Robert Scheer: The Clinton Bubble

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



The Clinton Bubble
Posted on Apr 28, 2009

By Robert Scheer


Has Timothy Geithner ever had lunch with a non-megamillionaire who has lost his job or home because of the banking meltdown? I ask that question after reading the list of the treasury secretary’s luncheon dates when he was head of the New York Federal Reserve, a list that the government was forced to provide in response to a lawsuit.

During those years when he was supposed to be supervising Wall Street, he supped most often in the top-echelon dining room of some bank or at the home of one of the financial moguls who created the mess that has now bankrupted billions throughout the world. One of his frequent luncheon buddies was Sanford I. Weill, who as chairman of Citigroup lobbied successfully for the reversal of key regulations that dated back to the New Deal era. That change permitted Weill’s oligarchy to become “too big to fail.”

Another preferred dining companion was Robert Rubin, who as Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary pushed through Weill’s favored deregulation—a disastrous “reform” that lies at the heart of the current mess—and who went on to become chairman of Citigroup, where he presided over a downfall of the company that required a $45 billion taxpayer bailout. Geithner had worked for Rubin at the Treasury Department, and it was Rubin who got him his job at the New York Fed and hooked him up with Barack Obama.

Geithner has since pushed the Obama administration to approach the banking crisis not in response to the needs of destitute homeowners but rather from the side of the bankers who are seizing their homes. Instead of keeping people in their homes with a freeze on foreclosures, he has rewarded the unscrupulous lenders who conned ordinary folks. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090428_the_clinton_bubble/?ln

[wyldwolf]

1. The New Progressive Chic - trash Clinton and Obama in the same breath

[w4rma]

2. Don't ignore President Clinton's problems. Instead, make sure they aren't repeated. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

3. Clinton's problems were always a products of attacks from the left and right

Looking at events from THEIR perspective while ignoring the obvious results.

For example, from the piece in the OP:

"To add salt to the wounds of those left out of the bubble, the Clinton administration summarily ended the federal poverty program in the name of a so-called welfare reform."

Yet, the Clinton years saw the lowest poverty rates in a generation. :shrug:

[w4rma]

4. Clinton's unwavering support of 'free' trade and deregulation still lingers on our nation, today. nt

[wyldwolf]

5. so?

[Grinchie]

21. All I say to your "So" is that you can Bugger Off

Clinton was popular, but he set many things in motion that where taken to the extreme under the Bush Coup.

He implanted Biotech friend Corporatists in the USDA, FDA, and DEA. He continued the spraying of herbicides in Columbia, he opened the doors for outsource on a grand scale, and yes, he was a womanizer and wasn't man enough to admit it until cornered.

He politicized and manipulated the justice system in much the same way that Bush manipulated it during the US Attorney scandal.

Don't be so blind as to not smell the shit sticking to Clintons shoes that you are trained to lick compulsively.

[wyldwolf]

37. explain how free trade is a problem. If you can't, then "bugger off."

[progressoid]

10. "the Clinton years saw the lowest poverty rates in a generation."?

really?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

[wyldwolf]

11. Really

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/publications.html

Looking at the link you yourself supplied, the poverty level in 2000 was 11.3% for persons below the poverty level and 9.6 for families below the poverty level.

The only year(s)comparatively close since 1959 was 1973 when the figures were 11.1% and 9.7%.

Honestly, this "progressive" habit of trying to diminish the Clinton economic record gets tiring.

[progressoid]

12. Sorry, when you said Clinton years I thought you meant all of them.

Certainly there is no doubt there was a remarkable drop in poverty levels. But it can be argued that some of that drop was inflated due to the tech bubble.

The average poverty rate during the Clinton years was about 13.3%. If you dismiss the first three years of his administration's stats as leftovers from Poppy Bush, the Clinton years still average 12.6%.

Average during Bush II was about 12.3%

[wyldwolf]

14. the rates declined every year of his administration

The tech bubble, which kicked in his second term, can't be credited for economic successes in Clinton's first term.

