The Tragedy of the Obama Administration: "The opportunity for greatness .... was ignored"

[Better Believe It]

The Tragedy of the Obama Administration
By Barry Ritholtz
November 3, 2010

I once again find myself lamenting the opportunities wasted by a US President in response to a great cataclysm. In the case of President Obama, it was his response to the financial crisis. The opportunity for greatness presented itself, and was . . . ignored.

And what an opportunity it was: Over the prior 3 decades, the economy of the United States had been “financialized.” We became much more involved in ‘financial engineering’ than any other more productive engineering. Along with this financialization came increased revenue for the biggest banks and investment houses; greater profits, influence, and power. A wave of deregulation swept over the sector, freeing the banks from meddling oversight.

Thus, as the finance sector got larger and more important, it was paradoxically under ever less scrutiny, supervision, and regulation. With that new found freedom from oversight, the banks promptly blew themselves, and the global economy, to smithereens.

This was the environment in which the President came into office. What did he do in this scenario?

• He appointed two of the architects of the crisis to major White House economic positions: Lawrence Summers as CEA Chair, and Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

• He made the enormous tactical error of focusing on Health Care Reform, while the banking crisis was still in full flower.

• He failed to marshall adequate resources to respond to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The great irony is that the man who ran on the campaign slogan of Change failed to deliver it in any meaningful way — at least, where the public wanted it — in getting the reckless runaway banks under control, and in stimulating the moribund, post-credit crisis economy.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.roubini.com/us-monitor/259928/the_tragedy_of_the_obama_administration


It appears that Barry Ritholtz is a big wig on Wall Street who isn't some far right-wing Republican. He obviously doesn't like or agree with the Wall Street fat cats who oppose any serious government regulation and controls over their activities.
Not every capitalist is a reactionary nutcase. Just about 90% of them .... or more. :)

What he wrote hits home. BBI

[DrDan]

1. you could paint a similar argument for the Iraq/Afghan war(s)

[HughMoran]

2. Attack Obama thread number zillion

good work!

[dennis4868]

3. It's because Obama is our enemy....

WTF?

[Better Believe It]

6. Do you have an opinion on the article?

If you do, let's hear it!

I'm listening.

[HughMoran]

8. Angry rehashed garbage that's been posted here in one form or another 10,000 times

And YOU know it!

[Champion Jack]

14. +1,000,000,000,000,000

[Raster]

24. And only a moran would dismiss something "posted here in one form or another 10,000 times"

as angry rehashed garbage. Painful as it may be, there is catharsis in grief and educational value in electoral autopsy.

[jgraz]

41. Nononono! We MUST NOT LEARN ANYTHING from this election!!!!

That might actually help us in 2012. :banghead:

[AnArmyVeteran]

45. +1000

We must not question.
We must not think.
We must not learn.
We must not critique.
We must not embrace the truth.

We must be cult-like, robotic followers like Bush's supporters were.

[jgraz]

47. Mission accomplished.

:puke:

[USArmyParatrooper]

50. The author isn't here to discuss it.

I can also spend 30 seconds copying and pasting a lengthy pieces of someone else's work - then ask you to spend the time dissecting it all.

Do you have any original thoughts of your own you'd like to discuss?

[Scurrilous]

4. The shelf life of yesterday's attack thread just expired.

Time for another.

[azmouse]

23. LOL

:spray:

[SidDithers]

5. Unrec...

lather, rinse, repeat.

Sid

[Arkana]

7. Is this like a permanent fixture on your daily to-do list?

You know, like "Get up, take shower, brush teeth, eat breakfast, breathlessly post about how Obama is a failed President over and over until people tell me to shut the hell up on DU"?

[Better Believe It]

10. If you have an opinion on the article I'd like to read it. If you'd rather engage in uncivil

personal attacks against progressive DU'ers you don't like or disagree with, let me know.

If your MO is drive-by personal attacks I can put you on ignore.

So what will it be?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

40. What's your opinion on the article?

[Arkana]

36. Seeing as how your post history indicates you're utterly incapable

of listening to opinions that don't jive with your own, I'd say just go ahead and put me on ignore.

Dunno why you felt the need to tell me.

[Better Believe It]

38. You have failed to present an opinion on the article.

I solicited your views and instead you requested me to put you on ignore.

Your request has been granted.

Bye, bye.

[sabrina 1]

42. So, what do you not agree with in the article?

The public, eg, were against the bank bailouts. They wanted banks controlled and they wanted help for Main St. But their tax dollars did not go to help them, they went to Herny (Mr. Risk) Paulson who demanded no oversight on how that money was spent, OUR money. The public was so against these bailouts that they flooded Congress with calls, letters, emails, faxes and Congress listened.

They voted against the bailouts. The next step should have been investigations and prosecutions for what was worst than a terror attack on this country. Instead, the next move was to threaten Congress to vote 'yes' when the issue was instantly brought back to Congress for approval. So they people were ignored, Henry got his big check, and the people got nothing.

This article is correct in saying that this was an opportunity to begin to control these banks. Congress was ready, the American people were ready, the president would have been on firm political ground had he done so. But he chose a different direction.

If there is something wrong in the article please point it out. Just railing about criticism is not going to stop it. Presidents expect to be criticized, it is part of the job. Some even learn from it. What will minimize criticism is addressing the issues that have upset so many people on their OWN SIDE. So, what is the problem with the article?

[indepat]

51. I will enter the fray with an opinion of what's wrong in the article: here we go

Did everyone get that? Like Patton, BHO was at the right time, at the right place, and with the right instruments in hand to achieve a place of permanent greatness in American history, to ultimately have been ranked among the very best of presidents, just by reversing junior's wrong-headed, destructive, and illegal/unconstitutional policies and actions, prosecuting known or suspected war and financial criminals, and implementing a progressive agenda. Instead, he employed Rahm Emanual's political template and effectively continued junior's third administration in so many key ways (wars and tax and fiscal policies), albeit all with a ton of style, grace, wit, panache, and a dash of populist rhetoric. What's followed is laid out there for all to see. :)

[Nite Owl]

9. Excellent article

but what now? I would like to hope that Obama would suddenly 'see the light' but so far it seems that no big changes are planned, at least as far as advisors and cabinet. If what he did or didn't do isn't recognized as insufficient than there will be just more of the same, or actually less even with the congress in January.

[Better Believe It]

11. I'm worried that deficit reduction will be a major focus of the White House in 2011-2012.

And job creation efforts will be placed on the back burner.

That would be a prescription for bigger election losses in 2012.

[Nite Owl]

25. Then it would't make sense to

let the tax cuts for the wealthy go through would it? But I do agree the deficit reduction is going to be front and center and it will be on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Obama seems to have made it clear once again that we are going to get screwed.

[Better Believe It]

30. It would only make sense if you're going to look out for the interests of the rich and want to work

with Republicans in "the spirit of bi-partisanship".

[Atman]

12. The article is damned good...but what are the Republicans going to do to fix what they created?

That's what I don't understand. You find out your babysitter is a pedophile, so you fire him/her and bring on a new 'sitter. The new one, though, turns out to have been a bad cook, and the kids didn't like the way she made dinner...so do you fire her and call back the pedophile? I don't understand what is going on here. It doesn't sound right. I think the GOP long-range plan -- which includes electronic voting -- has something to do with this. We've had continued (if weak) economic growth, job growth, retail sales, etc, etc, etc, and yet we put the GOP back in? Nope. Smells funny. Of course, it could just be the bad messaging from the administration, or the shiploads of money the Repubs spent. Who knows? It just sucks.

[Better Believe It]

16. The Republicans will do nothing to revive the economy. They hope (expect)

the economy will not improve and that the living standards and conditions of tens of millions will worsen.

They will blame the President and Democratic Senate for that.

And they could win by campaigning as "populists". The Democratic Party doesn't like using populist rhetoric because it sounds too radical and they will be accused by Republicans of promoting "class warfare" and socialism. Of course, they will do that anyway!

Millions of working class people and youth {b]who did not vote in this election will vote for "change" in 2012 hoping Republicans might revive the economy. The Republicans led by the "tea party" faction will pretend to be populists crusaders for the people.

Now you and I along with most progressives understand that, but we're talking about the average working person who usually isn't involved in politics outside of voting.

If President Obama doesn't challenge the Republican "money changers", Wall Street and corporate America and act like a leader for working people, he will be a one term President and the Republicans will win control of the Senate.

That's my early speculation and take on it .... subject to revision!

[ProSense]

13. Poor

tragic, Obama.

[cbdo2007]

15. Tackling Health Care wasn't a mistake - it's part of the financial problem.

[Better Believe It]

17. "Tackling health care" on the terms dictated by the insurance industry and big Pharma was a mistake

and will create bigger financial problems for working people .... from the 500 billion in Medicare cuts, the mandatory requirement to buy private insurance, taxing the health care benefits of those who have good insurance coverage .... just to name a few of the problems.

And look at what's happening right now.

Under this "health care reform" millions of people are paying both higher premiums, with bigger deductable and with fewer benefits!

The opposition to the health insurance industry written law will increase over the next two years.

The health insurance bill will get worse.

The Republicans plan to make it worse by proposing amendments such as so-called "tort reform" that will allegedly reduce costs!

And you know what, if "medical tort reform" passes the Senate (that proposal will easily pass the House) with some Democratic votes (which it will surely get) it will be signed into law by President Obama.

You don't think he would veto such a bi-partisan compromise, do you?

[MineralMan]

18. Unrecommended because it's just another in a series of

negative articles you have posted. Perhaps you could write some thoughts of your own, instead of searching for, and posting, any negative story of the day about President Obama. Or, perhaps not.

This stuff is unimaginative, consistently negative, and unhelpful. No suggestions about improvements that should be made. Just bashing.

And you post the same type of thing multiple times every day. Use your own brain. Tell us what you think President Obama should do...in your own words. Continued posting of this kind of stuff is going to continue to bring unrecommendations. Try a little thinking on your own.

[jgraz]

19. Yeah, can't you just post happy-clappy stuff? This "facing reality" sucks.

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

20. Hmm...facing reality is a good thing. Mindless bashing is less

so. But thanks for replying to my post to the OP. I'm sure he'll appreciate your assistance.

[jgraz]

21. And you're the one to make that distinction

Tell me something: do you ever produce posts that aren't about telling other people what to post?

[MineralMan]

22. Actually, in the past two days, I've posted three OPs.

Two of them were very well-received. The other one didn't get much attention. All of my OPs represent my own thinking, which is informed by a wide range of news stories and other sources. I rarely post anything third-hand. I find that sort of lazy. So, I post fewer OPs than many DUers, since I actually have to think before writing one. If you are a donor, you can quickly find those if you wish, by using DUs excellent search tool. I'd welcome your comments in those threads, of course.

I do participate in others' threads, of course. When I see attacks on President Obama that do not also contain suggestions for how he might change something, I generally respond negatively to those threads.

Thank you for asking.

[Nite Owl]

26. There are many suggestions

on how Obama could do a lot better but the thing is he has no intention of listening to them. His direction is pretty well set, he is very willing to compromise, even 'pre-compromise' as in the stimulus bill which was heavy on tax cuts, but there seems to be no compromise with any sort of left or center left ideas. He won't stand up to the GOP just his base.

[sabrina 1]

52. What Obama should do. First he should make it clear

that he will stop any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. We already know what those tax cuts have done to the economy AND to jobs in the U.S. He should use his power to speak to the American people and explain in detail WHY they have to go.

Second, he should warn Republicans that any attempt to cut SS benefits, for ANYONE, UNDER 58 or over, or to raise the retirement age, OR to continue pushing the lie that SS had anything to do with the deficit, will be strongly opposed by the WH and the Democratically controlled Senate as well as the minority in Congress, not to mention the American people.

Third, he should push to increase the bail-our of the American people. This would be an extremely popular stand for him to take, would involve no political risk, and expose the Republicans as anti-American worker. And when they fight him on these things, he should take to the airwaves and challenge them publicly to explain to the American why they prefer to support Wall St.

He should issue an executive order to stop the dismissals of Gay Troops from the military. There is now no hope of Congress doing so as he hoped. He has the power to do so as CIC and if anyone cares to find out why, I can link to military law which completely backs him up were he to take this necessary step.

He could encourage his party members in Congress to start investigations into the war crimes that have been ignored, and the DOJ. Other countries are doing so, and if we don't, they will do it for us.

He should clear out all Bush holdovers in the DOJ and elsewhere so we can finally 'move forward' with restoring the Rule of Law.

He should fire his economic team made up of Goldman Sachs alumni, as the article says, a couple of whom are the same people who were the architects of the financial disaster and appoint real Economists like James Galbraith, to his cabinet.

He should talk to Howard Dean, who was the most successful DNC chairman in terms of getting Democrats elected and either ask him to return to that position, or to recommend someone else so that we do not have a repeat of this election in 2012.

Most importantly, he should stop asking Republicans, like Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg, Alan Simpson et al for advice. It's way past time for him to start talking to Progressive Democrats about serious issues, there are plenty of them around just waiting to offer advice.

I could go on, but those are a few of the things he could start with.

And, of course, he should drop this notion of bi-partisanship which means both sides getting something, since it's been made as clear as possible to him by Republicans, that to them, that means, as one of them said yesterday, 'the President will have to go along with our agenda now'. There is not a hope in hell of any cooperation from Republicans. It's not as if they are even pretending.

So, stand up and fight for Democratic issues and let them know they are faced with obstructionism of every wrong move they try to make. And don't anyone tell me that Democrats in the minority cannot do this. All we've heard for two years is how successful Republicans have been at doing exactly that.

Now, what do you suggest the president should be doing?

[de novo]

53. Personal attack.

The poster is not the subject.

[wildbilln864]

27. k&r! nt

[MrScorpio]

28. Obama was swimming against the tide in this country since day one

And of course, there are sharks in the water.


But still, folks are happy to point out the fact that he has a few bites on him.


It's not always entertaining to see schadenfreude at play.

[Better Believe It]

31. Not really. The political "tide" swept Obama and Democrats into office. He had a mandate.

He failed to act on his mandate for progressive change.

[MrScorpio]

32. You really believe that?

Then, if so, where the hell was his freaking back up?

Back at the club house contemplating their navels probably.

[Better Believe It]

34. Yes, I really do. Why the hell wasn't OFA mobilized?

And backup for what? The health insurance industry bill, the so-called "stimulus" bill that was written by three Senate Republicans, the attacks on our civil liberties, the continuation and escalation of the Afghan war. ?

[Starry Messenger]

29. k & r

[laughingliberal]

33. I'd give this one 1000 recs if I could. nt

[ncteechur]

37. The author is wrong. Obama did deal with the crisis. We have had job growth. We have passed wall

street reform. He did put a stimulus package together. But this crisis was never going to be fixed in 12 or 18 or 24 months. The author, Barry Ritholtz, is an ass.

[Better Believe It]

43. Tell that to the people who continue to lose their jobs, their homes, have their wages and benefits

cut.

But, they will be happy to hear the Great Recession is over.

Obama didn't put the stimulus package together. Three Senate Republicans wrote it. That's why it mainly contained tax cuts with only a small percentage devoted to actual public works and infrastructure job creation. The Republicans watered down the House stimulus proposal knowing it would not jump start the economy. Noriel Roubini called it "puny". If anything, that was an overly generous description of the stimulus.

The United States Conference of Mayor's detailed 200 billion dollar proposal for useful public works projects was ignored by the White House and Representative Oberstar's big infrastructure proposal to rebuild the nations bridges, roads, passenger train system and airports was torpedoed by the White House.

And Wall Street reform? They are still doing derivatives, most of the legislation won't go into effect for years and Wall Street lobbyists will be writing the rules to implement this legislation!

[Better Believe It]

48. Happy Days Are Here Again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPiNIzSM3RQ&feature=related

[xiamiam]

39. lots of folks with their fingers in their ears screaming na na na na at this thread

wont make the truth go away..

[AnArmyVeteran]

46. Exactly, a good progressive is NOT a lapdog progressive.

[hulka38]

44. K&R

[spanone]

49. it ain't over til it's over.

2 years does not an administration make