Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Obama Defends Lawrence Summers From Liberal Attacks

So Summers is getting a bad rap from the "liberal" press? This is the gangster who while working for the World Bank encouraged dumping toxic waste in third world countries. Who, while president of Harvard, stated that women were naturally inferior in math and science. Who, as an economic "advisor" wanted cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and was the point man in deregulation.

In the words of author Richard Eskow, Summers "Wasn't wrong as in 'he made a bad call wrong'," "He was wrong as in 'He fought aggressively to deregulate Wall Street, ran roughshod over anyone who raised legitimate concerns, bullied anyone who tried to prevent the tragic events of 2008, took big fees from banking firms and was massively and absolutely wrong over and over'."

by Anonymousreply 3208/06/2013

I will lose a lot of respect for Obama if he appoints this asshat. He, IMO, has been a big part of the problem with our economy.

by Anonymousreply 107/31/2013

So where's the petition to stop this from happening? It needs to be emailed to everybody

by Anonymousreply 207/31/2013

This is the side to Obama that makes me sick. It just shows how he's in Wall Street's pocket if he appoints Summers, who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Fed.

But then, aren't most national politicians in Wall Street's pocket? Depressing.

by Anonymousreply 307/31/2013

This sums it up quite well.

by Anonymousreply 408/04/2013

Larry Summers is a loud mouthed, egotistical jerk, but he's very competent. I think he did a good job as Clinton's Treasury Sec.

by Anonymousreply 508/04/2013

He's an asshole and Obama is another Republican-lite going through the motions.

by Anonymousreply 608/04/2013

If you want more "trickle-down" QE, sending the S&P and Dow to record territory, while ordinary Americans grovel for jobs -- Yellen is your gal.

Summers at least has the balls to call QE the bullshit that it is. Unlike Bernanke or Yellen.

by Anonymousreply 708/04/2013

R6 - By that definition, Clinton is Republican lite.

by Anonymousreply 808/04/2013

Clinton is Republican lite, R8. He admitted it himself.

by Anonymousreply 908/04/2013

Bill did Republican things, but Hillary is very liberal.

by Anonymousreply 1008/04/2013

I think you are right, R9, both Clinton and Obama would be moderate Republicans of the past. Clinton said he had become an Eisenhower Republican. I have no problem with that. They are very different from today's GOP.

by Anonymousreply 1108/04/2013

R10 - Hillary is no more liberal than Bill or Barak.

by Anonymousreply 1208/04/2013

Barack has made cabinet picks of nonentities and cronies. Summers shoots from the hip -- exactly what you don't want in the head of the Fed.

by Anonymousreply 1308/04/2013

Who ever runs in 2016 will have a Democratic Party further to the right than it has been in a hundred years.

by Anonymousreply 1408/04/2013

Right, R113.

You should definitely prefer someone who systematically and methodically pumps $85BN a month into the banks and the 1% on the Thatcherite theory that it will trickle down to the plebs.

by Anonymousreply 1508/04/2013

QE is a good thing for the economy.

by Anonymousreply 1608/04/2013

QE is good for the banks, and the 1% of the population that owns 60% of stocks, which are of course at record levels.

How is it working for the average American, whose average wages FELL last month? How is that job at Starbucks working for you?

by Anonymousreply 1708/04/2013

Obama's showing his true Republican nature again.

by Anonymousreply 1808/04/2013

When Larry "Coke-spoon" Kudlow took to defending the Bernanke / Yellen Fed, you should have known definitively who they work for.

Hint: it's not the 99%.

by Anonymousreply 1908/04/2013

R17 - That so many people are having trouble finding work is not the fault of QE. Blame the Republicans for that. QE is needed given that the Fed can't reduce rates below where they are. Without QE, things would be worse all over.

by Anonymousreply 2008/04/2013


No. The Fed's current "trickle-down" policies are giving an excuse for Congress to do nothing. A responsible Fed would say "we have done all we can; Congress must solve the jobs problem, or deal with the consequences."

As it is, the Fed is a reactionary force, widening the wealth gap and enriching the 1%.

