The government of Greece has spent decades overspending, on the military, on social programs, on many things, while lying about the nature of such debts. It lacked financial oversight, failed to implement reforms when warned, and once audited by the EU, was found to have lied about how far in debt it truly was.
Now, you could take this to be an implication of overspending, which is in part true. Or, you could look deeper, and see that it bears remarkable resemblance to the US under George Bush and the conservatives. They turned a blind-eye to unregulated and abusive energy companies, until Enron showed that companies were lying about their "off-book" debts, they turned a blind-eye to financial regulation, and continue to, even after the failures of Bear Stearns and Lehman and the manipulation of the market by many many others. They overspent wildly on military campaigns, booking the costs OFF of the supposed federal budget.
Ultimately the decision comes down to, will you cut (or curtail the growth in) spending, will you raise taxes, or will you do both? Republicans voted 37-3 against any sort of reform of Wall Street (even the FAR too weak reform the Democrats passed) - the Republicans talk about less spending, but they don't do it. They give hand-outs to big business, want to lower taxes on the rich, but don't give a rip about long-term impacts when they are in the White House. Nothing is different here than in Greece fundamentally - it's simply a fraternity boy system of paying each other off with other people's money.
Respectfully, hyperpartisanship detracts from your credibility. Is President Obama overspending on the Afghan war? While criticizing President Bush is fair game, it seems a reach to link him to Greece's near insolvency. To me, this linkage seemed a measure contrived.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I don't understand Pen's writing to link Bush to Greece's economic problems, but rather to draw parallels between bad outcomes here connected to lack of effective regulation, and the causes of the problems in Greece.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it has been a very long time since I have been to Greece, as a nation they have had some very notoriously wealthy few, and a large gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population. The recent news story about the number of unreported (and unpaid taxation on ) swimming pools alone, which subsequently came to the attention of the government of all things through the services of Google Earth was a case in point. Only something like less than 10% were 'on the books' resulting in the appropriate property tax.
Rather than just 'paying up' and accepting being busted, the wealthy in Greece - the story specified an unusually affluent part of Athens as I recall - the wealthy hired contractors and engineers to disguise their swimming pools from Google Earth style surveillance.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI believe the parallel exists. First, while Obama IS in Afghanistan, he didn't go into Iraq, Bush did. Greece overspent on their military, as did Bush. Greece under-regulated their finance sector, as did Bush. I am making a counterpoint to a common conservative myth, Democrats MAY spend more on some sectors of government, but deficit spending is hardly a Democratic (only) issue, yet, we hear about how liberls "tax and spend" and hear almost nothing about how Republicans do the same - they simply spend differently AND, unlike Dems, seem totally unwilling to seek to pay for it.
Well I think I have mentioned in comments on other articles, I follow about 10 or more conservative blogs, every one of them ripped Bush about spending. Also the tea parties started before Obama was elected, the campaign was underway but they started when Bush signed off on the first bailouts.
ReplyDeleteYes the financial reform bill is weak but don't entirely blame republicans for it. I know a few that voted against it did so because it was weak, granted the majority did so because of Wall Street lobbyists. Some of the amendments that did not make it were one limiting ATM fees to 50 cents (they cost the bank about 3 cents) Ben Nelson was the main one against that one and after it was defeated he admitted he has never used an ATM. An amendment was also defeated banning derivatives. I am not sure how many kinds of derivatives there are but this specifically banned taking insurance on securities owned by someone else.
And before you start pointing at Republicans the whole reason the bill was weak to begin with is roughly 80% of donations by Wall Street go to Democrats.
Tuck, would you please validate the assertion that 80% of donations from Wall Street go to Democrats?
ReplyDeleteI think that is a ludicrous number, and would like to verify your source for it please. Two sources would in fact be a good idea, and I wouldn't give any credence to 'Fakes News' as a source.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteI think you are conflating Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs gives heavily to Democrats, for a couple of different reasons - not the least among them long-time personal relationships.
The money from Wall Street falls pretty evenly between parties - which is not too surprising given that MOSTLY what Wall Street wants is influence, they don't much care which party it is, whatever one is in power, is the one they'll give to AND they want to hedge their bets. If they give to BOTH parties, then either way, they win.
Michael, I want to be clear about 'hyperpartisanship', I have NO love for the current Democratic Party - nor it's leadership on things like Wall Street reform. They are spineless, weak, and foolish. Yet, yes, I do think they are more intellectually honest than conservatives (well, at least the Republican leadership of conservatives). Our problems are deep and vast, and more often than not, conservatives stand on the wrong side of the issue, and more often than not liberals (not Democrats) are closer to being on the right side, that's how I feel.
But I also react viscerally to when someone calls the other side something they know full well they are doing worse and more - in spades.
Tuck - and Micheal - my issue is and has always been that while we can TALK about spending less - it rarely happens and THEN when it does - it very nearly always affects those who can afford it least - it is cuts in aid for parents raising kids with Down's Syndrome (as was cut here in Minnesota time and again) or cuts to unemployment benefits or cuts to Medicare (to TAX it) - etc.. not cuts to farm subsidies, or oil tax shelters or for that matter, reinstating tax rates on those who do best in society so that those who do worst (economically) don't have to pay for them (either through privation or higher taxes).
I'm all for cutting waste, but we've spent 30 years doing that, and we have an IRS system that no longer can collect 40 Billion a year, we have a 'privatized' logistics system for the military that costs FAR more than it used to per soldier deployed.. and on and on..
The point being, it's a farce, it ALWAYS has been - with the IT being that we'll cut spending/giving to corporate interests. The Tea Party is an ignorant joke, they know less about the Constitution than does my 14 year old son - they are unbelievably naive' about how things actually work in Washington or on Wall Street - and the wealthy powerbrokers see them as (rightly) instruments to return the likes of GW Bush - and his pro-business cronies - to power so that they can get back to shifting all the wealth upward.
Pen is right, there are so many instances of what amounts to government permitted looting through lack of regulation.
ReplyDeletePaul O'Neill, remember him?
