President Obama releases long-form birth certificate

[retro-man]

Retro, can you name even one thing that Obama has done differently from "the last 30 years" that would improve the economy? Most of the people I work with, developers, investors etc, don't see anything positive on the horizon. Is there something you see that they are missing?

 

What I have noticed recently, and from a group of people that called themselves Obama supporters, is that they are not feeling any hope or change. The interesting part is that a lot of these folks would have probably voted a tax increase on themselves a year ago, but now they perceive that what they might have given willingly towards that hope and change will instead be taken from them to fight more undeclared wars, and fund more economically questionable silly stuff like cash for clunkers and rebates for appliance purchases.

 

This is not to say that these people have shifted to the Republican camp or any other, only that they are not in any way optimistic. They just seem to be disenfranchised. It appears that "wait and see" has become the new mantra.

All I know is that I have never seen a President walk into a bigger mess than the one that was left Obama. They spent 8 years pulling planks off the bottom of the boat to stoke the boilers and now it's his fault that he can't bail fast enough?

 

jerks

 

However - all candor here:

- Yes, I am not feeling much hope and change.

- Yes, I would have voted myself a tax increase, and I still would - if I knew it would go to paying down the deficit and not to undeclared wars, to subsidize corn producers, to relieve the burdens of the wealthy (relieving the burdens of the poor and sick is ok), or to subsidize the maintenance of a hereditary aristocracy.

 

A few points of contrast though:

- I do not believe lower taxes are going to cause companies to hire people. I believe increased demand from their customers will necessitate more hiring. I believe those customers are not forthcoming (not in this country anyway) mainly because we have spent the last 30 years taking the bread out of their mouths and feeding it to the wealthy, through tax and trade policy, and the dismantling and de-toothing of organized labor.

- The real estate and associated credit bubble - if not deliberately engineered - at least had the effect of wringing the last bit of value out of the middle class - their homes - before letting the whole thing collapse, and had the net effect of making the rich yet richer - first profiting wildly in the financialization of the market (proliferation of derivatives, easy credit and collateralized debt), then by swooping in like vultures and snapping up distressed properties at fire sale prices on the way down. It also created a very desperate and pliable labor pool. Winners: the financial elite. Losers: the poor and middle class.

- Conservatives lament much about having "our money" taken from us as soon as we earn it in the form of taxes. I propose that the US economy is engineered to take the money out of our hands before we even earn it, for the reasons stated above. Look at the results: productivity from 2000 - 2007 grew 20% while wages remained relatively stagnant. The trend is even more striking looking all the way back to 1980. Since the Great Recession started, there has been a huge squeeze on labor, with fewer people working more hours, often for lower wages due to the dire labor market (being able to charge for their labor what the market will bear), and yet productivity has continued to rise. Where is the hue and cry about that bread being taken out of our mouths? We are being robbed, not of our money, but of the very fruits of our labor in a rigged game. Only a very myopic and dogmatic faith in "the markets" could somehow make this seem acceptable.

 

Trickle down has failed. Not only has it failed to provide the widespread prosperity that was its original premise (remember that? waaaay back when Reagan was running against Bush the elder who called it "voodoo economics"?), multiplying many many times the gap between rich and poor, but it has resulted in the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. I simply don't see how going further down that same path is going to somehow fix it. You can't have a vibrant economy without a vibrant middle class and widespread prosperity. Those who say the middle class doesn't matter are dead wrong. Those who say the middle class is actually doing just fine, thank you, well.... the middle class disagrees. POLL

 

To your point - I do not see Obama fixing it either. However, it is beyond my imagination who the Republicans can possibly float as a candidate in 2012 that could do any better. Looking back to 2008 - as mentioned, I was thrilled that we finally got the race thing out of the way. Tell you the truth, during the campaign and the primaries, the 2 candidates who actually made the most sense to me in their respective ways - were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. But, as has been pointed out many times, we have to get the mess in Congress cleaned up before any President can do anything. The current group with their fresh-scrubbed Tea Party naivete and their extra-curricular absolutist pledges to Grover Norquist are not going to bring about any good. It's like driving your car around a race course with "the club" on your steering wheel - about as reckless and stupid as you can get.