[eridani]

20. We live in reality, not statistics

Homelessness and food bank utilization were both way up in the 90s. If those facts on the ground conflict with a measurement some statistician has chosen to define as "poverty level," then the statistical model is wrong.

[wyldwolf]

22. and not fantasy land, either. Only the world you live would the mark of success mean...

eliminating poverty all together. Which means anything short of that, even lifting millions of children out of poverty, is a failure.

[eridani]

23. No, success is reducing REAL poverty, not statistical "poverty"

Increasing use of food banks and increasing homelessness are real things, not intellectual constructs. The average American family wage in real dollars peaked in 1973 and has been going down ever since. The slight uptick in the late 90s came nowhere near the 1973 levels. Expenses meanwhile have increased by factors of 3 to 10.

[wyldwolf]

25. real poverty was reduced. The numbers weren't just pulled out of thin air.

That, perhaps, is one of the more ludicrous implications I've seen on DU yet.

[eridani]

26. Yes, as a matter of fact they were pulled out of thin air

Someone in the lat 50s decided that "poverty level" = (price of a minimum basket of food per year) X 3. This is bullshit, as any poor person who has tried to keep up with rent and utilities knows very well. Garbage in = garbage out. Which is why along with a supposed reduction in "poverty," you have increasing homelessness and food insecurity.

[wyldwolf]

27. no, actually, your "food bank and homeless shelter" numbers were.

:eyes:

Someone in the lat 50s decided that "poverty level" = (price of a minimum basket of food per year) X 3.

:rofl:

[eridani]

28. When I post, I have URLs. You don't.. Sneering isn't research.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/beyond/2008/07/obama-endorses-calls-for-new-f.html

The method of calculating the federal poverty line has been a back-burner issue for years among poverty experts because it hasn’t been updated since the 1960s. At that time, food cost a third of a typical family’s budget, which isn’t true anymore — it’s only about one seventh of a typical family’s costs now. At the same time, though, housing and work-related costs have become much more expensive than they were when the poverty guidelines were drawn up.

So the use of the outdated poverty measure, according to experts who testified at McDermott’s hearing yesterday, has had the paradoxical effect of underestimating a modern family’s expenses while also underestimating the amount of help they get from antipoverty programs like food stamps, housing assistance and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

See also

http://www.citymayors.com/society/usa-poverty.html
http://www.ssa.gov/history/fisheronpoverty.html


The following links establish that homelessness increased in the 90s. If you have data showing that it decreased, why not post it instead of sneering?

http://www.nhlp.org/html/hlb/299/299conference.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/9691/homelessnesshowmany.html

And in real life, while "poverty" went down, hunger and food insecurity increased.

http://www.seedsofchange.org/hunger_malnutrition.htm

Is the situation in the U.S. getting better or worse? "The U.S. Government just recently began gathering data on hunger and food insecurity. But the dramatic growth of private charitable feeding efforts since the late 1970s suggests growing hunger. . . . There were few in 1980, but an estimated 150 thousand private feeding agencies are . . . passing out food to hungry Americans ." (Beckman & Simon., p. 27) ". . . Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services of America, the Salvation Army and other assistance networks all reported sharp increases in requests for emergency food in the late 1990s. Catholic Charities reported a 26 percent increase between June 1997 and April 1998. The U.S. Conference of Mayors reported a 14 percent increase in requests for emergency assistance in 1998, and said that 21 percent of all requests went unmet." (Id., p. 29)


Income inequality way up as well--
http://pnews.org/ArT/YuR/DiS.shtml

During the years of the Clinton administration, the rich became richer at much faster rate than during Reagan's regime. In Clinton's first term, from 1993 to 1996, the average income of the richest five percent of households rose from $173,784 to $201,220. 46 Even during the Reagan years, the plunderers had not seen their income rise as fast. And in 1997 - the first year of Clinton's second term - it leapt to $215,436. All the statistics reveal that since Clinton has resided in the White House, the rich have experienced a financial bonanza unprecedented in modern times.

[wyldwolf]

30. ha ha. You had not posted any URLs in this thread until your last post!

So saying "When I post, I have URLs" is a bit dishonest.