I take some umbrage at painting all Tea Party members with one brush. I am not a member of the "tea party", but I sympathize with some of their beliefs... I think a lot of people would, including the fact that spending in this country is out of control. I'm also not convinced that corporate welfare is/was a good idea, a la bailouts. I wait to be convinced that any company is truly too big to be allowed to fail.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the statement that they are utterly ignorant of the constitution is a bit far off base. Unfortunately, they're probably mistaken on many points, but then, the average American high school graduate probably couldn't pass the current citizenship test. This is less an indictment of the members of the tea party movement than an indictment of the American educational system. (which has languished under Democratic AND Republican administrations)
My esteemed colleague, ToE, I must respectfully disagree with you and side with Penigma.
ReplyDeleteHaving recently looked at the GOP platform hijacked by the tea party in Maine, these people are appallingly ignorant nuts. As represented by that platform, they are tenthers, birthers, they have ridiculous ideas about economics, especially taxes.
I am not going to accuse everyone who supports the tea party movement of being a birther,tenther, or any of the other conspiratorial 'ers', but I don't see the sensible, responsible supporters separating from the nut jobs. They all happily appear to claim to be tea partiers equally.
It is not rocket science to assert that spending is out of control. I would argue that it is not, that there are rather good choices for spending, and the self-serving, bought-and-paid for by special interest group bad spending, which should be stopped, but which is difficult to stop.
There is no excuse for those individuals who make claims about the founding fathers of this country, the core principles, and especially the constitution not to do their homework. I am unwilling to excuse ignorance of individuals by blaming our school system.
On some level ignorance or education is a personal choice. We make the effort, or we don't, to ensure we ourselves are educated. It is something we do with help for ourselves, it is not something that is done TO us.
If these individuals wish to wrap themselves up in the flag with claims of patriotism and the U. S. Constitution, they should do their damn homework first.
We have excellent public libraries and other information resources. If they chose not to inform themselves with sources more factual and reliable than fox news or Rush Limbaugh, the onus for that mistake properly is on them.
The tea party claims it wants accountability. Shouldn't that begin with the tea party first, in getting their facts more correct?
ReplyDeleteAnd the Tea Party wants to 'take back America'. Take it back from whom? Isn't that a rather different attitude than proudly sharing this country with all of their fellow citizens? Doesn't it sound as if they feel America is for 'us', and not 'them', an inherently divisive position that at least on first blush suggests they are taking back ownership for people 'like them' and taking it away from people 'not like them'.
Great responses, as expected. I am not a 'tea partier', and don't personally know any. To refer to them as an 'ignorant joke', indicates one who is not paying attention. My point about linking with Bush is that this initial post seemed more intent on taking a shot at Bush, than it did on making a point about Greece, ostensibly the point of the post. As far as whether conservatives or liberals are on the right side of the issue, this depends upon one's own politics, obviously. This is not necessarily how one searches for truth.
ReplyDeleteToE,
ReplyDeleteI make my comment about ignorance out of frustration, but also out of real concern.
For example, Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul (a guy whom I admire) - made the fatuous argument that enforcement of the 15th Amendment somehow violated the 1st Amendment in that telling a shop-keeper to NOT discriminate in business practice infringed upon his/her right to speak freely. He claimed it also represented a property right violation to have the US Government (or I presume any state government) intercede to prevent such discrimination.
However, when pressed for HOW exactly it infringed on speech to ask someone to not discriminate in hiring or in business practice (such as contract selection), he couldn't provide a legitimate answer - when asked HOW it intruded on property rights, his only comment was to euphamistically refer to the right of people to govern their own property.
Now, notwithstanding that the difference between speech and conduct is settled law, the fact that Rand Paul, champion of the TRUE Constitution, is one of the leading voices of the Tea Party movement, he should KNOW the settled law, but further - conceptually, he should easily grasp that while I might call a customer at my store "f-in bleeper", refusing him service, denying him employment or acting discriminatorily in employment ISN'T speech - it's not a hard concept.
Consequently, yes, imho, anyone who actually thinks they KNOW the Constitution but stands behind this kind of tripe, I look at as woefully ignorant and yes, my son got the difference right off - so yes, they know less than my 14 year old freshman in highschool.
You may be spot on, but I need to learn more about what Rand Paul said, what he meant and the context. In addition, I don't rely upon the press for 'fair and balanced' coverage of the political right.
ReplyDeleteThere are several different contexts where Rand Paul made the statements. You can hear the original interview he did for example on Natiational Public Radio, there is the extended interview he did explaining his views on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC - you can view that as well online. And there is the editorial board interview with the Louisville newspaper (constitution journal, if I recall - I'd have to go back to look) that has the streaming video of his statement on the subject on their web site.
ReplyDeleteI always favor going to the most direct possible source for the information. Hope that helps!
And I forgot the interview with Chris Matthews, also MSNBC, from yesterday with Rand Paul.
ReplyDeleteCorrection!!!! That should be the Rand Paul streaming video at the Louisville, KY Courier Journal.
ReplyDeleteThere have been subsequent and additional interviews since those, including at least one fox news interview, and another MSNBC interview with Joe Scarborough.
Rand Paul has been pretty consistent on his views, surprisingly so, given the flak he's getting for being wrong.
"I take some umbrage at painting all Tea Party members with one brush."
ReplyDelete"To refer to them as an 'ignorant joke', indicates one who is not paying attention."
In context, Pen was referring to the movement, not the followers of the movement. I believe heavily in seperating the idea from the person.
In this case, the idea is misguided. The belief that eliminated taxes and allowing the American economy to fail as a means of strenghtening America is... well, I'll go along with ignorant joke. Ignorant because the ultimate consequences of their polices are largely ignored, and a joke because the politians echoing the cause are bluffing. There is no way in hell they would have let the economy collpase, but now that TARP is already passed they can comfortably puff their chests about it.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteDon't bother them. They're on a roll.
Dog says "as a nation they have had some very notoriously wealthy few, and a large gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population", which is incredibly disingenuous because they have been a socialist nation since the end of World War II. Even "conservatives" in Greece govern to the left of the American Democrats since Reagan. Greece has actually BEEN what Obama, the Democrats and I suspect this blog's writers really really want. Government owned enterprises. Strict controls on commerce. Of course, with the country's plutocrats writing their own exceptions to the rules, just like they will here.
Greece over spent on their military? Well, every US administration since Ike has helped.
Penigma says "The Tea Party is an ignorant joke, they know less about the Constitution than does my 14 year old son" Wow. Paint with a broad brush much? I mean, did you have some point to that fairly ugly little swipe? And just how ignorant is your son, anyway?
