This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Will the Democrats Lose in 2010 (or 2012) Because They Won't Pass Real Financial Reforms?
Yesterday, Elliot Spitzer said that the White House's defense of the financial status quo will give Republicans powerful ammunition in the 2010 elections.
Democratic cheerleader Markos Moulitsas (the "Kos" behind Daily Kos) wrote the following about the Democratic losses in several state elections:
Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:
... If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes...
If you forget why you were elected -- ... financial services ... reform -- you will lose votes.
Tonight
proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you
have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn
out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work
hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and
decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home.
People
elected Obama in the hope that he would be different from Bush. But in
the most important ways, he is just continuing Bush and Clinton's
(think repeal of Glass-Steagall) worst policies.
Both the Republican and Democratic party leadership have become lapdops for the big banks and the status quo. Neither are open to real reform or change.
The
Democrats haven't broken up the too big to fails. They haven't restored
Glass-Steagall. They haven't really reigned in credit default swaps.
They haven't pushed for honest accounting or forced the giants to put
their toxic SIV-hidden assets back on their books.
People are
sick and tired of both parties' catering to the big boys. Indeed, given
last night's election results and the Dems' utter failure to institute
any real financial reform, trend forecaster Gerald Calente's prediction that a third party candidate will win the 2012 presidential election is sounding a little less crazy.
- advertisements -
will the democrats lose in 2010? does it really matter?
Obama sold out. Bernanke sold out. That's all you really
need to know.
Yes
This issue is underestimated.
Where is the third party? We desperately need it. In my home country we too have 2 main parties, but there are others that give them a run for their money at times, and certainly hold some sway.
Aren't we all supposed to lose in 2012?
I remember when I supported Bush. He was a great govenor. Turned out to be a lousy facist president. I was not happy and disillusioned. I didn't vote for either one. Now all the 'O' bama supporters get to feel the same thing. Instead of a white republican facist we now have a half white democrat facist.
PS: what's up with people name 'O'... Obama, Oprah, O'Steen, just makes me wanna flush..
A key takeaway from this election was that the #1 concern in all voting areas was the economy. Not healthcare, not cap and trade, and not stupid partisan nit picks.
Republicans will quickly learn that the messages that resonated the most in this election play to their core strengths and base constituencies: fiscal responsibility.
Dems will continue spending to the moon because the Keynseans tell them anything less will lead to the end of the world. All democrats have big ass bulls eyes on their heads.
There won't be a 3rd party nothin winning in the US, but we'll see in 2010 and 2012 conservatives will be mopping up.
I agree for the most part, but I think that the GOP will have to learn to stow the Bible-thumping. It's just not a winner any more.
Also, they'll be running against their own very recent track record of not being even remotely fiscally responsible in any way. But voters' memories are short....
Yes.
I always think Mr.Obama is Bush the third. Nothing will be changed.
it doesn't make a whit's difference which fascist nazi totalitarian party wins or loses.....the rockefeller / rothschild children of satan will continue to burn pillage and enslave....
anyone retarded enough to think we don't live in a one party state is the paris hilton of politics - a vapid airheaded flibbertygibbet.....
it's interesting, the leftblogs such as kos and Huff are not to pleased with how the admin is running the economy - yet Barack is still an innocent (naive at worst) - the above quotation from Kos gives Barack a pass while threatening the midterm incumbents up for re-election to do their bidding or risk defeat - not a chance would the left place their majority in jeopardy - (if you've never read Kos or Huffington you should take some time this weekend and do just that - perhaps you will agree with what they say or perhaps it will scare the sh** out of you)
from the main page of Huff today
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/obamas-9-funniest-moments_n_343...
and this is Kos' main page -
http://www.dailykos.com/
"...yet Barack is still an innocent..."
Of course. Having the correct skin color fulfills 95% of what the democrats actually care about.
The economy, Afghanistan, and financial reform are just noise.
Not sure how it will play out, but I think that we can say with 90% certainty that Wall Street will turn into a populist punching bag for one or maybe even both parties next year. House elections are populist affairs, and Wall Street is an obvious, unsympathetic villian just sitting there in plain view.
Easier for the challenger to harp on this issue than incumbents who are sloshing in bank-lobby money. Though, maybe Wall Street will just buy off the challengers too.
God bless America! Where corporations are people too! People with first amendment rights and hundreds of millions times more money than you or me.
"God bless America! Where corporations are people too! People with first amendment rights and hundreds of millions times more money than you or me."
Like Robert Locke said in his essay on corporatism, "when a government promises to take care of everybody, 'everybody' includes big business."
Over the last 70+ years, government and its structures have morphed into a special form of bureaucratic squid, encouraging citizens to become increasingly dependent on bailouts of some form or another as a substitute for common sense and personal responsibility. That this lack of self-sufficiency and long-term thinking would insinuate itself in every corner of our society, including Wall Street, is hardly a surprise.
I would argue that "everybody" can include all the people working in the business, without including the business itself. Same goes for labor unions, and a million others.
