Obama's right-wing economic advisers, his Clintonist economic policy and Wall Street ties

[jackson_dem]

I posted about this two weeks ago and no Obamite was able to explain who these folks are. Since Obama is the most inexperienced candidate in recent memory, perhaps ever, we really need to know who he will lean on for advice. We should have learned the importance advisers play when there is an inexperienced president who believes in delegation...

One of Obama's advisers advocates partial Social Security privatization, another has said high health care costs are a good thing for the economy. These claims were made in a blog post that I posted here. I did a simple search for them and confirmed these folks do advocate these things. We need to find out more. Obamites?

-snip-

Obama's disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers and his campaign's ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation. David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman are both Harvard economists who served in the Clinton Administration, and they work on market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler advocates improving healthcare through financial incentives; Liebman, the partial privatization of Social Security.

Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago who calls himself a "centrist market economist," has been most directly involved with crafting Obama's subprime agenda. In a column last March in the New York Times, Goolsbee disputed whether "subprime lending was the leading cause of foreclosure problems," touted its benefits for credit-poor minority borrowers and warned that "regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening too much." In October, no less a conservative luminary than George Will devoted a whole column in the Washington Post to saluting Goolsbee's "nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality and concluded that he "seems to be the sort of fellow--amiable, empirical, and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be."

Robert Pollin, an economist at the University of Massachussets, believes "these three advisers generally reflect Obama's very moderate economic program, similar to Clintonism." Wall Street apparently has come to a similar conclusion. Obama had received nearly $10 million in contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector through October, and he's second among presidential candidates of either party in money raised from commercial banks, trailing only Clinton. Goldman Sachs, which made $6 billion from devalued mortgage securities in the first nine months of 2007, is Obama's top contributor. When asked if Obama would hold these financial institutions accountable for losses incurred by homeowners and investors, his campaign refused to comment.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser

[Hydra]

1. Obama and HRC are the corp approved candidates

so should it be any surprise what they are offering will be bad for us?

[Windy]

2. I just returned from a lecture given by Scott Ritter and Jeff Cohen

Pretty interesting. Both believe that hillary is in favor of a unitary executive and also pointed out Clinton's promulgation of NAFTA and pushing the telecomminications act which allowed consolidation. I think Hillary has a lot more explaining to do on her posistions than Obama does.

[jackson_dem]

3. We know what Hillary is and what she will bring

Obama is the mystery candidate.

[Windy]

8. so go with someone who you KNOW is for the corporations and consolidating power in the executive?

Can't quite understand that "logic"...

[jackson_dem]

12. I am for Edwards

[Hydra]

4. If you think Obama will be better in some fashion

By all means!

I'd rather have neither, but apparently we have to have the corp approved candidate.

[awaysidetraveler]

23. Non sequitur, and it does not follow. I just looked up Liebman and Cutler, and they're spot on.

Which corporations are the ones that matter? I'd say that the MIC's are the dangerous ones.
Obama doesn't represent big oil, and he doesn't represent defense contractors like Hillary does.

Also, he doesn't take money from health-care lobbyists. Most of his money comes from individuals,
though it's true that Wall Street does give him money.

I don't see anything wrong with Liebman and Cutler so far, but here's what I'm looking at.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/health-mandates-why-pau_b_74915.html

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117737514082179798-2pzMwguQZCOLWwoLQ7liutme_CE_20080422.html

Obama--like Edwards--will get us out of Iraq, and he'll get us off of oil.

[Hydra]

24. Would you like to take some time off-list to discuss this?

Since you have been asking me for specifics, I'd be happy to look up Edward's AIPAC remarks, as well as HRCs. Obama is reaching out to republicans and has some sketchy advisers.

The details have all been posted here by Babylonsister and some of our other newshounds as they were released.

They are not printing a pretty picture.

OTOH, I don't know why that bothers me. Since we aren't being given the option to fix America, I should probably just get my popcorn out and enjoy the trainwreck.

[Radical Activist]

5. First, Obama has more experience in elected office than Edwards or Clinton

Second, more guilt by association crap. Yawn.

[jackson_dem]

6. Guilt by association? Do you understand how advisers are chosen?

Why didn't Bush ask Paul Krugman to be an economic adviser? He is an economic expert, right?

Yes we know Obama was grappling with big issues, when he voted, like sex shops in Illinois.

[Radical Activist]

9. How do you think his days as a community organizer

will effect his approach to economic issues? How do you think it effects a persons outlook to knock on doors in housing projects in depressed neighborhoods and uniting people together to work toward their common interests?

What do you think of Obama's history of pushing for progressive tax reform, including making the regressive social security tax more fair by removing the income cap?