I'm certain that Penigma, a very respected colleague, did not mean to imply that ALL people who support some of the ideas of the tea party movement to be constitutionally ignorant, because I dare say, not all are. I support some of their ideas... admittedly, not many, but I would would not consider myself constitutionally ignorant by any means.
ReplyDeleteHolly, welcome back!
ReplyDeleteSpent much time in Greece, have you? Care to provide sources to support your statements?
I seem to recall last time you commented you were missing a few facts, which I courteously provided you.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI don't recall my previous comment.
The "Panhellenic Socialist Party" has been running greece for most of the past thirty years. They control the majority of the parliament. Their social-welfare state equalled or exceeded those of Western Europe, especially in terms of pension and healtcare spending.
I have been to the Metrodome, but it doesn't mean I'm a major league pitcher.
"...which is incredibly disingenuous because they have been a socialist nation since the end of World War II."
ReplyDeleteSo have we. I guess the comparison stands.
"Wow. Paint with a broad brush much?"
You're a little late. We did that already.
"Greece over spent on their military? Well, every US administration since Ike has helped."
I think I'm with you on this. The main difference though is that Republicans call for smaller government. So when they expand the government it is seen by some (moderates and liberals) as being a little hypocritical. But you're right, the government has always been grossly inefficient in their military expenditures since the 50's regardless of the ruling party.
Holly, you last commented back on March 30, 2010, on the topic I wrote "Across the Great Divide III" where you claimed that only two individuals had shown up at rallies armed.
ReplyDeleteI corrected you, providing you with links showing some 300 armed people, and provided you further with an interview indicating that the intent of these people being armed was intimidation.
You also contended that apparently there is an amount of threatening signage and statements which was acceptable. I find threats and intimidation unacceptable, and that is not guaranteed under the First Amendment free speech.
You didn't respond after that.
As to your Metrodome / pitcher analogy, and your familiarity with Greece, as you appear not to be directly familiar with Greece yourself, and as so far as I am aware you are also not an economist knowledgable about Greece, I would liken the difference here more to a comparison with someone who has attended games at the Metrodome, versus someone who heard about them second hand. In Pen's case, he works on a national level with banking, so he's more like a season ticket holder.
"In context, Pen was referring to the movement, not the followers of the movement. I believe heavily in seperating the idea from the person. "
ReplyDeleteThis is too Talmudic for me to unravel!
Rather than a cheesey wikipedia link, may I refer you to a New York Times article "Greek Wealth is Everywhere but Tax Forms" from May 2nd; or "Greek Crisis: On Pools and Tax Evasion" at cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/?p=47883 (that's the world association of international studies headquartered out of Stanford University.
ReplyDeleteDrive-by-Holly,
ReplyDeleteFirst, it's usually considered pretty rude to tell me what I prefer in government (or Dog GONE does), without having the first clue what we prefer. Also, her nom-de-plume is Dog GONE, not Dog, calling a woman a dog is usually also thought of as rude.
Second, obviously the Greek government overspent, but this includes needless overspending on the military, and YES, just as Reagan did, and VASTLY so, and yes (AB), as Democrats have generally done so since - no question, but I don't hold up any of the most recent Democratic Presidents as paragons of liberal thought or action.
They (the Greeks) ALSO cooked their books, just as Pawlenty has, just as Bush did with respect to accounting for the Iraq war and that was the point. If you want to change the subject to the overspending of Greece on social programs, well that happens to be YOUR bone to pick. However, it's also ignoring the more salient (to me) points that Greece (like the US) overspent and under-accounted for that spending. Further, that it did so while Republicans held the White House. Whether the party in Greece may be socialist in name they are committing effectively the same sins - perhaps the irony and lesson of that is something you can observe? I certainly have - and did so here purposefully. Specifically, that conservatives complain about social policies (which they abhore), but are all too happy to spend from the treasury for THEIR goals/aims/pets too - and mismanaged governments, from the right or the left, achieve the same myopic, "movement" driven ill-conceived and even more ill implemented policies.
The point of THAT observation is that there is little to no difference between irresponsible governments, whether you call the conservative or liberal or socialist. Bush spent like a drunken sailor on an unnecessary war, cut taxes that accomplished nothing except exploading the debt - the supposed high-tech, high paying jobs never materialized - and THEN he attempted to hide the cost of a very expensive and totally unnecessary war.
Reagan - cut taxes on the rich, watched as the debt exploded, changed how we count the unemployed so he would not look so bad, built a military far out of proportion to need, increased taxes on the middle class, watched while the S&L/Real Estate crisis of the mid/late 80's destroyed the S&L market, and may have lied about knowing what happened in Iran-Contra. While there are some elements of the Reagan Presidency I liked, calling it fiscally responsible is like calling a prostitute chaste.
NOW, if you want to debate the usefulness of economies of scale, I'm all for it, but first, how about a little intellectual honesty on your part and admit the Republican party talks a big game about finding waste, but seems to be just as unable to convince the American people to let the unemployed starve as the Democrats are, but is FAR more likely to spend profligately on pet military (or other) corporate hand-outs.
Then and only then, when you have owned up to the overspending right, will I agree that there's a problem with the overspending left - for while I admit there is, I'm not going to tie one arm behind my back (well ok, both arms) so that you can crow while refusing to eat the bird you have so ably proven you need to taste frequently.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI am making a point that the overall movement is lead (and therefore seemingly follows) people who seem to know little of the Constitution, or who are willing to lie about it.
I agree with ToE that without doubt there are likely very committed, very sincere, and very decent people who are part of the Tea Party movement. However, unlike ToE, I suspect they have a fairly large measure of sanctimony driving their view that legislators and in general Obama and the Democrats don't know the Constitution - when in fact the opposite seems true more often than not.
With respect to Rand Paul - I was not framing my comments from any "liberal media" source - but rather from news clips straight from his own mouth. That the clip was from an MSNBC show I'll gladly admit to, but I watched the entirety of the interviews and it was not an excerpted, cut-up clip, but rather it was the interview in its entirety as far as I can tell. Further, Mr.(Dr?) Paul was given ample opportunity to clarify, which he declined while on air, but did later (the next day) when he was no longer subject to having such clarification challenged to drive back home the point that this guy places (wrongly) property rights above/outside protections against discrimination.
