and people wonder why the nyt is going belly up. with numbnuts like rich is their any doubt?
On Jan 26, 5:21 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird" (Wallace Stevens)/Brooks. > > On Jan 26, 3:41 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Flabby/Rich. Hysterical/Friedman. Purfled/Dowd. Musty/Fish. Chuckled/ > > Collins. Cramped/Kristof. Cringed/Kristol. Bow-tied/Cavet. Glugged/ > > Krugman.//Its only a newspaper. > > > On Jan 26, 3:11 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The New York Times’ Frank Rich: Obama is right—the people are to blame > > > By David Walsh > > > 26 January 2009 > > > > Barack Obama's inauguration has brought out the worst in a good many > > > people, especially from within the environs of American liberalism. > > > The liberal pundits either invent an imaginary ‘progressive' Obama or > > > come forward to express agreement with his fundamentally right-wing > > > views and policies. > > > > In his weekly comment Sunday, New York Times columnist Frank Rich, > > > taking his cue from Obama's inauguration speech, asserts that the > > > American people share the blame for the financial crisis. Rich writes > > > that "Obama wasn't just rebuking the outgoing administration. He was > > > delicately but unmistakably calling out the rest of us who went along > > > for the ride as America swerved into the dangerous place we find > > > ourselves now." > > > > Rich continues: "Feckless as it was for Bush to ask Americans to go > > > shopping after 9/11, we all too enthusiastically followed his lead, > > > whether we were wealthy, working-class or in between. We spent a > > > decade feasting on easy money, don't-pay-as-you-go consumerism and a > > > metastasizing celebrity culture." > > > > After enumerating a number of crimes of the financial elite, Rich > > > returns to his theme: "In less lofty precincts of the American > > > economic spectrum, the numbers may be different but the ethos has > > > often been similar... [R]egular Americans took on all kinds of debt > > > wildly disproportionate to their assets and income. The nearly $1 > > > trillion in unpaid credit-card balances is now on deck to be the next > > > big crash." > > > > He notes that in his inaugural speech Obama issued a "somber" call for > > > sacrifice, and, after citing the president's reference to "workers who > > > would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job," Rich > > > adds, "There will be-there must be-far larger sacrifices in that vein > > > yet to come." He concludes: "While it's become a Beltway cliché that > > > America's new young president has yet to be tested, it is past time > > > for us to realize that our own test is also about to begin." > > > > This is extraordinary stuff. Aside from its sycophancy and the excuses > > > it offers for Obama's banal and empty speech, Rich's column gives > > > genuine voice to the sentiments of selfish, upper-middle-class > > > circles. > > > > (New York Times columnists couldn't agree on the literary quality of > > > Obama's inaugural. While Rich headlined his piece "No Time for Poetry" > > > and argued that "this speech was austere, not pretty," Times op-ed > > > writer Stanley Fish opined that Obama "carries us from meditative bead > > > to meditative bead, and invites us to contemplate." The prose style, > > > Fish tells us, "lends itself to leisurely and loving study." While the > > > aesthetic evaluations differ, there is a similar degree of groveling > > > in both cases.) > > > > According to Rich and his ilk, the American people share > > > responsibility for the policies of the financial elite. Presumably > > > then, the various equally guilty social elements should all have > > > benefited. > > > > In reality, the American working class has suffered a protracted, > > > decades-long decline in its social position, while the very rich have > > > engorged themselves on the nation's wealth, much of it by semi- > > > criminal means, opening up a vast social chasm. > > > > University of California Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez has pointed > > > out that in 2006 the richest one-tenth of American families accounted > > > for 49.7 percent of all income that year, the highest share since > > > 1917. From 1993 to 2006, the top 1 percent of American families > > > captured about half of the nation's overall income growth, and from > > > 2002 to 2006 "the top 1 percent captured almost three-quarters of > > > income growth." ("Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in > > > the United States") > > > > The notion that the vast majority of the American people ‘went along > > > for the ride' and feasted ‘on easy money' alongside investment > > > bankers, hedge fund managers and Wall Street brokers is libelous and > > > absurd. Bernie