing the Investment banks and Wall Street brokers to continue 'business as usual'. The most 'top down' type of power structure we have ever seen continues. I have come to see that Obama is a 'shill' for the banking industry. No, you say? What regulation? What prosecution? Yea, lets give the Federal Reserve the over sight, brilliant! Why not reestablish the regulations that existed before the massive manipulations and and regulate bank business back to 'boring. American citizens are paying for every innovation Investment Bankers come up with through higher prices on all items. It is stealing from a 'closed system' of finite resources. They are not creating anything but another illusory mathematically manipulated hype. CDO's, they are so 'complicated'! Anyone who has studied math understands the limitation of the formula is the simplicity or errors in the hypothesis and If any of these people understood in simple terms what they mean they would outlaw them tomorrow. Welcome to the world of AIG times 100.
I don't think Obama has sold out anybody. He's coming to grips with the power of the entrenched interests on Capitol Hill. One thing seems certain--not everyone who did disgusting and possibly illegal things is going to be charged with a crime. Not everything will change either. But we have to walk before we can run and I like the direction in which he's walking.
Okay Larry, the problem here is you're looking for logic, honesty and some realm of realism from a genre and politicians who have no use for the very things they should represent and report honestly.
Great article:)
Well said, Larry.
Our information ministers sure are working overtime these days.
I don't understand how they (the mindless critics) have any credibility.
The GOP along with the MSM are tripping on LSD (lies, smears, distortions)
I just don't get it either----but, there you have it.
This article is about spreading hate and lies in journalism.
Here's what happens when people start to believe it:
http://www
Suck on that hate mongers.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this article was about conservative media being too harsh on President Obama.
As for spreading hate and lies, what about Liberal calling all Conservatives Racists? I am not a racist and I am offended to be called that.
Like I said before, it swings both ways. Yes there are conservative talk show hosts, and radio hosts, and many more that are racists, hate mongers, etc. But not all. Liberals/Democrats do not hold the monopoly on equality, acceptance, and tolerance.
I have less of a problem with the "conservative" media (Fox , the radio guys, and the bloggers) because they have a stated agenda and everyone knows what to expect. My concern is with the so-called main stream media which is supposed to hold statements and allegations to some level of fact-checking and journalistic standards. That's where the biggest disappointment lies.
first, who called you a racist?
name the person. and why did they call you a racist?
you don't agree with certain policies? neither do I, but noone's calling me a racist.
my problem with conservatives is that your leaders say racist things, and do horrible things, and most conservatives don't say one word about it. loyalty is admirable, but above all else, honor. you said that there are some radio hosts who are racist. why is that only liberals oppose that? where are the scores of conservatives who aren't also condoning that behavior? because most of you zip you piehole and say nothing. your lack of actions condones that behavior.
and places like Fox News misinform, or just blatantly lie. and most conservatives take it as gospel. Obama's a socialist? redistribution of wealth? really? I may not be for HOW Obama performed the bailouts, ie. he basically gave big business tons of money with almost no consequences, restrictions, and with minimal return for the taxpayer.
BUT he had to do some form of bailout because the economy was in a death spiral because of BushCo/the GOP/neocons/and the conservative free market ideology.
Well Larry, looks like some people have slimed you with their hateful words in here.
It figures, when the perpetrators of slime defend the one's on TV.
Don't listen to them. This is a REAL issue, and needs to be addressed before more are killed.
I'm a big boy (too big in the mid-section). I can take it. My mother always told me to consider the source.
Dude it's called propaganda. What is their to "get"? It's the rich obfuscating the truth in order to rile up the masses. That's the story of the last 2000 years.
that doesn''t make it okay.
You must be young. I can remember a time when this kind of journalism would have been shamefull and only found in the national enquirer.
It swings both ways. This article is full of glaring inaccuracies, and propaganda. This article is an example of the Liberal side of the fence using misdirection to rally their own cause. Neither side is excusable when they do this.
Fox viewers are very big on the Enquirer.
OUR TRADITIONAL WAY OF THINKING, THAT ALL OUR THOUGHTS ARE RATIONAL AND CONSCIOUSLY MADE AND UNDERSTOOD, NO LONGER IS ENOUGH TO "GET IT"
A lot of commentators are surprised that "the System" has its own logic that seems almost immune to rational analysis and also that so many people seem basically negative or pessimistic. These two aspects actually go together, we are surprised at irrational and pessimistic behavior of economic and political institutions. A basic statement would be, " why, if Obama administration has such good intentions and is obviously trying to implement pragmatic policies, getting so much irrational and negative opposition
Psychologists now see the brain and therefore the mind as modular, it does not have one central point that coordinates all thoughts and memories. They just fit together on and off. A person can get physical brain damage and lose some abilities while others go on. We also don't necessarily level with ourselves or see what others see about us. This also applies to institutions, which we model on our own unconscious and partly irrational and pessimistic selves.
Most complaints are about the financial and medical fields being elitist, selfish and almost immune to understanding, much less improvement. After the banking meltdown, Wall Street wants to be left alone if possible, to return to its profitable speculations. Doctors, hospitals and insurers don't want to be regulated.
All this is natural behavior and, like individuals, permanent situations which are open to just slow but inevitable improvements.
I didn't finish reading your piece, Larry.
You say, "Why do so many seemingly intelligent people keep repeating lies and distortions as though they were true?"
Great question. Includes you. When you write an article such as this, you must be the first to check the facts.
You could start with researching the percentage of total taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans in the last eight years. Just the beginning.