Edited July 20, 2011 by retro-man

[RangerM]

And Ranger, the idea that there is not, at least in part, racism at the heart of the birthed issue is extremely hard to believe.

Problem is, the label that may apply to "part" is often directed at the whole.

They don't seem much interested in doing the right thing for the country as far as I can tell, only in stymying his every move, just so they can say "I told you so" later. You say that anybody taking such an irresponsible position will thrown out in the next election, so the situation will correct itself. I have my doubts about that. Plus, by the next election, it might be too late. Hell, by the last election it was too late.

The question of what is the right thing for the country is the basis for political parties in the first place.

 

The way Obama is portrayed treated is no worse than anything I can recall about the left's treatment of Bush.

Edited July 21, 2011 by RangerM

[RangerM]

To your point - I do not see Obama fixing it either. However, it is beyond my imagination who the Republicans can possibly float as a candidate in 2012 that could do any better. Looking back to 2008 - as mentioned, I was thrilled that we finally got the race thing out of the way.

 

If Obama is not reelected in 2012, I think you'll find the "race thing" hasn't got out of the way. It hasn't now (given the charge of racism is bandied about as much as it is), and it certainly won't then.

[retro-man]

The way Obama is portrayed treated is no worse than anything I can recall about the left's treatment of Bush.

 

Yes but .... Bush had the "benefit" (and it seems to me it was fully and shamefully exploited) of 9/11 to keep most of the country, and far too many Democrats, in line for much of his agenda, including what was to me the biggest shame of his administration (and the single issue that most caused me to favor Obama over Hillary as a matter of fact): Iraq. They beat that drum into the ground. The Bush administration succeeded in a way that this administration never can, in framing dissent as lack of patriotism - or treason even, and it was wrong to do so. If this administration or its supporters were to attempt to frame all dissent as a matter of racism, then that would be equally wrong. But I don't see a cadre of "Architects" - no Karl Rove, no Dick Cheney, no Bush Sr. in the background - in place around the President deliberately engineering such a campaign of coercion, only disparate and disorganized supporters from various quarters who may occasionally make such a charge - justified or otherwise. Therein lies the Republican advantage: organization.

Edited July 21, 2011 by retro-man

[RangerM]

Yes but .... Bush had the "benefit".......of 9/11......

Even though intellectually I understand what you're saying, I cringe when I hear that.

..... to keep most of the country, and far too many Democrats, in line for much of his agenda, including what was to me the biggest shame of his administration.......: Iraq. They beat that drum into the ground. The Bush administration succeeded in a way that this administration never can,.....

Is it me or is there an echo of "never let a good crisis go to waste" here? Not that I believe that. I know 9/11 was a predominant feature of public policy in those days, however I'm not sure that I would characterize it as "beat that drum into the ground". I know there was much dissent of the Patriot Act (perhaps the name given that particular piece of legislation is a source of irritation? If so, I understand).

......in framing dissent as lack of patriotism - or treason even, and it was wrong to do so.

I don't recall it being a position of Bush's administration to promote the idea of dissent as being unpatriotic. I'm sure the Limbaugh and Hannity-wannabes certainly said things like that. Can you cite a (Bush administration) source, please?

If this administration or its supporters were to attempt to frame all dissent as a matter of racism, then that would be equally wrong. But I don't see a cadre of "Architects" - no Karl Rove, no Dick Cheney, no Bush Sr. in the background - in place around the President deliberately engineering such a campaign of coercion, only disparate and disorganized supporters from various quarters who may occasionally make such a charge - justified or otherwise. Therein lies the Republican advantage: organization.

Given the (estimated) billion dollars that Obama is expected to have for his reelection campaign, does that really ring true?

 

As far as architects, you don't have people as much as organizations like SEIU, various public employee unions, the UAW, and much of the print and television media. Every time these organizations get stirred up, you have the media all too happily covering it, and portraying it as "the people" against the power elite.