The method of calculating the federal poverty line has been a back-burner issue for years among poverty experts because it hasn’t been updated since the 1960s.

So the method used to calculate the poverty level in the 1990s was the same measurement used in the 1960s? Um.. so? Using that measurement, millions of people who were in poverty by that measurement were lifted out if it by that measurement. The effect is the same. People were lifted out of poverty. Millions did better than they had previously been doing.

And in real life, while "poverty" went down, hunger and food insecurity increased... But the dramatic growth of private charitable feeding efforts since the late 1970s suggests growing hunger.

Oh, you're now admitting poverty went down in real life? Fascinating!

During the 1990s, the nonmetro poverty rate declined fairly steadily from a high of 17.1 percent in 1993 to a record low of 13.4 percent in 2000

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September03/Features/NonmetroPoverty.htm

A national analysis of high-poverty neighborhoods, and the concentration of poor individuals in those neighborhoods, in 1990 and 2000 indicates that:

* The number of people living in high-poverty neighborhoods—where the poverty rate is 40 percent or higher—declined by a dramatic 24 percent, or 2.5 million people, in the 1990s. This improvement marked a significant turnaround from the 1970-1990 period, during which the population in high-poverty neighborhoods doubled.

* The steepest declines in high-poverty neighborhoods occurred in metropolitan areas in the Midwest and South. In Detroit, for instance, the number of people living in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped nearly 75 percent over the decade.

* Concentrated poverty—the share of the poor living in high-poverty neighborhoods—declined among all racial and ethnic groups, especially African Americans. The share of poor black individuals living in high-poverty neighborhoods declined from 30 percent in 1990 to 19 percent in 2000.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2003/05demographics_jargowsky.aspx

As Teen Pregnancy Dropped, So Did Child Poverty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51337-2005Apr13.html

[eridani]

31. Except that the definition of poverty they are using is out of date

Also, gentrification is no favor to poor people--what you have cited is the opposite of an accomplishment. What poor people gain by moving out into the burbs is impossible bus commutes and family assistance dramatically truncated, if they have homes at all after being displaced from their old neighborhoods. Which explains why homelessness and food bank usage also increased while all this supposedly good stuff was happening.

Although I will credit Clinton with counteracting some of the worst Repuke initiatives in the area of family planning, which actually did help poor people a lot, as illustrated by the dropping teen pregnancy rates (which went up again under Bush).

[wyldwolf]

32. I'll take their word over yours

[eridani]

33. It isn't my word.

My links on the inadequacy of methods for measuring poverty that haven't changed for 45 years is from Rep. McDermott's congressional hearing on the subject.

And stop cheerleading for gentritication--it doesn't help poor people in the slightest to be displaced by affluent people who are tired of the suburban commute thing.

[wyldwolf]

34. I'll take their word over the conclusions you draw from your links

[eridani]

35. Anything but logic

"Poverty" decreased, but more people were homeless and used food banks. Try common sense sometime, and you'll quicky realize that both of these things can't be true at the same time.

[wyldwolf]

36. good description of your posts

[eridani]

38. Explain increased homelessness in the 90s, Mr. Logician n/t

[wyldwolf]

39. I can't, but then again, that isn't how poverty is measured.

[eridani]

41. Which is why your "measurments" are bullshit

Homeless people and people standing in line for food are real, unlike overprivileged peoples' statistical notions of "poverty."

[wyldwolf]

42. ha ha. They're not "MY" measurements.

You do know what poverty means, right? Certain amount of income based on family size?

[eridani]

52. Wrong. You have to compare income to actual expenses

Family size is only one determinant of expenses. How dim do you have to be to think that food is still 1/2 of an average family's budget.

Since 1973, income has dropped significantly with respect to real world expenses.

[wyldwolf]

56. yet millions were lifted from poverty! Go figure!

[eridani]

58. So whythefuck are they homeless and standing in line at food banks?

Some "liberation"

[wyldwolf]

59. Those that were lifted out of poverty aren't

[eridani]

61. More people hungry and homeless = decreasing poverty?

Only if you insist on measuring poverty by a standard that stopped making sense 30 years ago.