Finally, and most importantly, I consider you and Tuck our two competent, decent, and often well-informed conservatives. I also get a bit wrankled when I hear of/see people advocating for infringing (or accepting infringement) on/of basic human rights which our founding fathers wrote should be acribed to ALL men, not simply US citizens, the only ones they COULD enforce them for. As such, if my passion sometimes leads to more sweeping statements than is fair, or lumps you or those you respect unfairly into a more broad group, I apologize without reservation.
"This is too Talmudic for me to unravel!"
ReplyDeleteWhy does everyone always think that I'm Jewish?
????AB
ReplyDelete......um, I've never thought you were or were not Jewish. Your religion has never been a concern of mine.
Perhaps it's the boyish halo you wear so ambivelently?
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it's the blue hair and pointy eyelashes? I know that's what gives me away ;)
I think the term 'talmudic' in this sense refers to the idea that your difference was cryptic and difficult to fathom the underlying meaning from - but that's just a guess ;).
Now, go find your yarmulka, it's time for Temple.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou are engaging in argument by false authority, a logical fallacy. You didn't attack any of the facts IN the Wikipedia article, you merely dismissed it.
You may refer me to both of them, since they entirely prove my point; the wealthy under Greece's socialist system, like every other, manage to manipulate the system to their own advantage.
Penigma,
ReplyDeleteYour beliefs are fairly obvious, and your blog provides the "first clue" as to what you prefer. Your blog is full of references to using government power to achieve social ends. Assuming you are a "progressive" who loves government power doesn't seem out of line.
You, however, have no idea what *I* believe, so I'm fairly sure you're wrong to have brought it up.
I'm not sure why the many many references to Reagan or...Tim Pawlenty. Did he Reagan arise from the dead to run Greece, and bring Pawlenty as his chief of staff?
It is NOT a "change of subject" to focus on Greek social programs. Their social spending was by far the biggest part of their budget.
"Further, that it did so while Republicans held the White House."
Wait - are you talking about Greece or the US?
"Whether the party in Greece may be socialist in name they are committing effectively the same sins"
Wait, wait wait. "In name?" Do you know something about the Greek socialist party that you're not telling us? That they're secretly a bunch of John Birchers or something? You keep dropping in these little asides like you have some policy wisdom to lay on us - so don't hold out! Tell us how the Greek Socialists really aren't, and how they're an exception to the rule that socialists believe in spending lots and lots of money, which is what they did!
"there is little to no difference between irresponsible governments"
We waited how long for that astounding insight?
"how about a little intellectual honesty on your part and admit the Republican party talks a big game about finding waste"
First let's have some "intellectual honesty" from you, and have you quit changing the subject to your views on the GOP's spending when the subjet is Greece.
Holly, wikipedia is a fun, quick and easy source of information, but it is not as a general rule very good as a source.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to have a discussion using something more credible, I'd be delighted. So far you have yet to make a credible argument against any of the points made by either Pen or myself.
I referred you to two sources which were better. And yes, having spent time in Greece, I think I have a better understanding and appreciation of their situation than just reading wikipedia, but no, I do not claim to be expert on their economy. I would hope you do not make that claim either.
You also make a false assumption, Holly, when you assume we are not familiar with your views, outside of Penigma. You've expressed a few.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI asked you once. I will ask you again.
What was the Wikipedia article wrong about? Was the Socialist party NOT in control for most of the past thirty years? Was the Greek Socialist Party NOT a party that pushed a comprehensive welfare state?
You do know what the logical fallacy of "false authority" is, don't you? Simply saying "my source is more authoritative than you, so shush up"?
Please let me know which of the germane facts are wrong. Otherwise you're just dodging the issue.
And I had all the discussion about your article that we need to. Both of them support (again!) my case; plutocrats ALWAYS make socialism pay for themselves. The New Deal didn't make the Kennedys any less plutocratic. Thirty years of socialism didn't make the Onassis clan any less wealthy, in fact it was the opposite.
And with all due respect, your time in Greece doesn't seem to have given any of you any real understanding of the Greek political system, or of recent Greek history.
I don't claim to be an expert, but facts are facts.
Holly I don't deny that Greece has a very socialist democratically elected government. This is true of many of the governments in europe that do not have the same problems currently plaguing Greece. Greece is very advanced in many, many ways, but Greece is, and has been for decade upon decade affected by rampant corruption, as well as hugely inefficient beauracracies - especially in tax collection.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have failed, utterly, to do is to demonstrate a cause and effect correlation between the
socialism in Greece and the problems in Greece. Your sources were utterly silent on that, and provided no additional information which differed substantially from that provided by Pen. I hope that delineates the problems with your sources, and clarifies that this was not as you stated a case of false authority, but a failure for you to do anything useful with facts - a failure of logic on your part.
Just as I'm sure you failed to appreciate that the conservatives will in too many cases treat the policies of "St. Ronnie" with uncritical and unquestioning adoration, seeking to reinstate some new version of the same old mistakes without having learned from them.
So, I will assume that as you have expressed yourself elsewhere we can move on from the notion that neither Pen nor I are aware of your politics?
And apparently absent a reply to the information that there were more than two individuals armed at rallies, and that there are no amount of threatening signs that are acceptable, I can see why you would avoid further discussion to be held on the previous article - its because your assumptions were wrong and you don't apparently have a come-back to those facts.
I would add that as a general observation where there is a very large gap, an economic chasm, between the extraordinary wealth of a few, and the overwhelming majority with very little wealth, you typically find very unstable societies, and very unstable - one might even say fragile - economies, economies that are less successful at riding out volatile crises.
ReplyDeleteFinancially healthy middle and lower classes tend to produce more stable periods of society, and thriving growth that weathers crises far better.
Holly,
ReplyDeleteSweden has been a socialist state for 60 years (roughly), so has Finland, in many respects Norway, and in part France. Japan is a far more socialized state than is the US.
Each of them is at least as financially solvent as is the US.
China has been a communist state since 1947, it is FAR FAR FAR more financially solvent than the US.
There simply isn't any support for your claim that Greece's problem is primarily rooted in it's socialist approach - but there IS massive support for the reality that an overspending, corrupt, incompetent government, one which eschews for example, infrastructural support, will fail in the end.
Reagan's terms were examples of this, so were GW Bush's - you have your opinion, but you have little in the way of fact. Reagan quadrupled the debt, in many respects because of a tax change which simply incented the wealthiest people to work to keep more of profits, but never EVER resulted in promised jobs, or new factories, or anything else, through trickle down economics.
If all you are able to provide is snark, then I suggest you seek a blog where snark counts for something. We're happy to mock, but only playfully, people who seem to be more inclined to be mendacious are warned, and if they don't improve, they're sent packing.
Using ludicrously simplistic facts like a. was true while b. was in charge therefore b's philosophy is utterly the cause is at the very best utterly specious argumentation. You have to show CAUSE and EFFECT, not just put things together on a timeline. If socialism and social program spending leads to economic collapse, then the vast majority of socialized economies should collapse. That hasnt' happened. However, a great many pure capitalistic economies have stratified into a two-class, largely corrupt, and largely under-developed societies. Shall we not, by your logic, then assert that because unfettered capitalists have been in charge in Mexico for 70 years (or more?) and Mexico has big problems with drugs that unfettered capitalism is the cause of drug problems?
Your logic is sophistry, whether it's meant only to fool us, or you are fooling yourself, is about the only open question remaining.
Also, YES, some sources carry more weight than others. My son can right a wikipedia article, but that hardly makes him the authority on the holocaust that Eli Wiesel is - your false falacy claim would suggest you think that simply by having a dissenting opinion, each side of an argument carries equal worth. What nonsense.
Pen, are you seriously going to suggest China as an economic model? They are financially solvent because most of their population lives in what we would consider poverty conditions. They frequently use child and slave labor, their pollution is very close to if not the worst in the world. Bejing was so bad they shut down factories close to the city a couple weeks before the olympics and still had to clean the glass on the swimming stadium every other week to be able to see through it, the marathoner from Ethiopia, I think but maybe Kenya, who was favored to win the marathon went there and after a day got on a plane and went home saying he could not take running in such polluted air.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Greece a large part of their problem was public employee unions getting everything they asked for. Look at the conditions Germany put on the bailout. Change the retirement age from 53 to 67, cut retirement pay from 100% to 85%, cut the number of employees on the government payroll, stop pay raises over the amount of inflation for govt employees. Greece had more people retiring at 53 and getting a government pension than they had going into the workforce and paying taxes. Anytime you build up enough retirees on govt pension so that it gets close to the number of people paying taxes you have a problem. Now Pen and Doggone were right about the corruption, that probably had a lot to do with how the public employee unions got all these benefits to start with.
By the way Holly - did you notice by any chance that the second link you provided was last updated in April 2004?
ReplyDeleteI'm just saying you might want to look a bit more carefully at your sources........for more current information.
@apathy boy: Shalom!
ReplyDelete@Penigman: re Rand Paul. Not prepared yet to brand him as a racist. I do not have the time to watch his interviews, or deep reading on him, as my days are already overprogrammed. I am 100% certain that if I appeared on Maddow, Chris Mathews, The Ed Show, etc., that a skilled interviewer could make me appear like David Duke. Perhaps, this is why I prefer the written word to extemporaneous speaking as I am able to consider and craft my views.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou spend a lot of times nit-picking who my sources are and their dates, and trying to ignore the data in them, which is perfectly timely. You've quibbled about dates and websites and talked about a vacation you took that I did not, but you have addressed none of my facts. I will concede you know the best place to get calamari in Piraeus, while still wondering if you have any idea at all about recent Greek history. I've seen little evidence.
I wasn't at Auschwitz, but I can give you all sorts of reasons why it was wrong.
Penigma,
ReplyDeleteGreat examples, Sweden and Finland. Big countries with lots of resources and long traditions of "good", or at least less-corrupt, government. As opposed to Greece.
Oh, yeah, and the fact that both of them saw two decades ago that socialism was going to do exactly what has happened in Greece. They took steps to implement free market reforms. They are still moving to the right economically, the opposite of the US, and in a way Greece never did.
And are you saying, seriously, that "capitalists" have been in power in Mexico for 70 years? That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard! From the 30s to about 1995, the "Institutional Revolutionary Party" ran the country as a one-party socialist nation (and obviously a very corrupt one - like Greece, only worse). Their social spending plans were right up there with Sweden, and they had oil wealth to pay for it, but the corruption eventually did them in.
I'm sorry, but over and over Penigma and Dog Gone write things that would make any knowledgeable person wonder why anyone would pay attention.
Michael, I saw the Rachel Maddow interview, the other interviews,including the original National Public Radio interview and the Louisville Courier Journal interview that sparked the NPR interview that triggered all of the other interviews.
ReplyDeleteI would not for a moment call Rand Paul racist. That is not the issue, frankly. What IS at issue is that Rand Paul is espousing the same libertarian views which were at issue back in the days of the 1964 Civil Rights legislation - the reason that for example Barry Goldwater gave for not voting for it.
I've also seen the footage of statements made by the late Wm F. Buckley where he justified that approach to civil rights taking a back seat to property rights with racist language. The POSITION that Rand Paul is espousing has a long history of racism attached to it, statements by Buckley (which he later repudiated and indicated he was ashamed of making - to his credit) for example, that whites deserved to have segregation as the superior race.
I don't think if you watched the interviews with Maddow or others you would perhaps fault ANY of the interviewers as unfair for what they asked of Rand Paul, or how they asked it.
This is an area, as occurs in many other areas, where there were numerous occasions for the courts to balance the competing claims of civil rights, and the provisions of the constitution; and property rights - also under the constitution. The courts repeatedly have determined that the civil rights - the rights of people on the basis of race or disability NOT TO BE HARMED by discrimination is given, if you will, the right of way, the greater weight, in cases where a person operates a private business making money from their interaction with the general public - be it as customers, or as employees.
As much as this has been settled law for more than 40 years - there are still cases of blatant racial discrimination that take place and end up in court - there was a prominent one a year or so ago where black children were not allowed to use a swimming pool.
Rand Paul is not only espousing a view that many, inclduing some of the most prominent conservatives of the Civil Rights era themselves repudiated, as a libertarian. He is running for office where these views are significant in ongoing legal challenges. His position - which he has every 1st Amendment right to espouse, demonstrates his relative values.