 

That is why the Tea Party seems so irritating to the left, who can't imagine that these are real people with real concerns, trying to voice their collective opinion. Meanwhile, the left calls them "astroturf" and portrays them as racists in an effort to define them as not real people and marginalize them.

Edited July 21, 2011 by RangerM

[retro-man]

Even though intellectually I understand what you're saying, I cringe when I hear that.

I cringe when I say it.

 

Is it me or is there an echo of "never let a good crisis go to waste" here? Not that I believe that.

Let's just say that I have a more jaundiced view of the previous administration than you do.

 

I know there was much dissent of the Patriot Act (perhaps the name given that particular piece of legislation is a source of irritation? If so, I understand).

I have become quite used to Orwellian naming techniques - like "repeal the job-killing" etc. etc., so that doesn't bother me so much (although I sometimes worry about a long-term erosion of the language and "reality drift" that might happen.)

 

I don't recall it being a position of Bush's administration to promote the idea of dissent as being unpatriotic. I'm sure the Limbaugh and Hannity-wannabes certainly said things like that. Can you cite a (Bush administration) source, please?

You're probably right. It was probably the conservative controlled media where most of that idea was coming from. I think it was also a lot of "outside the inner circle, plausible deniability, party functionaries" who were charged with that dirty work.

 

Given the (estimated) billion dollars that Obama is expected to have for his reelection campaign, does that really ring true?

 

As far as architects, you don't have people as much as organizations like SEIU, various public employee unions, the UAW, and much of the print and television media. Every time these organizations get stirred up, you have the media all too happily covering it, and portraying it as "the people" against the power elite.

Noted. I am in favor of anything that would remove moneyed influence from political campaigns.

 

That is why the Tea Party seems so irritating to the left, who can't imagine that these are real people with real concerns, trying to voice their collective opinion. Meanwhile, the left calls them "astroturf" and portrays them as racists in an effort to define them as not real people and marginalize them.

Believe it or not, I have sat next to - and worked with - people with Tea Party sympathies. The ones I am thinking of are sincere enough. There is one perception that I have about them (if I set aside what might seem as judgmentalism about "losers"): They seem to believe that anybody could accomplish as much as they themselves have in life - if only they would. I, on the other hand, believe that there are a lot of people who simply could not do as well as I have, even given the same effort, and that must suffer and feel hopelessness. Perhaps that makes me terribly patronizing compared to the Tea Partyers. If I really think about their attitude as one of ultimate trust and faith in people, I can see the attraction in it. Then again, I can also imagine a life without social security, medicare, or unemployment insurance, where people live 3 generations to a household and take care of each other because society at large won't. I have to be careful not to let my liberal relativism and open-mindedness allow me to be led too far down that path.

[xr7g428]

where people live 3 generations to a household and take care of each other because society at large won't. I have to be careful not to let my liberal relativism and open-mindedness allow me to be led too far down that path.

 

This statement depresses me. Do you really expect society to do more for you than your own family? I was raised, by example, to never take a hand out. Hand outs are to be reserved for those that have no other choice. We may not live three generations together, but that seems more our loss than a benefit. I would much rather support my own family than ever accept that it was the job of society. If ducking your responsibility to your family is liberal relativism and open mindedness, please keep both.

 

I, on the other hand, believe that there are a lot of people who simply could not do as well as I have, even given the same effort, and that must suffer and feel hopelessness. Perhaps that makes me terribly patronizing compared to the Tea Partyers.

 

Really? So what do you subscribe your success to, luck? You don't see a connection with effort and results at all? When I look around at other successful people, the one common denominator is hard work.

[retro-man]

This statement depresses me. Do you really expect society to do more for you than your own family? I was raised, by example, to never take a hand out. Hand outs are to be reserved for those that have no other choice. We may not live three generations together, but that seems more our loss than a benefit. I would much rather support my own family than ever accept that it was the job of society. If ducking your responsibility to your family is liberal relativism and open mindedness, please keep both.