[wyldwolf]

49. duplicate

[Baby Snooks]

46. Unbelievable...

How anyone can state homelessness is not an indication of poverty is beyond me. But then some will find any basis to defend Bill Clinton's record which speaks for itself. Some are just deaf apparently.

[wyldwolf]

48. unbelievable!

Words have definitions.

Like the DUer below said:

"According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, the Federal Government slashed housing funds by nearly 80 percent between 1981 and 1988. In 1981, this country was spending $32 billion to build and subsidize low-income housing. In 1988, the figure was $7 billion. There was also a population increase of 10.8 percent in the 1990s and a measured rise in those old enough to vote (meaning more people entered adulthood.)

The Clinton administration would have had to increase that budget 160% or more to even put homelessness back at the same level it had been 12 years (or, counting Clinton's two terms) 20 years prior - a near Apollo-like undertaking.

The Clinton administrationinvested nearly $5 billion in programs to help homeless people in the 90s -- more than three times the investment of the previous Administration. This included not only funds for low income housing, but also job training, drug treatment, mental health services, and domestic violence counseling. $900 million of that came in 2000 in grants to
provide an estimated 245,000 homeless people with housing and job training.

I'm sure most reading don't believe you are intentionally blaming President Clinton for not being able to fix in 8 years what Reagan-Bush did in 12 years, but it sounds as if you are.

The fact is, on average, most people in the lower and middle classes fared better during Clinton's years in office, and more people were elevated from the official poverty level. That was quite an accomplishment."

[depakid]

54. The results of Clinton's dergulatory and "free" trade fervor speak for themselves

History will not be kind to him in terms of domestic policy.

[wyldwolf]

55. what results?

[depakid]

57. ..in denial perhaps?

Greenspan, Enron, dotcom bubble, accounting scandals- media deregulation- energy market manipulation- the list goes on and on.

That's not even mentioning the later deals that Rubin et al got togther with Republicans & DINO's to pull off- that we're all dealing with now.

[wyldwolf]

60. you have stats to show adverse effects?

[demhistorian]

43. Sounds as if you're blaming Reagan-Bush era problems on President Clinton

According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, the Federal Government slashed housing funds by nearly 80 percent between 1981 and 1988. In 1981, this country was spending $32 billion to build and subsidize low-income housing. In 1988, the figure was $7 billion. There was also a population increase of 10.8 percent in the 1990s and a measured rise in those old enough to vote (meaning more people entered adulthood.)

The Clinton administration would have had to increase that budget 160% or more to even put homelessness back at the same level it had been 12 years (or, counting Clinton's two terms) 20 years prior - a near Apollo-like undertaking.

The Clinton administrationinvested nearly $5 billion in programs to help homeless people in the 90s -- more than three times the investment of the previous Administration. This included not only funds for low income housing, but also job training, drug treatment, mental health services, and domestic violence counseling. $900 million of that came in 2000 in grants to
provide an estimated 245,000 homeless people with housing and job training.

I'm sure most reading don't believe you are intentionally blaming President Clinton for not being able to fix in 8 years what Reagan-Bush did in 12 years, but it sounds as if you are.

The fact is, on average, most people in the lower and middle classes fared better during Clinton's years in office, and more people were elevated from the official poverty level. That was quite an accomplishment.

[intheflow]

13. And yet, for those of us in poverty during those years,

we were fucked while the rest of the country ran around partying and deregulating and investing in dot coms. Clinton didn't do it alone--certainly any programs he tried to save fell under the ax of the Repuke Congress--but he and his rah-rah free market administration did pave the way for much of the shit going down today. You know, he was just a politician. No need to canonize him or make him out to be the Great White Hope of the late 20th Century. It doesn't do Dems any good to ignore his shortcomings in the name of unity, it just leads to the kind of lockstep, blind party loyalty we always accuse the right of engaging in and opens the possibility of falling into similar pitfalls.

[wyldwolf]

15. so your problem is Clinton didn't have the magic solution to elimimate poverty outright

He didn't reign in everyone doing just a little bit better than you.

Seriously, the perfect is the enemy of the good - proved daily here.

[intheflow]

16. I was only one of millions.

And you're still not engaging the conversation about his enthusiastic embrace of NAFTA and deregulation of markets and media that ushered gave rise to the Bush years and out current out-sourcing and financial woes. I still say he did the country harm with those policies, though of course I agree he was a zillion times more desirable than any Repuke.

[wyldwolf]

17. yet millions more left the ranks of poverty.

And you're still not engaging the conversation about his enthusiastic embrace of NAFTA

Like I said, "so?"

[MasonJar]

6. Bill Clinton's almost immeasurable good will probably kept him sane

for 8 years of constant bellitlement by the Right wing evil doers and the left wing dems who refused to see/admit the incredible job he did for the country despite a barrage of cretinous criticism. As I remember back on the Clinton presidency, I think of a president who brought prosperity and with it millions of jobs, who singlehandedly countered the debacle left by Reagan/Bush I and their insidious Savings and Loan disasters and even left the American people a surplus. He was a kind and brilliant leader who actually had discussions and listened to all views of his advisors (not just said he would.) He was loved by the world, while despised by the GOPers. That latter alone is enough to merit him a statue on the Mall. Anyone that feared by the neocons had to have a lot going for him. He tried to get health care reform with the help of his equally talented wife, Hillary, but the people were not ready to stand tall for change and the politicians scooping in insurance and pharmaceutical rewards certainly were not. The list goes on, but I am going to stop here. Just reminisce a lettle about the good old days between Bush and Bush and you may change your attitudes about Clinton. I, for one, am sick of having him disparaged here with rightwing talking points and neocon propaganda.

[Zodiak]

9. It's right-wing to criticize Clinton's love for corporatism? His destruction of welfare?

His deregulation of the banks and the broadcast industry?

Somehow I doubt that.

If you see a RIGHT-WING criticism of Clinton on this site, alert on it. Know why so little criticism of Clinton on this site gets deleted?

Criticism of Clinton on this site comes from the left. Please do not try to paint us with right-wing colored paint...it is divisive, ignorant, and disingenuous.

You will NEVER hear a neocon criticize Clinton for corporatism....such a notion on your part demonstrates profound ignorance of what a neocon is.

And trying to make Clinton out to be a saint because he is better than Ronnie, Poppy, and Whistleass is holding him up to a really poor set of benchmarks.

[Vidar]

7. K&R.

[grassfed]

8. k&r

[quickesst]

18. Clinton fever....

...more enduring than swine flu. Still no cure yet. If anyone wanted to escape poverty in the nineties, all they had to do was get a job. There were plenty. Let's count those who think they were being treated unfair because it might have been beneath them to do work they didn't want, or thought themselves too experienced in a certain field to lower themselves, or thought their higher education was a guarantee of work in their chosen studies. My views do not include those in positions that prevented them from working, and were forced to rely on others or the government to survive. Those people will be around for years to come, and they deserve the aid. Bill and Hillary Clinton, the "common ground" that binds many progressives to the right wing. They are hated equally by both sides, and oddly, for many of the same reasons. Thanks.
quickesst

[Baby Snooks]

29. Unbelievable

"If anyone wanted to escape poverty in the nineties, all they had to do was get a job."

Now that sounds like a Republican retort if ever I heard one. People aren't stuck in poverty. They just need to go to work.

Quite a few went to work in the 1990s. At Burger King and Jack-in-the-Box and McDonalds. Thinking they might escape poverty. Most of them are still working at Burger King and Jack-in-the-Box and McDonalds. Still thinking that they might escape poverty. Which they never will.

You know why they won't? Because they aren't making much more now than they were then.

No doubt your next retort will be they should have gone back to school. Quite a few did. Some even managed to get actual degrees from actual colleges instead of associate degrees from community colleges.

And there they are. A testament to higher education. Still working at Burger King and Jack-in-the-Box and McDonalds. Still trying to escape poverty. Which they never will.