His values are that he places more right on a business person to harm a member of the public through racism, than he places on the value of that individual not to be harmed. In that position, Rand Paul demonstrates poor values, and a poor understanding of history about how harmful those old laws were that gave those property rights to those business owners. He demonstrates a risk of re-visiting those old battles, and causing them to be refought. And Rand Paul tried to defend his position with a badly flawed analogy about property rights of business owners and gun carry rights - and it was not an analogy that I suspect he came up with by himself. But in either case, this man is not a very good thinker, either in formulating his arguments or in appreciating the value of arguments made by others.
In a recent thread on a blog belonging to a friend of mine, where he got into a wrangle with a public radio commenter here in MN over tea party racism on a sign, I said I thought the tea party supporters were racially insensitive. By that I meant that they did not appreciate (as reflected in poll questions about race) the difficulties people faced individually because of assumptions generally about them as a group on the basis of race and ethnicity. I believe from poll results and from my observation of interviews and signage that nationally, some tea partiers ARE racist btw, but certainly not all. My blogger friend is no racist; I've known him for 20 years.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to do what I believe AB was talking about - challenge the ideas, separate from attacking people. Rand Paul's ideas - an idea shared btw by my conservative blogger friend who got me started blogging here - is a bad idea, it reflects a bad balancing of competing rights. It fails profoundly to understand the degree of harm done by property rights as the basis for NOT allowing those property rights to supercede civil rights.
Further, when Rand Paul proposes that local jurisdiction should regulate property versus civil rights matters, he fails to understand that this is about nationally standardized civil rights. This is not a right that should vary from one municipality to another; it is not a right which a municipality can give or take away any more than citizenship is.
What was wrong Holly with your wikipedia article is that it failed to make your point.
ReplyDeleteDid you happen to notice for example that the worst problems occurred under the Greek conservative government that just got voted out of office - two years early, by the largest landslide victory in the history of their country?
Pen pointed out that corruption and bad government is the problem, not socialism, with his comparison.
Greece - if you knew more, or even read and understood your own wikipedia reference - has a very similarly well educated population to the scandinavian countries. Greece has a very high level of economic activity as measured by metrics like productivity and numbers of hours worked.
Measurements which reasonably seemed to the labor force to be a basis for being well paid, and not simply corrupt as Tuck implied.
WHERE does corruption occur the most significantly - as you correctly identified Holly - the BIG money. You just seem to have failed to understand the significance of that in the discussion.
I was looking from you for arguments and factual sources which support your position that socialism was the problem in Greece - it wasn't. Lack of effective regulation, and inefficient and corrupt beauracracy that failed to collect taxes from the fabulously wealthy does seem to have been. I haven't seen anything that sugggests those hard working well-educated supposedly over-paid workers weren't paying their taxes supporting the system.
Here Holly is a much better example of an analysis BY an economist IN Europe who has some expertise and depth of knowledge about the problem, and who demonstrates why my argument has merit:
ReplyDeleteblogs.euobserver.com/.../greece-socialism-for-the-rich-and-capitalism-for-the-poor/
DG, Thanks for the response. Didn't know about the Buckley view. If you have a link handy, I would like to see.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Rand not being a big thinker, he's a physician. What else would you expect?
Pen, oh beloved colleague, I think you expand on my point very well. However, I would respectfully direct those observations more to the arguments and less to the person, please.
ReplyDeleteI do realize that Ms. Fleisshammer has a deeply held contempt for our position, but she has been courteous if dismissive of our arguments. As a person who is writing from what here is a comparatively minority opinion, I think it is important that we value those comments, and do more, not less to make her feel welcome here.
Her comments add to the fullness and depth of the discussion, and for that reason, and for the reason that we really do want a variety of points of view, please more courtesy and even hospitality.
I know I appreciate it when I receive it as a miniority voice commenting on conservative blogs.
First things first,
ReplyDeleteHollly, you, and no one else made the claim that a. Greece was socialist and b. Greece failed, therefore socialism was the issue. This kind of empty correlation vs. causation argument isn't really a valid argument at all. I made a countepoint about Mexico being a form of government, and that it has drugs, therefore that form of government leads to drug abuse - in short, I pointed out the ludicrous nature of your argument. Whether Mexico is psuedo-socialist, facist, or capitalistic is ANOTHER point, another argument - and frankly what you did was change the subject. I suspect you did so because you understood your fundamental argument was deeply flawed. If that makes me or DG not worth listening to or reading - namely, if our pointing out you used a logical fallacy - and in doing so we have some sort of OTHER point to contest - so you deflect to that instead of dealing with your failed argument - well, whether you then stay or go is your issue to wrestle with I suppose.
Second things second. Attacking peoples families is strictly out of bounds. You get one warning. This is it. If you criticize or mock any member of any commenters family again, you are banned, without reservation, and irrevocably. I put my son out there as a point that understanding the fact that property rights don't trump other rights and that this is a fair and just reality is obvious, by doing so I did not consent, nor is it acceptible, to have you then insult him, or attempt to insult me through him. That kind of conduct is intollerable, and is the kind of conduct I specifically don't allow. If you have questions about what is permissible, read our rules for discussion.
Third things third - you appear to want to eat your cake and have it to. You seem to be suggesting that the only honest evaluation of socialism and countries who use it as part of their social process, is valid ONLY if the country never deviates from a pure egalatarian/non-shared mode. Since when? When are countries not allowed to use various economic tools, and if they deviate are somehow showing the dominant tool to be irretreivably flawed? By that sort of logic, as the United States ran deeply into debt in the 1980's and 2000's, therefore, since they deviated onto a more purely supply-side model, that means the inherently our Constitutional process is deeply flawed, after all, we shouldn't need to use other economic tools if the method of government is perfect, and moreover, if it uses other economic tools, that means the method of government (and economy) are doubtless the cause of all ills and are deeply imperfect. I'm sorry, but just like your false authority argument, this too is tragically shallow and ill-substantiated. Greece may have followed a more purely socialist agenda, but again, the root of it's problems are found in corruption and mismanagement as anything. Sweden MAY allow for some free-market activity, but you've hardly proven it is of greater intensity than Greece, nor have you shown that corruption isn't equally a contributor in Greece, nor have you shown that corruption was equivelant in Sweden thereby showing corruption not to be a contributing (even majority) dynamic. The point is, Holly, when people study things, they condition for outliers, for other mitigating factors. Your logic suggests that simply because left-handed people are more likely to live longer (by example) that the longest lived people are left-handed. One does not prove the other, and you've failed to account for other factors.