There are serious things we can use to judge Obama whenever you're ready to cut the hatchet man routine.

[jackson_dem]

11. Apparently they don't effect him much!

Obama is not another Bush. He is a Democrat. The question is whether he will be as progressive as people think he is or whether he is Clinton -2.0. His policies and apparently, since no Obamite has told us more about these folks or other advisers Obama has, his advisers suggest he will be the latter.

[cali]

7. obsessed much?

you can get help for that.

[Radical Activist]

10. There needs to be a group session

for a few of the nastiest and most obsessive posters around here.

[jackson_dem]

13. Why do you have a Che avatar?

[Radical Activist]

14. to piss you off.

[jackson_dem]

16. A Che fan supporting Obama

Very impressive, Barack. ;)

[Radical Activist]

17. Since Barack is the first left wing movement activist

likely to become a Presidential nominee then I'd say it makes perfect sense.

[jackson_dem]

18. Was

[robbedvoter]

22. ******W.O.R. M Alert************ for the responses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4194873

[ngant17]

19. like the Che avatar myself

and I hope it does bother some of the more reactionary posters that occasionally meander into DU. No reference to OP, BTW.

I'm under no illusion that Obama will become some kind of ultra-leftist if and when he becomes POTUS. Yet I am hoping he will create an administration not unlike the Carter years. He has the pacifist background, so that's a good start. I'm tired of the warmongering from the White House, I don't care if it's a Repug or a Dem that's doing it, I just want it to stop and give peace a chance.

[Radical Activist]

20. Given his background

I suspect and hope that Obama will create an environment where people's movements can progress and make change on their own. I suspect he will be ready to enact as much change as people are ready to handle. Left wing movements can accomplish a lot if the government simply stays out of their way and stops trying to thwart them like most Presidents have since Wilson.

My interpretation of Obama's book and what he writes about the 60's is that while Johnson did many great things, there was a backlash with Nixon and Reagan because Johnson went beyond what people were ready to handle too quickly. Change is lasting when it comes from the people instead of being imposed from the top down. That was the bigger subtext to the MLK/LBJ discussion between Hillary and Obama beyond the race issue. Hillary thinks change comes from the top. Obama has a very different philosophy.

[jackson_dem]

15. Obssessed with deflecting the truth from Obama much?

There is nothing wrong with being for Clinton/Rubin economics. We just need to know that. Don't deceive folks.

[robbedvoter]

21. But, dude, the poneys!

[awaysidetraveler]

25. Respectfully sir, I disagree with you about the character of Obama's aides, and I have a rebuttal.

Which corporations are the ones that matter? I'd say that the MIC's are the dangerous ones.
Obama doesn't represent big oil, and he doesn't represent defense contractors like Hillary does.

Also, he doesn't take money from health-care lobbyists. Most of his money comes from individuals,
though it's true that Wall Street does give him money.

I don't see anything wrong with Liebman and Cutler so far, but here's what I'm looking at.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/health-mandates-why-pau_b_74915.html

The above is an excellent article on Obama's health care plan, and it's a fine rebuttal of Krugman.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117737514082179798-2pzMwguQZCOLWwoLQ7liutme_CE_20080422.html

Goolsbee wrote that article in March of 2007, and at that point the full extent of the crisis was ambiguous.

Remember, it was Freddie Mae and company that did the really dirty deals in the subprime mess. It wasn't Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs shorted the hell out of Freddie Mae and company. That kind of deal is perfectly legal on the stock market, which would mean that the investors who saw what was coming are not liable--no matter what any presidental candidate says. Moreover, shorting stocks is something that anyone can make money off of, and the process of shorting stocks was designed to protect investors from taking on too much in the way of risk.

Now if it's proven in a court that Goldman-Sachs shorted subprime securities based on insider information, that's different. Then it doesn't matter which president is in power, because any court can sue them for much more than 6 billion.

http://garynorth.com/snip/357.htm

You might not like this kind of deal, but it looks to me like a case of smart investing: this was an excellent time to short securities on sub-prime loans. I wish I'd thought of it.

As for the rest, yes Obama is for partial privatization of Social Security. I think it's a good idea, if and only if we're all free to invest it in the private corporations that we get to choose. As it stands now, the money in Social Security isn't making any money: it's just a D.C. pocketbook, and I think I'd do a better job.

Your arguments, the longer I look at them, sound like Obama endorsements to me.

[sandnsea]

26. He listens to an array of advisers

He's always said he would.

He's also introduced mortgage fraud legislation, 2 years ago.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060215-obama_durbin_pr/

[Medusa]

27. OP? Bitter-party of one?

:eyes: