This seems relevant to the current debate:
“On the morning of October 30, 1929, President Herbert Hoover awoke the day after the biggest one-day stock market crash in American history, surveyed the state of the U.S. economy and declared, “The fundamental business of the country, that is production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis,” said Reid, quoting Hoover.
Not sure how close the events of the last few days relate to the Great Depression, especially since the markets seem to have bounced back a little today and I doubt that with all the protections in place it will get to that, but then again, Greenspan, the guy probably most responsible for this mess, is saying this is a once a century event. Regardless, I think this speech today by Obama was pretty damned solid:
You know, there are a lot of things about which I simply do not agree with Obama. But hot damn, it sure is nice listening to someone speak in full sentences, using complete and often complex thoughts and weaving those thoughts into broad and overarching themes. Compared to the stammering and stuttering gibberish from Bush the past eight years, and the staccato, machine-gun like bursts of incoherent aggression from McCain, and Obama is like a cool breeze on a hot summer day.
At any rate, this was just a great speech, and the guy just exudes comepetence. At about 5:15 in, Obama describes exactly why a ton of people like me are going to vote for a Democrat for President for the first time (transcript here):
If you want to understand the difference between how Senator McCain and I would govern as President, you can start by taking a look at how we’ve responded to this crisis. Because Senator McCain’s approach was the same as the Bush Administration’s: support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely; do nothing as the crisis hits; and then scramble as the whole thing collapses. My approach has been to try to prevent this turmoil.
If that does not describe the last eight years in a nutshell, from the fateful August 6th memo on, I do not know what does. Obama’s indictment is scathing, particularly in relationship to the current mess:
In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing.
Last September, I stood up at NASDAQ and said it’s time to realize that we are in this together – that there is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street – and warned of a growing loss of trust in our capital markets. Months later, Senator McCain told a newspaper that he’d love to give them a solution to the mortgage crisis, “but” – he said – “I don’t know one.”
In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress. Senator McCain used the crisis as an excuse to push a so-called stimulus plan that offered another huge and permanent corporate tax cut, including $4 billion for the big oil companies, but no immediate help for workers.
This March, in the wake of the Bear Stearns bailout, I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets. Just a few weeks earlier, Senator McCain made it clear where he stands: “I’m always for less regulation,” he said, and referred to himself as “fundamentally a deregulator.”
This is what happens when you confuse the free market with a free license to let special interests take whatever they can get, however they can get it. This is what happens when you see seven years of incomes falling for the average worker while Wall Street is booming, and declare – as Senator McCain did earlier this year – that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush. That is how you can reach the conclusion – as late as yesterday – that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
Sorry for such a long post, but I wanted to make sure this got some attention.
Gus
Nor am I, but I do know that “the production and distribution of commodities” is no longer the basis for our economy, unless you consider paper and virtual money a commodity.
Gus
Oh, and this made my day. Karma’s a bitch, dude.
demkat620
I have a friend who works for AIG, he could lose everything if he loses his job. Was a McCain voter, now he is rethinking that.
Gus
I promise to read all the blog posts before commenting again. Sorry about that.
Joshau Norton
Hit the nail on the head. Most of the current jobs consist of typing info into computers. That can only produce so many jobs. Then there’s flipping burgers/selling shit style service industry jobs. Manufacturing has been out-sourced for the majority of the country. China has pretty much pwned our asses, via Walmart.
TR
Hell of a speech.
Between the media calling out McCain and Palin for their bald-faced lies and the new attention to economic issues, it feels like the campaign just took a serious turn. Interesting to see what the polls look like in a week.
Svensker
Crap, Obama sounds all serious and thoughtful. COMPLETE sentences?!! Totally elitist. Dude, where’s the soundbite?
It’s hard to do neener neener with thoughtful complete sentences. KWIM?
cyntax
I see it as W*Mart pwning us to China. After all Walmart’s the one with the leverage over their suppliers (what used to be our manufacturing sector).
Teak111
BINGO! John wins.
My argument to my GOP neighbor is exactly that. Competence. Funny, I will take mere competence over talent at this point (although clearly BHO is talented). The GOP can win elections but can not govern because it is now a fully ideological party with competence a far second (and the Palin choice confirms this for McCain).
Show me something different, GOP. Show me you can run something with mere consistence. I like some of your policies. But you people can not run things for shit. I loose money every time. Time to give the other side a try.
ThymeZone
John, you’ve basically outlined why we picked Obama as our favorite Dem candidate and support him all the way.
I don’t know if the contrast between two candidates could be greater than the one between Obama and McCain. McCain is exactly why we hate politicians and politics. Obama is …. a real person. To me it’s about as simple as that.
AkaDad
Trying to prevent disasters before they happen, shows a clear lack of experience that the country needs right now.
dm
Such restraint. All that talk about the S&L deregulation of the 80s and no mention of Charles Keating.
SGEW
A summary, for those who can’t watch (almost-live commenting – I have too much free time on my hands, eh?):
[sorry if this echoes previous commenters – but I watched th’ whole speech before posting, neener neener]
Ties the current crisis to the trickle-down philosophy, Bush, and McCain. Compares McCain’s reaction (scrambling around after the fact, “passing the buck” by calling for a commission) and his approach (change the underlying problems). Gives a li’l history lesson (quotes John “I’m always against regulation” McCain). Gives a li’l financial market lesson (it’s all the special interests’ fault, apparently). Brings up the S&L scandal – but doesn’t mention the Keating 5. Pounds on Phil “Mental Recession” Graham. Pounds on McCain, Iraq, the Bush tax cuts . . . and China? McCain’s pro-regulation stance cannot be trusted because of his decades of “scorn” for oversight. Lobbyists. Special interests again. How will we fix everything? Through Obama’s leadership, and a laundry list of proposed reforms and government programs (Nice and wonky! Too much to list here and, honestly, not my area of expertise: looking forward to others’ analyses). Gets in a dig about McCain’s multiple homes (crowd goes nuts). Lists six principles of his financial policy (this may wind up being the “Six Principles” speech). Shows off bi-partisan cred by delineating his anti-corruption resume. Another anti-special interests rallying cry. Digs at McCain’s recent plagarization of Obama’s “Change” theme. Ends with his stump speech “what change means” laundry list (slightly modified for Colorado). Good stuff.
Some new crowd-pleasing lines:
And gives a nice shout out to Sen. Salazar of Colorado to boot.
(Also: I quite like how Barack says “liquidity.”)
Just Some Fuckhead
John, if you ain’t with the Republicans in regards to their basic governing philosophy, less regulation and solving everything with the power of the “free market”, and you ain’t a so-con, it might be time to evaluate your core principles. Republicans ain’t selling anything else and the mess we got now is the realization of thirty years of Republican philosophy.
SGEW
Another interesting point: this is a remarkably different speech than the one he gave in Cross Orchards, Co today (h/t Atrios).
The Golden, CO speech was much more focused on the current financial situation (and the underlying economic failure based on the Republican economic philosophy). The one in Cross Orchards was much more of a barn burner.
[partially cross-posted]
Highlights from Cross Orchards:
Otherwise, it’s his standard stump speech, including an exhaustive laundry list of policies and promises. Detailed, substantive, and (in my opinion) totally awesome. Media, please compare with McCain’s virtually policy-free stump speeches. Please. Pretty please.
Obama also brings up his rather impressive (if short) record on anti-lobbying legislation (why oh why oh why won’t anyone cover that?!) and, important in rural Colorado, mentions water rights and agribusiness.
And, finally, a jab I hadn’t seen yet:
Smooth.
. . . How awesome is it that I can still get this excited over his speeches? C’mon, two new great speeches in the same day!
Colonel Danite
Given the polls of the last week or so, I’ve lost considerable faith in my countrymen. In the next few days we’ll see the GOP and their surrogates in the media and blogosphere ridicule Obama’s thoughtful proposals and celebrate McCain’s pablum. We’ll see how the American electorate responds.
Bubblegum Tate
By turning up the volume on Ow, My Balls!
Jake
I was SO glad to see Obama slamming McCain on his 9/11 commission BS. McSame was peddling that crap all over the morning shows today. Talk about a lack of imagination.
CRUSHED.
The whole speech was on point. I kind of like this Obama guy. He seems to know how to kick ass.
Emma Anne
John, what do you disagree with Obama on?
t jasper parnell
The socia er, liberalism.
SGEW
I, myself, would like to see less China-bashing, thank you very much. No need to demonize a whole nation just to make a point about import/export policy.
Also: farm subsidies, “clean coal,” civil unions but not marriage, and the F.I.S.A. bill.
Pretty small list, now that I think about it. What else?
John Cole
Adding to SGEW’s list, the death penalty and windfall profits taxes.
Chuck Butcher
I don’t want to sound like a prophet of doom, but I’m unhappy with where things stand and our prospects of getting through OK. I don’t think it would take an abundance of stupidity to tip us over the edge.
I was a voice of moderation of fear in regard to the housing bubble, but when the credit market started looking bad all bets were off.
cyntax
So where on the stages of grief do back-handed compliments fall?
[from Talkleft]
SGEW
Ooo, good ones Mr. Cole. I completely forgot about the death penalty (tho’ I don’t really mind the windfall proft tax, even if it doesn’t make much sense).
Of course, good luck finding any successful national politician who opposes the death penalty. Or marriage equality. Or outright secularism. Sigh.
Oh yeah, the Jebus-Juice thing. I wouldn’t mind if Sen. Obama dropped that whole schtick, but I understand how he needs it politically. (1/2 snark)
PeterJ
John Kerry. Although he’s for it for post 9-11 terrorists.
SGEW
Good point, but in my defense I did say “any successful national politician.”
SGEW
Hmmm. Underlining no workee. Make that “any successful national politician.”
PeterJ
Ohio? 2004?
SGEW
Oh, I’m not arguing that George W. Bush is the legitimate president, but you must agree that Sen. John Kerry was not, technically speaking, successful.
Ok, I’m sad now.
Bob In Pacifica
It’s my understanding that Obama helped William Ayers build an economy bomb in the basement of a New York townhouse back in the late sixties.
It had an exceptionally long fuse.
Bubblegum Tate
And Jeremiah Wright gave some sort of Muslim prayer-thingie to bless the bomb.
PeterJ
I agree on that. :) But I’m not sure if his opposition, total or not, had any major impact on the election. Can’t even remember if it was an issue in the election.
The last major candidate to oppose it before Kerry was Dukakis, and back then, it was an issue.
Also, I agree on your list of disagreements. And on John Cole’s additions too, with an reservation about the wind fall taxes…
jcricket
This is the kind of stuff that I chuckle at, but scares me for Obama’s prospects. It’s not like I ever expected any Democrat to get 100, 90 or even 70% of the vote. But the fact that McCain is ahead at all makes me weep for America.
There are 8 zillion (literally, I counted them) things right about Obama, and 8 cajillion (again, counted by hand) things wrong with McCain, Palin and the GOP. And that 45-50% of America thinks, “gee, I dunno, the GOP’s ideas/message/good looks sound good to me, I’ll vote for them” is simply mind-boggling.
How many decades of proof do we need that the GOP is full of shit? In fact, I’ve decided the American public doesn’t care about the truth, or having a good economy. They just vote their hatred of liberals, gays, Jews, immigrants, uppity-folk, people who went to college, etc. Fucking fuckers.
ThymeZone
Nut up, man. The polls are mostly dysfunctional, McCain is not “ahead.” The poll that counts is taken in 7 weeks.
You are just now figuring out that a huge number of Americans will vote for nonsense and against their true interests? One would have thought that would be figured out a long time ago.
Go register some voters, and stop whining.
Jess
Not to pick nits, but Kerry IS a successful politician and continues to do excellent work in the senate–he just didn’t win the presidential election (or, possibly, failed to enforce his victory). Having recently moved to Massachusetts, I’ve come to have a lot of respect for him, despite the lousy campaign he ran in 2004.
I think a part of the problem with our attitude towards politics is that we see people only in terms of what they’ve won or lost, and overlook the actual work they’ve done. We’re buying into the GOP’s model of winning elections and failing to govern. Being a politician is a job, not a sport.
Georgia Pig
Exactly the point. You don’t have to agree with him on everything, you just have to realize that he’s a hell of a lot more talented and competent, a “five-tool player” as they say in the bigs. McCain is spot reliever with a blown-out rotator cuff and Palin is like that midget Bill Veeck trotted out for the St. Louis Browns.
SGEW
No, no, you’re absolutely right. I was just trying to be kinda snarky (and cover up the fact that I totally forgot that Kerry was against the death penalty by nit-picking).
I’m honestly amazed that Sen. Kerry did so well against an incumbent war-time president, and acknowledge that he is both a successful politician and decent statesperson. He’s still grade A in my book (even if his face does droop with joy sometimes).
forty2
Do not let it be forgotten in all of this mess that Phil “whiners” Gramm slipped an amendment into an unrelated bill in 2000 essentially creating the market for the CDSs that killed Lehman and led to tonight’s $85bn bailout of “too intertwined to fail” AIG.
cite: http://is.gd/2FON
Oh and Phil’s wife was on the board of ENRON.
RCH
Democrats still have no economic ideology compared to Republicans, which is why they can’t make headway in the current economic problems. They may be economically responsible, want to balance the budget, and regulate the economy more but these are good Republican policies not Democratic ones. In other words they are trying to be elected as good Republicans, while painting McCain as a bad Republican. Since all the narrative is about Republican economic policies and the Democrats concede all their ideology is no good economically, the Republicans win.
The Democrats have forgotten that socialist policies don’t really hurt an economy at all, they don’t in Europe. The worst they do is increase unemployment marginally, tax the rich more, and perhaps depress economic growth marginally. In return they enrich the lower and middle classes enormously, who are supposed to be their base. In the past they didn’t hurt the American economy either. So they have nothing to be ashamed of in promoting an alternative economic vision to the Republicans, instead of just back seat driving.
JasonF
Anybody who is worried about the current poll numbers that favor Senator McCain should check out this link.
Marshall
I spewed my iced tea over that one.
blogreeder
Obama is a great orator. No denying that.
This is a lie. Look at this.
Who are these average workers that don’t live in the median household?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
If you haven’t already bought yourself a copy of Nixonland, keep the money. You just summarized the main points of the book. The rest is just details for people interested in US political history.
Maggie
But Tweety moaned and groaned about how that speech lacks PASSION. No tingles up his leg and what not. And so it’s all fail.
What scares me to death is that Tweety is right. God I don’t want to live in a country that thinks McCain has anything to offer us by way of leadership.
Slaps self. Tracking polls all shift to Obama today. So I’ll keep on hoping.
PaminBB
“Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income.”
Blogreader is apparently an inumerate moron who does not understand that these numbers must be adjusted for inflation. S/he also seems to not understand the difference between median and mean (average).
And John, what’s up with the pix of Glenn, Michelle and Charles on the front page? You really want to be associated with these people?
blogreeder
That’s why average is such a rotten word. Who is he talking about? Obama’s intelligent enough to use “adjusted for inflation” if he needs to. But that’s not what he said.
PaminBB, did your income fall for seven years? I know mine didn’t.
Barbar
Real median household incomes were lower in 2007 than they were seven years previously, blogreeder.
blogreeder
If you look at the graph in Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007, it’s more flat because of the Clinton recession in 2000. Obama’s quote is still a lie because
This comes from a 2 year study. The ones that went down are people you don’t care about. The highest quintile or Rich people.
Beej
Hey, jcricket, I’d be willing to bet you that a sizeable proportion of the electorate have no real idea of which candidate espouses which policies. They just saw a commercial or two, believed every word, and now are going to vote based on that and what their friends and family (who saw the same 2 commercials) are going to do. This is the real shame of the country, that too few people really give enough of a damn about who is running the country to actually take a half-hour and study the candidate’s stands on the issues.
Delia
Oh, how precious. The Clinton recession. Do you have any bridges for sale as well? Not that it matters. I’m toodling off to bed, so you can just write messages to convince yourself all night. I notice little blogreeder always appears rather late in the evening. His mom must get off the computer and leave it to him and the cheetos around this time.
blogreeder
Thanks, you’ve noticed I lost weight. Did you ever stop to consider that I comment so late because I’m running the country the rest of the day?