(continued below...)
On Mexico, PRI may call itself socialist and its roots may be socialist, but Mexico has been FOR DECADES, a hegemony of highly afluent families taking the vast majority of profits for themselves while under-funding/under-taxing/under-sharing profits sufficient to proper educate their populace, build a solid and consistent infrastructure, avoid rampant corruption in under paid police forces. You can claim they are socialist, I beg to differ. They are the epitome' of supply-side economics. They do not engage in vast social programs to "redistribute" property, in fact attempts to do so have been met with military force. Your knowledge of Mexico's more basic nature, to me, seems misguided, but I'm willing to be corrected. Regardless, you changed the point of the discussion - whether it's Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama, Argentina, or Chile, I could make the same argument you did that because the government is of X type and the country has Y problem, therefore X causes Y - you didn't prove your causation, you merely observed an correlation and CLAIMED causation. Such argument is the deepest form of sophistry .
ReplyDeleteIn short, you've used very poor argumentation and argument deflection as justification for your stance. You've also engaged in attacks on children/families of those participating here. The former makes you unhelpful in terms of actual good evaluation, the latter will get you removed if it is repeated. Your choice about how you proceed - I'd rather have a civil discussion, but snark and insult aren't them, I will not tolerate attacks on anyone's family, not mine, not yours.
DG, I did not imply the labor force was corrupt, however the unions are. You have stated big money = corruption well unions = big money. In the last election the SEIU gave 70 million to democratic candidates. Andy Stern, head of the union, now sits on a white house advisory board of some sort, sounds like a bought position to me. So while the regular worker in Greece thinks he is producing more and should be paid more the union pushed that well past paid more to paid more, less work hours, earlier retirement. Granted a lot of corporations are run by heartless bastards that will pay as little as they can get away with but there is a limit to what they can pay and stay in business. With government employees you and I are paying them. Do you want to work 40-50 hrs a week and pay enough taxes for the postman to work 35 and make the same money? Do you want to work and pay taxes until you are 67 so government employees can retire at 55? The only part of the government where the employees should get earlier retirement and other benefits we do not get outside the public sector is the military because they actually risk their lives.
ReplyDeleteWow, it's getting a little hot in the comment section. Would someone open a window please?
ReplyDeleteTuck,
ReplyDeleteThe unions in the country now represent 12% of the labor force, down from 33% in 1980. The power of unions is/has shrunk extremely rapidly since the advent of the new conservatives of Reaganism. SEIU may have contributed dramatically, but so have/so do big corps. The question is, to what effect?
I submit to you that we can't get basic inforcment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that union busting tactics are rampant because despite the power of unions in some races, nationally, and in most states, they have litle to no power/impact any longer.
Also, Tuck, I don't think the risk someone takes makes them more or less eligible for early retirement.
ReplyDeleteStates are paying for people who retire at 49 because they spent 10 years in the Army, then 10 years in a police force, and become eligible for full retirement benefits. That capacity was not a union benefit, it was a benefit put forward by legislators.
Oh, my goodness.
ReplyDeletePen, are you seriously suggesting that Greece is not socialist? And has been socialist for generations?
And, beyond that, that Greece's very aggressive social spending has not played a major role in the nation's current default?
I know - you'll claim "military spending" is a part of it. But military spending is 3.6% of Greece's GDP, which is high but not baseless or, to Greeks, culturaly irrational (their society accepts high spending to defend against the turks, who within the past 100 years ruled the Greeks with an iron fist; memories die hard over there), and compares with the rest of the budget being 50% of GDP.
Now, Holly pointed out correctly that Greece has been ruled by Socialist parliamentary majorities for thirty years. The fact is that they DO spend half their GDP, and that 11% of their GDP is deficit.
So you're saying this is the fault of Aristotle Onassis, or what?
Mitch, dear friend - may I begin by formally welcoming you to Penigma. It's a pleasure to see you here, thank you for commenting.
ReplyDeleteI know that Pen is spending some leisure hours on the water this afternoon, so I will presume to speak for him - or at least do my best to do so.
Ari Onassis died in the mid-70s, so it would be foolish to place the blame for all of the financial problems of the nation of Greece on his skeletal shoulders, particularly those that are more recent.
As Holly is so fond of the Wikipedia source, let me quote it to you, citing the section from the 20th century that addresses the socialist and anti-socialist / anti-communist factions of that country. I think it is important to understand the components of the country's politics, rather than presuming it to be homogenous or politically monolithic - it is not. Charting the track of what faction was power at different times is important to understanding the contribution of socialist and not socialist parties to the problems. I believe that a look at
those factions will clarify the extent at least in part to which socialism is the cause of the problems.
I won't for a moment say it has no role in the economic situation, but I think I can make a persuasive case that it is not the most important factor but is instead a relatively lesser or minor part of it - which is what Pen and I are claiming: socialism is not the cause inherently as a form of government that wrecks economies. Other causes are responsible.
from Wikipedia:
"After liberation, Greece experienced a bitter civil war between communist and anticommunist forces, which led to economic devastation and severe social tensions between rightists and largely communist leftists for the next 30 years.[25] The next 20 years were characterized by marginalisation of the left in the political and social spheres but also by rapid economic growth, propelled in part by the Marshall Plan." (emphasis mine, reference is to the mid 70s to mid 90s - well short of the claimed period of the past 30 years of socialism for this country, even the most recent elections put the non-socialist conservatives out of power and brought back in the socialists.)
Now frankly, given the attention that has been paid to the labor agreements that allowed early retirement for workers, and some of the other comments in that vein, I feel compelled to speak up for the ordinary working stiffs relative to the wealthy in terms of the problems in that country.
"Annual growth of Greek GDP has surpassed the respective levels of most of its EU partners.[32] "
The Greek labor force totals 4.9 million, and it is the second most industrious between OECD countries, after South Korea.[34] The Groningen Growth & Development Centre has published a poll revealing that between 1995 and 2005, Greece ranked third in the working hours per year ranking among European nations; Greeks worked an average of 1,811 hours per year[35]" (emphasis mine again)
I reiterate, the labor force may very well argue that their compensation was the result of their hard work, and merited, compared to the compensation of their european neighbors.