"I would argue that "everybody" can include all the people working in the business, without including the business itself."
It COULD, but ultimately it never will--because the flaw is assuming that the business and the people within it are two separate entities. And when a business (or labor union) employs millions of people, the implication is that letting that business go under will be a thousand times worse than shoveling money into it and hoping that solves the problem.
The Republicrats, in passing TARP, made the same mistake that local school districts have the past 30 or so years--they assumed (or took the banksters' word, same diff in this case) that the entire problem was a lack of money, rather than more fundamental rot in the administrative structure, and that a simple injection of liquidity would make things right again. So rather than reinstituting stricter regulations or even enforcing the ones already on the books, they threw money at the problem and expected it to go away. Uncle Ben's helicoptor has saved their ass for a season, but the math is going to catch up to them eventually.
Ultimately, there needs to be a sea change in the country's culture that doesn't demand that the government proactively prevent anyone from failing. There are no Special Snowflakes, not everyone deserves a passing grade, and if businesses don't run their operations in an intelligent manner they deserve to go under. At this point, though, I'm pessimistic that, short of total collapse of the current system, this change will not happen. We're far too inured to mommy and daddy (and by proxy, the government) stepping in and saving us when something goes wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think most people realize that this country doesn't have the resources to save everyone anymore.
Obama will never hurt the people who brought him here. Forget about "real" financial reform. We will sure see a reform, which in fact is nothing. However, those people who brought Obama here will support him 100% and get him elected again. In my opinion, Obama is selected, not elected.
The Bildenberg cartel did select Obama and nothing will ever change except at the margins until the system completely collaspes.
I agree. He was "selected" by a majority of voters.
With such media support and huge "campaign contributions" anybody could be "selected" by a majority of voters easily. It's all about campaign budget and media support.
"Media support"
"Campaign contributions"
"I also heard that he's a secret Muslim, born in Kenya!!!"
I know it's far out, but it's also possible that he was just a far far more attractive candidate than Grampa McCain and What-am-I-doing-here Palin.
He's damned good with the teleprompter - and he's a damned big disappointment!
He is assigned.
Unfortunately, if the Democrats - or anyone else - forces these things, the markets will crash. All the above reflect expedients inserted to prevent market failures in times past.
(Over-) consumption has been brought forward, consequences have been kicked down the road. It seems the future - and the past - is now.
This is EXACTLY right. Obama and his team believe that a stock market crash is the worst thing that can happen. They will do anything to prevent it. F the stock market. It's not the real economy. Let it plunge 80%. If you get things fixed, it will quickly make up all lost ground.
Conspiracy theorists that say Obama is just catering to the Wall St. lobbyists are wrong. Wall St. lobbyists didn't get him elected. He's trying to give the public what he thinks they will like (i.e., a "healthy" DOW number).
NY 23 was a wake up call, even though Hoffman lost, better take note.
The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that both parties are bought and paid for by the Special Interests but the Republicans actually know how to play the game in their (short term) favour
Rs and Ds are exactly the same - they are the ruling elite. Elites always rule - and at the moment the group is the money men!
Yes, big money flowed into insurers, device & drug companies.
400 hours campaigning for obama, 1 year later zero reform, go f em all, in a weekend u get tarp, in two weeks u can invade a country, this is in KISS terms, idiocy, insane, stupid, i don't care call it what u want, you've lost 100% of my respect
EXACTLY...WTFU!
Yes, they will lose as they should. Voting for Obama who claimed to be a progressive and now governs like moderate to conservative will cost the D's. Particularly, here where Obama promised CHANGE, change that has not occurred.
What will happen is that Main Street will continue to deteriorate as Wall Street continues to prosper. Main Street now sees that it is the elites and Wall Street that have received the majority of the bailout $ at the expense of the rest of us.
the republicans may get the house in 2010. but i think if they do it'll be because of pocketbook issues (jobs) versus financial reform. true, we need the latter. but most folks in america don't have the same focus as zero hedge readers and contributors. they're worried about a paycheck, and in this environment the party in power will get the boot, maybe.
I can see running a true progressive 3rd party Candidate, one that would actually drive to close financial loopholes and begin to reverse the 3 decade long flow of American pension fund capital to China by structuring economic incentives toward manufacture in America again.
However it is beyond me to see why Americans that are concerned about jobs would vote Republican.
The Republicans presided over the creation of conditions that caused the worst job losses in history, and could always find money for repression but not for jobs, so why would people concerned about jobs vote Republican?
Amen, Kos. If the Democrats are too stupid to heed this truth, they deserve to lose--not to the GOP, but to every third-party candidate bold enough to run against the corrupt and obsolete two party monopoly.
You hit the bulls eye at 300 yards Hammer59. Actually it is not to stupid... it is too bought off.
Real Republicans like myself moaned about why
should I vote for my guys they are just Democrats
mouthing what we want to hear during the election.
Now Real Democrats are faced with the same
demoralizing realization. Their guys are just
Republicans mouthing what they want to hear
during the election!
Who is foot tapping now bitches?