You know why they won't? Because all they have on their resume is Burger King and Jack-in-the-Box and McDonalds.

Still, they think about escaping poverty. While struggling to keep the rent paid and keep the lights on and keep food on the table and manage somehow to buy sneakers for their kids. Maybe next month. Or the month after. Maybe. Life is filled with maybes for quite a few Americans. Who do work. But aren't paid a decent wage.

While Michelle Obama goes and buys a $540 pair of Lanvin sneakers. Some Democrats really need to get their priorities straight. Their priorities don't seem too different from the priorities of many Republicans.

[MasonJar]

19. Let's see! Is Obama's selection of Geithner and Summers and his obvious

approval of their decisions to bailout (with our money) the corporatists at Goldman and Citibank and AIG somehow more friendly to progressives than Clinton's so-called corporate agenda? Of course Clinton made some decisions that may have been shortsighted regarding NAFTA. I agree. However, Obama has currently decided not to revisit NAFTA. Is that okay? And as to Robert Rubin, he is or was one of Obama's key advisors on the economy and probably the influence which got us the Geithner debacle. I remember the good times for America in Clinton's 8 years and I remember how hard the man had to fight to stave off the constant rightwing hate propaganda, which was so prevalent that it eventually became the mindset of the left as well. I hope that Obama is as successful as Bill Clinton was and that Biden is half the man that Al Gore was and is. If so, America is in for a great 8 years. I know the right wing/neocon faction will continue the Clinton assault against Obama. It is all they know, but it is pathetic to hear Bill Clinton disparaged on DU after all he accomplished.

[tonycinla]

24. Heh! Heh!

Right On!! Especially the part about Al Gore.

[Skittles]

53. well said, MasonJar

:thumbsup:

[Baby Snooks]

40. A picture is worth a thousand words...

?

[wyldwolf]

44. it sure is!

Jimmy Carter shares a special moment with three Republican presidents.

:rofl:

And looky here! Even Obama is "in on it." (whatever "it" is your were implying by your post)

[Baby Snooks]

45. You need to take a look at the photo again...

There is a difference between presidents meeting in the White House and presidents "chumming around" and there are thousands of photos of Bill Clinton "chumming around" with George HW Bush here and there and everywhere.

You need to look at the sudden wealth that came of the partnership with Ron Burkle and ask where the wealth came from - from the Persian Gulf and from introductions in the Persian Gulf made by George HW Bush.

You need to look at the legislation passed during the Clinton years and ask yourself who it served. It did not serve the American people. It served the dynasty of which Bill Clinton is now a part of.

Who deregulated Wall Street? Bill Clinton. And he's done very well by it. Nice to know someone did. Almost everyone else didn't.

While the Republicans were busy trying to impeach him, Bill Clinton was busy "making deals" with the dynasty. And it appears the dynasty is busy "making deals" with Barack Obama. Who obviously has no intention of holding anyone accountable for anything despite his harsh words when he took the oath of office.

Bill Clinton may have entered the White House as a Democrat but he left it as a Republicrat. The party of the dynasty and its oligarchy.

The Republicrats have hijacked both parties. The only Democrats and Republicans for the most part at this point are the fools who believe there are Democrats and Republicans on the ballots.

[wyldwolf]

47. so it matters where they meet? LOL! LOOK! NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

<-----snip of left wing revisionism ------->

[Baby Snooks]

50. All the presidents together...

There's a difference between all the presidents together at an official event and two presidents together just "chumming around" but then you don't see anything wrong with two presidents whose ideologies supposedly were at opposite ends of the spectrum "chumming around" as Clinton and Bush have for most of the past eight years. You may not see anything wrong with it but others do.

It is a free country. We are entitled to see what we want to see. And blind ourselves to what we don't want to see.

[wyldwolf]

51. ok ok ok... I'm trying to keep up with your rules.... if it's in the White house... AND...

... all the presidents are together, it's ok. BUT if it's just two presidents outside the white house... evil... right?



NOT in the White House... NOT all the presidents together... EVIL!



Not in the White House... Clinton didn't attend, so not all the presidents together... EVIL!