This is running long, so I will continue in a second comment.
Now while you may complain that european countries provide more government benefits aka socialism than other countries, not all of those countries have comparable problems. It makes sense to ask what is different - it is not in this case less education, or a lesser work ethic or lesser production.
ReplyDeleteWhile there have been some instances mentioned of workers being grossly overcompensated - I recall the figure of being paid for 14 months work when only 12 months effort was put into jobs.
What I haven't found, and would love to see you provide if you can, is that this amount of overcompensation was endemic. I don't believe it was, nor can I find any articles, in this hemisphere or in Europe that suggests that the middle or lower economic classes participated in widespread tax evasion. That doesn't appear to be the case. Rather they appear to have contributed substantially to the payment of those benefits they enjoyed. The PAID for them.
Those who appear to hold the responsibility for tax evasion are the extremely wealthy, the Aristotle Onassis level of extremely wealthy. I would go so far as to posit that had the extremely wealthy actually PAID reasonable taxes, it is highly likely that the tax rates wouldn't have climbed to the level they did trying to compensate for that lack of paid taxes.
So, yes, I join Pen is asserting that while social programs are an expense, a greater expense than they are here, there were adequate contributions made to cover those social programs by the tax paying labor force that enjoyed them.
What appears to be the problem was corrupt and just plain incompetent governance, and the near complete avoidance of paying taxes by the extremely wealthy. There were other problems as well, such as nearly 1/5th of the labor force being provided by immigrants (both legal and illegal). Overwhelmingly, the fraud specifically is the single biggest factor....and the US, through our financial sector, appears to have a hand in that.
So, by all means, let us apportion the blame fairly, and not just blame social programs, shall we?
Well, hello Mitch.
ReplyDeleteI think if you read the post carefully, you'll see that none of those thinks you "ask" whether I'm suggesting, did I suggest.
Obviously Greece IS socialistic, obviously Greece overspent, none of us, not you, not me, certainly not Holly - claimed anything otherwise.
However, Holly's seriously myopic analysis was effectively simply to claim that because Greece is socialist, it failed. Maybe she didn't mean to, but those were the comments.
I made the correct point that irresponsible governments, whether they are supposedly capitalist, socialist, communist, facist or theocratic, will fail if they fail to restrain spending, fail to collect taxes and spend on pet projects of/for their particular government's leaders, like say, GWH Bush did. You remember him, the guy you said "made a few mistakes" (if a few means dozens) - but otherwise was a good President.
I made the point that it wasn't simply the fact that Greece is socialist that it failed - and I think I was pretty clear about it - I also think you could see that.
Sock puppets like Holly (if that IS his/her real name) seem more inclined to engage in deflective hyperbole than discuss whether the issue is corruption and mismanagemnt or whether there is something fundamentally flawed about socialism.
I say it's more the former than the latter, He/she/it seems to want to suggest it's more the latter than the former, but offered up shallow argument and insults of my son as justification. Perhaps that passes for keen and witty insight on Kook Aid Repository - but it's bloviating buffalo-chips among anyone looking to discuss something with substance.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHolly, just a small suggestion, to elaborate on something Pen wrote. Clearly, we already have a pretty good sense of your real identity, but if you wish to assume the persona of a woman, elsewhere, in print for whatever your reasons are, women don't usually use baseball metaphors or analogies to other women. Men use them to other men, but only occasionally to women; women, searching for a better way to be understood by men might on occasion use them to men.
ReplyDeleteBut not woman to woman.
Pen, I realize the influence of the unions in this country is way less than it was 20 yrs ago. However the influence they had 20 yrs ago is the problem with a lot of state budgets. Look at California and Illinois, they do not have enough money coming in to fund the retirement plans promised to government employees 10 yrs ago. Some of the teachers, firemen, police, and other government workers are collecting pensions larger than they ever made while working. Most of this was due to public employee unions. Greece however is much more heavily unionized and has a much larger problem. I think that Greece has a problem similar to ancient Rome. The wealthy and influential (mostly govt and union officials) were engaged in corruption on a massive scale. They basically blackmailed each other to get more wealth and power and gave out benefits like shorter work weeks, earlier retirement, better retirement benefits to keep the voters quiet and stay in office. This worked while airfares and gas were cheap and the global economy was doing well as Greece was a popular tourist spot and could pay for all this with the money from tourism. As soon as other countries started having some trouble and fewer people traveled to Greece, and the ones who did spent less, then it started to catch up with them. So you really cannot say it was socialism, unions, the rich not paying taxes, corruption in government, or the tourism money going away because it was not just one of those things but the combination of all of them that did them in.
ReplyDeleteMy comment about the military getting better benefits was not about current reality but rather about my preference. I would not be willing to pay more taxes so an office guy in DC could retire early but I would be willing to do so for someone who had been out getting shot at.
I don't know a lot about Rand Paul but I can tell you the main reason his dad, Ron Paul, did not get more support in the Republican primaries is because of the people he attracted. He never actually said anything racist himself but every one of his rallies was well attended by white supremicists and unlike the other candidates who tried to discourage them from showing up he did nothing. As far as the property rights I had an economics professor in college who was from Poland. He said without the right to own and control your property all our other freedoms meant nothing, it was the building block of other rights. He explained it much better than Rand though. If you choose not to let a black man or a jew or whatever come in your house that is within your rights as the owner of the house, but when you choose to sell the house if you refuse to sell it to them then you are interfering with their right to own property and live where they want and so you do not have the right to do that. I personally think that any business that does not want to hire certain races would go out of business fairly quick but maybe I am a bit too optimistic about decent people not doing business with someone like that.
ReplyDeleteI know all three of us - you ToE, Penigma, and I have continued this discussion in rousing phone calls off-blog; I look forward to the next stage of this lively but amicable discussion here.
ReplyDeleteUm, Toe? Could you perhaps expand on what legal basis this move would fall under for the administration? I'm presuming that the Obama admin, and to some degree the Bush admin had some legal premise for this action.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush admin appeared to maintain a group of legal advisors, both in the white house and the DoJ that were puppets willing to say anything they wanted, or to rubber stamp any decision. We can hope and press for better from Obama.