Barbar
Nonsense, blogreeder.
1) Using 2000 as a benchmark should help the Republicans, because of the recession that depressed incomes that year. Comparing to 1998 or 1999 would make 2007 look even worse.
2) Because real median household incomes were lower in 2007 than in 2000, Obama’s statement is not a lie. In fact, it is the truth.
3) The fact that only 70 percent of households in the top or bottom quintiles stay there over 2 years doesn’t make Obama’s statement a lie either. As someone as intelligent as yourself surely understands, what happens in the top or bottom quintiles doesn’t impact the median. These people who move out of the quintiles aren’t “average workers” by definition.
4) In a good economy, real incomes should be going up up up across the board. Look at the 1980s and 1990s in that graph. In the 2000s, we’ve been slightly down. We’re not exactly entering a boom part of the cycle either. This means FAIL.
blogreeder
I used that excerpt because it showed mobility. Does it mention the other quintiles? I don’t know, it’s long report and it’s late. I’ve seen other remarks on studies that actually showed more mobility in the other quintiles. I still stand by my statement that what Obama said is a lie because there is no “average” worker. There’s a median worker.
TenguPhule
Funny that, and here we are in 2008 and we are all worse off then before Bush betrayed America.
My gross income has gone up.
My net spending power…has dropped.
I have seen food inflation running 30-60% in the last two years. I have seen energy inflation of 100%. Transportation of goods has 45% energy surcharges added.
I could make 10-12% return on investments and I’d barely be breaking even.
I remember when the Euro was a $.77 joke.
So take your MCcain sucking ass and shove it.
Dylan
blogreeder:
Analysis here:
The figures are inflation-adjusted, and based on working-age households (that is, housholds where occupants are under 65 years old.) The link explains.
If you include retirees in the calculations, incomes still drop, but not by as much.
blogreeder
Dylan, thanks for the link. Now, that I think about it; It might have been bad to use the median household income in my argument. There is no way that is the same people between 2001 and 2008.
TenguPhule, Is this over 2 years? What about 7?
Muddy
Median, Mode and Mean are all different types of average. Average is an ambiguous word. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
It makes most sense to use Median in this context, as the arithmetic mean will be completely distorted by the top wage earners — it’s a skewed distribution.
Barbar
If there’s mobility, then for every person who moves up, there’s a person who moves down. Since the median has gone down, this is a negative picture overall. FAIL.
eyelessgame
To give blogreeder the tiny shred to which he is due, it’s not necessarily the case that for every person who moves up there must be a person who moves down — people tend to move up relative to the median throughout their lives, end up higher than they started, and then vanish from the stats (by vanishing from the planet) as new people come in closer to the bottom. Most people’s fortunes go up relative to the median in the course of their careers.
Still. It is McCainworthy disingenuousness to pretend that this makes the statistic somehow invalid, just because the 30-year-old in 2000 might be doing better as a 38-year-old in 2008. Adjust for inflation first, and then compare the 2000-2008 movement in the median to the 1992-2000 change in the median. Which sort of administration does a better job of managing things such that the median goes up?
Oh, and yes, one could always preface every single statistic with “adjusted for inflation”. Or you can trust that everyone knows that every honest comparison over time is adjusted for inflation, or it’s meaningless.
CaptChuck
Comrade…..
Are you a communist? It’s no surprise you would rather hear eloquent speaking than words that are true and factual…..better to eat sizzle than steak, eh??
CaptChuck
Fuun thing…and since everyone wants to quote statistics…
What was the un-employment rate before the Democrats took over the senate?? And what is it today?
What was the cost of gas on the day that the democrats took over the senate? And what is it today?
Was there a housing crisis on the day that the democrats took over the senate?
How’s healthcare system working since Hillary overhauled it? How’s foreign policy since Slick Willy ignored it over “staining Monica’s dress”…Where’s the democratic poster boy, “John Edwards”….ya’ll are deserately tryin to divorce yourself from the last VP candidate you stood staunchly behind, now are’nt ya?? LOLOLOLOLOL
The democrats are in control now…..what makes you think Obama getting elected changes anything?? NO MORE DEMOCRATIC CHANGE PLEASE…America can’t afford it now///