They pay less tax than in almost all of our industrialized trade partners. The fact is, even the wealthiest (honest) Americans say the tax rate is should be hiked exponentially on them.
What he is trying to point out, that like many commentators on both sides of the fence Mister Gellman exaggerates or leaves out facts to support his point. This is just one example, he, and many other Liberals, like to point out that Bush's tax cuts supported the rich when the IRS clearly shows that during the last 8 years the richest 25% saw progressive increases in taxation in this report http://www
Also note that in this article Mister Gellman says that Bush spent over a trillion dollars on the Iraq war. Well, according to http://www
Oh, and Rand, I am sure I can find just as many wealthy (honest) Americans that disagree with you as you can find those that do. It helps to have some sort of independent study to support your argument before you go trying to use it against someone.
comPLETEly OFF TOPIC
How is it off topic? Mister Gellman mentions both Bush's tax cuts AND the cost of the war in Iraq in his article.
I appreciate your comment. Give me examples of factual errors so I can get better at this.
Of course most taxes are paid by the wealthiest Americans. That because under Bush the weathiest Americans became so much wealthier that even with a tax cut they are paying more taxes. Given what we know about the abuses on Wall Street (where I sort of work) and among other corporate leaders, it is clear that making huge amounts of money is no longer related to the value that you add to society or the economy.
Actually the report above that I linked shows an increase of income from ALL income groups. Everyone was making more money, not just the wealthy. While I agree that being wealthy has no bearing on your contribution to society, but it should be pointed out that some of the increase in income shown just from 2000-2008 by the top 1% was also due to the increase of the number of people in that top percentage. The problem I have with this article and many like it is you use the one and only point that you can find to support your argument. If you look at the chart you will see that the number of people filing in the top 1% increased by 5%, but their average income only went up by 2. So, does that tell us that even though more people made it into that top bracket, overall they were making a little less money than before?
More examples can be found above in the post, and at my blog, which again I can't link you to due to the rules of the comment section.
Those who chant for the Free Market have proven themselves to be Corporate Socialists.
Rand/Friedman economics are the biggest farce to hit this country in it's history. The system is designed to concentrate all the wealth from the people who created it with hard work to people who contribute the least to society. The theories are baseless and have been disproven multiple times in history while it's proponents spread all-out lies about the supposed "failures" of Socialism. Facts get in the way of their propaganda so they use scare-tactics to turn people away from Socialism.
No education
No healthcare
No jobs
Oppressive corporate police state
Poisonous products
Eco-damaging rampant over-production
Economics based on fraud and racketeering
Stifles creativity because energy and medical progress is bad for profit for the few.
Capitalism has yet to produce any redeeming qualities
Hugo Chavez is definitely on to something, we should be following.
Can't convince conservatives that Obama is right by pointing fingers at Bush. Financial irresponsibility is financial irresponsibility no matter what party you belong to. Most Conservatives are aware that Bush made mistakes as far as the financial system goes, but the current crisis goes back further than that. Perhaps if Obama was doing something different this article would carry more weight, but all we are seeing is Obama do the same thing, spend lots of money, and all the Liberals stand up and shout "Hey look how much better he is doing!" Liberals did not want the 800 billion dollar stimulus under Bush, neither did we. Liberals praise Obama for his 700 billion dollar stimulus, we didn't want that one either. When asked if there was another one coming Obama said 'not yet'. The only difference here is the person spending all our money...no wait, spending more than our money, money we don't have, to fix a problem that was started by spending too much money.
I am not sayting that Obama is necessarily right. What I am saying is that most of the "budget busting atrocities" that Conservatives and Republicans are screaming about regarding Obama were all implemented under Bush with the support of the very people who are now screaming the loudest. Even the crowd that is concerned about "redistribution of wealth" was totally silent when Bush mailed $170 billion in checks out to only the poorest Americans less than a year ago. Did they all have laryngitis then or is this all a big excuse to blast Obama for any reason possible?
Actually yes, Glenn Beck, a very conservative media personality hated the idea of that money being sent out, and so did I. He railed against it many times, but unfortunately that is all you can really do. If I could have sent it back I would have, instead of spending it on stupid stuff though, I used to continue working on the only investment that I can afford to have, my house.
Yes, we are spineless washroom gripers. We haven't the smarts to see through the hypocrisy, we are gullible and eat whatever redundancy that is fed us, we claim to be the LEADERS of the free world; yet, we allow ourselves to be stripped to the bone, and then curl up in a corner with the woe to us mentality. Iran is literally experiencing EXACTLY what we experienced in 2000 and in 2004. What did we do? We gripped and moaned and complained and ... let it slide. Yes, we are a spineless bunch and will allow any fate to befall us without a push back that would bring about a change.
We wanted Obama for the change. We bought into that shining star...and got it. Now, we let the same thieves who wrote the play for our very existence rise up and block every effort of our chosen president and effect, allowing the opposition to continue to destroy us...right on our own watch.
Do we really deserve better? Are we as dumb as we allow ourselves to display? A sad bunch we are.
This article should be on EVERY front page in the nation. It should be the breaking news on EVERY channel. It should be placed in the hands, in large print, of all our supposed leaders in congress. Be sure, they are systematically taking our good luck back.
Great article, Larry.
The president has a positive genius for cutting off the angles until his opposition starts spewing craziness. That's what's happening in every one of these examples, and it's what he did to Hillary Clinton & John McCain, and it is what he has done since to the remnants of GOP and the opposition benches in congress. I'm glad I don't have to oppose him.
He's a pretty smart guy.
Hillary didn't know what hit her. Now she's latching on, just as she did with her husband, her ticket to her ambitions.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