Summers understands this; Bernanke and Yellen do not.

by Anonymousreply 2108/04/2013

R21 - I don't think you know what "trickle down" means. The Fed's policy keeps interest rates low. That's good for small business owners, for people wanting to buy homes, for people wanting to buy cars, etc.

by Anonymousreply 2208/04/2013

I understand exactly what "trickle down" means.

Fed easing works via the wealth effect; reflation of assets prices is the primary "transmission mechanism" of Fed policy. The problem is that the vast majority of the assets are in the hands of a very small percentage of the population. And the rest of the population is already over-indebted, which is why the Fed's policies will not work.

by Anonymousreply 2308/04/2013

No R23. The population has less debt load than it did five years ago. QE has been good for the average consumer because it keeps interest rates low. Were it not for QE, we would have been worse off.

by Anonymousreply 2408/04/2013

You keep repeating that, R23. Meanwhile, wages are FALLING for the average worker, and the wealth gap is GROWING. And Congress diddles itself in the corner.

Bernanke and Yellen are part of the problem; their Messiah complex is part of the problem. Summers may be an asshole, but he at least understands this.

by Anonymousreply 2508/04/2013

The wealth gap is widening but it has for three decades. The wealth gap is not from QE.

by Anonymousreply 2608/04/2013


60+% of financial assets are in the hands of 1% of the population. The DOW is up 150% since March 09, when the Fed started QE. How can you possibly say QE is not exacerbating the wealth disparity?!!

Jeezus, you've really drunk the plutocrat Kool-Aid.

by Anonymousreply 2708/04/2013

Not doing QE would have hurt the average person, R27. Without QE, we would not have had the housing rebound. We would not be creating 200 K jobs per month.

by Anonymousreply 2808/04/2013


I think QE merely defends the plutocracy, and forestalls substantive fiscal action. I think Obama and Summers see this, too. I think Wall Street will cream its pants over Yellen -- more free money for the banks.

But I'm not going to get through to you, so, good night.

by Anonymousreply 2908/04/2013


I think QE merely defends the plutocracy, and forestalls substantive fiscal action. I think Obama and Summers see this, too. I think Wall Street will cream its pants over Yellen -- more free money for the banks.

But I'm not going to get through to you, so, good night.

by Anonymousreply 3008/04/2013


Housing starts have stalled and the jobs created are bullshit jobs at minimum wages, or just above, with no security and no future.

Put that aside for the moment and assume that QE has helped the great majority of people. Has that help been substantive? Has it been enough to stop the growing disparity of wealth? Even slow it?

Suppose our nations is a corporation. There is a group of ten people at the very top that set policy, the CEO, CFO, board of directors, and major investors. They decide their compensation and the compensation for their thousand employees.

The small group at the top makes millions each year and have millions of dollars of assets that in turn make money. Each year their wages and assets go up and the rate of that increase goes up every year. All the other employees from file clerk to the lower levels of management live pay check to pay check.

The company refuses to pay taxes so all the public services their employees must have to live, schools, highways, retirement funds, and infrastructure are deteriorating. This year the company creates 50 jobs that are part time at minimum wage. The rank and file gets a five percent raise.

Your position is that company policy has helped the rank and file -- after all their paychecks are bigger this year than last, right? There are five percent more jobs. They can't be worse off if they have more money and more jobs.

So fucking what?

by Anonymousreply 3108/05/2013

“We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing,”proclaimed a well-known economist at the 2011 World Business Process Outsourcing/Information Technology Outsourcing (BPO/ITO) Forum. Hundreds of corporate executives sat in on this economist’s lecture, including representatives from Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Deustche Bank, Pfizer, Coca Cola and other major businesses. The economist went on to proclaim that critics of outsourcing were like “Luddites who took axes to machinery early in England’s industrial revolution.”

This economist was not a Heritage Foundation scholar or Ayn Rand Institute fellow. The speaker that June was none other than Lawrence Summers, who had just finished up his role as director of the White House National Economic Council, where he was President Obama’s top economic adviser.

Before he joining the White House he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the financial institutions was bailing out and then shielding from regulation.

As Upton Sinclair famously wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

by Anonymousreply 3208/06/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!