 

You misunderstand me: I meant my liberal relativism allows me to see the merit in having the family take responsibility instead of having a government-sponsored "social safety net" (like every other advanced economy in the world has). Yes, I see the merit in that. I also see the limitations. For instance, in this current economic downturn I can name individuals who have had to relocate from Seattle to Austin Texas (moved wife and kids with), Los Angeles California (leaving wife and 2 kids on Bainbridge Island), Dubai (leaving husband and stepson in Tacoma), Hong Kong (wife and daughter left behind in Seattle), Shanghai (wife and kids moved with). These are moves of sheer economic necessity. They are economic migrants - refugees. We have had plenty of discussions on here about Boeing shifting production to lower wage states, and the shift of auto production to non-union, tax-impoverished (but sucking at the federal teat to somewhat make up for it) states in the South. That is the very nature of an economy where labor is commoditized - a trend lauded by the very same people who wish to dismantle the social safety net. An itinerant workforce is antithetical to the formation of strong families and communities. This is a basic inconsistency in Conservative thought.

 

 

Really? So what do you subscribe your success to, luck? You don't see a connection with effort and results at all? When I look around at other successful people, the one common denominator is hard work.

I was born into a solidly middle class (maybe upper middle) family, the dominant (as of the time of my birth) gender and ethnic group, and with a decent IQ. I think it's safe to call those things good fortune.

 

Yes, I worked my ass off too - graveyard shift at a roof truss factory for most of my undergraduate days, and at a cabinet shop between terms in grad school, construction Summers - and have scarcely taken a real vacation since then. If I had been born into a different background, I may have had a far more limited view of what I could do. If I had a harder time learning, I may not have been able to pull off the 2 degrees while working as much as finances necessitated at the same time. I guess I would be doing something else for a living in that case.

[RangerM]

You may have been put on a higher rung on the ladder of life, Retro. But it's up to you to climb. If you refuse to climb (or climb slower), someone who started on a lower rung can/will climb higher (especially, if they climb faster). (Note: When I say "you", I'm not referring to you personally)

 

That is the same way I look at my employees (college degree or not).

Edited July 21, 2011 by RangerM

[xr7g428]

I was born into a solidly middle class (maybe upper middle) family, the dominant (as of the time of my birth) gender and ethnic group, and with a decent IQ. I think it's safe to call those things good fortune.

 

True enough, when you were born. Not so much today. A white male over 50 is practically job proof in today's society. Being part Cherokee, I can tell you that there is a huge difference in preference when I am seen as a native as opposed to white. (I do not play the race card, ever. If a project won't work with a blind eye to race, then it won't work.) This is not to say that white males are not able to succeed, only that they have to work harder to get the same results.

[retro-man]

True enough, when you were born. Not so much today. A white male over 50 is practically job proof in today's society.

Oh yeah. Livin' that one every day. (I'd put the little smiley face in here, but I'm not feeling so smiley about it.) If I didn't know so many 20 and 30 somethings who are in the same boat - and for that matter, a smattering of blacks and asians too - I'd be pretty bitter about it. There is a lot of ageism in the current job market. A lot. It is a fact that boomers have a much harder time to find employment right now. Boomers, first-timers, and anybody who is currently unemployed (if you want to job jump, it is considerably easier.) But it is "a market" after all, isn't it? If companies perceive that somebody younger can come at it with fresher technical skills, more energy, presumably less money, and - let's face it - be a lot easier to look at, then who am I to bitch and moan, right? It's up to me to leverage my considerable experience to make things happen, right? Of course, large parts of our current "future shock" economy (particularly the design world - and more particularly the retail design world) value novelty over experience. When things change as fast as they do, experience sometimes feels like a lead weight. So many boomers, so little market for experience. It's a social powder-keg waiting to blow up. We've "innovated" ourselves into the poor house. It was fun while it lasted, right? Mark my words: you're going to see geezers with walkers and canes charging the hill.

[Edstock]

It's a social powder-keg waiting to blow up.

Actually it's the geezers without the canes and walkers that they should worry about . . .

 

There sure is a lot of discontent in the 50+ crowd, and it has been one of the draws for the Tea Party movement.