Madoff or John Thain as Everyman? > > > > Apart from the fact that such lucrative opportunities were not open to > > > 'regular Americans' if they had wanted to take advantage of them, > > > there is both a social and a moral divide in the US. The financial > > > swindlers at the top of American society do not speak to the average > > > moral level of the country. Most Americans do not spend every waking > > > moment devising means of accumulating greater personal wealth; they > > > donate money to charity, they volunteer, they help others and they > > > care for their families. > > > > As for the accumulation of debt, this was not some collective act of > > > recklessness or immaturity, as it was in fact a desperate effort by > > > millions of families to keep their heads above water. As former > > > secretary of labor Robert Reich has pointed out, working class and > > > middle class families tried numerous "coping mechanisms" over the > > > course of decades to get by on stagnating or declining incomes. > > > > Reich pointed out in the Financial Times a year ago, "Male wages today > > > are in fact lower than they were then [in 1970]: the income of a young > > > man in his 30s is now 12 per cent below that of a man his age three > > > decades ago." > > > > The first "coping mechanism" was "moving more women into work." A > > > second was working longer: The average American works two weeks more > > > each year than 30 years ago and 350 more hours a year than the typical > > > European. > > > > The third such mechanism was borrowing and raising money through home > > > equity loans. Reich pointed out, "Americans got nearly $250 billion > > > worth of home equity every quarter in second mortgages and > > > refinancings." Astronomical credit card debt is an expression of the > > > same phenomenon. Last winter, some 27 million Americans had to borrow > > > money simply to pay their heating bills. > > > > Well-heeled and complacent, Frank Rich is a million miles from this > > > reality. As the vast majority of Americans have endured a declining > > > living standard, a small portion of society, those at the top and > > > sections of the upper middle class, have done very well for > > > themselves. Is Rich in the same financial position as he was 20 years > > > ago, as New York Times drama critic? Today, in addition to his pay at > > > the Times, Rich writes books (the film rights to one of which, Ghost > > > Light, were acquired by Storyline Entertainment), pens articles for > > > other publications, delivers lectures and, in May 2008, became a > > > ‘creative consultant' for HBO, the pay television network. > > > > Under the Bush administration, Rich could sometimes be quite scathing. > > > His comments, however, were generally directed toward the most obvious > > > excesses and stupidities of Bush and company, and never answered any > > > of the more complex and fundamental questions about social development > > > and politics in the US. In the end, he personifies a flabby, self- > > > indulgent liberalism. Distant from the working class, circulating > > > among the semi-intellectual and semi-serious in Manhattan, Rich has > > > now determined that the American population must make "far larger > > > sacrifices." > > > > He writes that "Obama couldn't give us FDR's first inaugural address > > > because we are not yet where America was in 1933." No, in fact, Obama > > > gave the opposite of Roosevelt's speech. The 1933 speech was an > > > explicit indictment of the financial aristocracy and an appeal to > > > democratic and egalitarian traditions. Obama's speech evaded the issue > > > of the real responsibility of specific class forces and invoked the > > > mirage of collective responsibility. The latter, as in post-war > > > Germany, lets the genuinely guilty off the hook. > > > > Rich imagines himself to be terribly progressive and sensitive to > > > human problems. In truth, he articulates the outlook of an > > > increasingly narrow, self-centered layer. Such people might be > > > irritated at times that they couldn't afford the condos and summer > > > homes reserved for the top one-tenth of one percent of the population. > > > That fueled a degree of resentment, and they wouldn't mind seeing > > > their social superiors taken down a notch or two. But they have no > > > interest in anything that smacks of socialism or serious wealth > > > redistribution. On the contrary, on the life-and-death social > > > questions, they see eye-to-eye and make common cause with Obama and > > > his policies of austerity for ‘regular Americans.' It's not unexpected > > > and not very edifying, except for the light it sheds on the > > > increasingly reactionary social outlook of contemporary American > > > liberalism.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
