Forget President Obama: Why Isn’t Robert Reich President?

[Donnachaidh]

http://blogs.forbes.com/benzingainsights/2011/06/20/forget-president-obama-why-isnt-robert-reich-president/

I know it’s not a popular view on Wall Street, but what if Robert Reich is right and the wealthy are severely under-taxed, to the detriment of the entire society.

In a video on youtube, the former Labor Secretary lays out a brief case for what has caused the decline of the middle class, and with it, the decline of the American economy. It is the middle class, after all, that drives the national economy; if it suffers, the entire nation declines.

Reich notes a simple, sad truth about the American economy since Reagan. Since 1980, the American economy has doubled in size. Yet wages have remained flat. Where did all that generated wealth go? To the top, of course, where it didn’t exactly trickle down to anyone else.

“The top one percent used to take home ten percent of total income. Now it takes home more than twenty percent,” Reich said. “The super rich have 40 percent of the nation’s wealth,” he added.

More at the link --

[Scuba]

1. Reich-bashers will appear in 3 - 2 - 1

[rsmith6621]

2. Robert Reich Would Need a Booster Seat.....

....to sit at the desk in the Oval Office...... :hi:

[Kahuna]

10. Two booster seats and a voice modulator. nt

[MilesColtrane]

16. True, he makes Dennis Kucinich look like Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

[JDPriestly]

19. Robert Reich's understanding of economics makes him at least 5 feet

taller than Obama at least in terms of his capacity to lead our country at this time.

Actually, Obama on foreign policy and Reich on economics would make a good team. It's a shame that Obama did not choose Reich for his cabinet.

[Kahuna]

22. Obama prevented a great depression. That makes him pretty great

when dealing with economics, IMHO.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. Yipes. There are 18 months to November 2012. With the

current do-nothing Congress, I predict we will be seeing U2 unemployment rate of 15% by November 2012, which means real unemployment will be at roughly 25% or greater (same as in January 1933).

Whether Obama is able to shift responsibility for it to this Repuke Do Nothing Congress will be the great question of the election, if my prediction comes to pass. There is little shoring up aggregate consumer demand currently and many things which could completely kill it off to 1932-33 levels.

[JDPriestly]

25. There is no guarantee that a great depression has been avoided.

I think that claim is premature. We are now in the uncomfortable position of needing more economic stimulus but being warned by the IMF that we have to balance our budget.

We are in a very bad situation. Obama did not do nearly enough to educate the American people about the causes for our poor economy. And he did not do the right things with the stimulus money.

It isn't just a matter of putting money into the economy. The money has to be put into the economy so as to stimulate job creation and that means to stimulate not just demand but demand for AMERICAN products and services.

The tax cuts were not well enough focused on creating demand for AMERICAN products and services.

A depression has not necessarily been avoided. That is a nice slogan, but we could easily have a double dip, and the second dip could fall worse than the first. We are not home yet, not by a long shot.

[Kahuna]

26. If we do go into a depression, thank the clueless voters who let the

repukes take back control of congress. I don't think it is any coincidence that the numbers economic indicators were moving in the right direction before the repukes got back in and are now reversed. There are a lot of people on the right and the left who seem content to see the economy teeter to prevent the reelection of PBO.

[JDPriestly]

31. True. But in addition, Obama's program fell short and was not

carefully enough targeted to create American jobs, not foreign jobs.

[SidDithers]

3. Has Reich ever held elected office?...nt

Sid

[patricia92243]

4. Love that man.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. I've thought the same thing myself.

Sadly, we all know the answer, even though he really IS the smartest mo fo in the room.

[Skidmore]

6. Just a reminder of Reich and his NAFTA support.

Wonder if he'd care to retract the steaming pile of pooh he helped Clinton shovel onto American labor. I still remember how angry I was that they helped push this and Clinton signed off on it. He had a chance to do the right thing by labor before. That horse is out of the barn and the tornado ripped the door off.


http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24308693.html?dids=24308693:24308693&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+14%2C+1993&author=William+Neikirk.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=REICH%3A+LABOR+`PLAIN+WRONG'+ON+NAFTA&pqatl=google

REICH: LABOR `PLAIN WRONG' ON NAFTA

Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Chicago, Ill.
Author: William Neikirk.
Date: Jul 14, 1993
Start Page: 3
Section: BUSINESS
Text Word Count: 327
Abstract (Document Summary)
Labor Secretary Robert Reich said Tuesday that labor unions are "just plain wrong" in opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada and predicted it would result in adding jobs to the U.S. automobile and steel industries.
"If I were a betting man, I would say that given the pace of growth of the Mexican automobile market over the next 15 years, I would say that more automobile jobs would be created in the United States than would be lost to Mexico," Reich told a group of reporters.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Labor Secretary right kicks off agreement to pass free trade agreement
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AsQ0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=aDgHAAAAIBAJ&pg=2863,811019&dq=robert+reich+nafta&hl=en

Labor Secretary Reich promises benefits for workers hurt by NAFTA
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hZ4zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7TgHAAAAIBAJ&pg=1247,1940741&dq=robert+reich+nafta&hl=en

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Any idea where he stands on NAFTA today?

I'd be interested to know.

[pampango]

27. He may think "European" when it comes to trade.

Robert Reich: "Xenophobia and isolationism are spreading in America; legitimize us-vs.-them thinking

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010/1011/Xenophobia-and-the-economy

Deep economic crises are fodder for demagogues who channel economic fear into a politics of resentment against “them.” In the 1930s it was foreign traders (mainly Europeans), immigrants, and Jews. Now it’s foreign traders (mainly the Chinese), immigrants, and Muslims. How do you explain the surging animosity toward foreign trade, particularly toward China?

If Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) want to blame something, blame America’s record level of inequality – an almost unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top, and a smaller proportion for the vast middle.

Are the Democrats so dependent on the campaign contributions from the wealthy they dare not speak of this? ... It reinforces the politics of resentment, and further legitimizes other forms of isolationism and xenophobia.

Reich seems to want to tax our own rich (higher/progressive taxes are so "European") rather than go after foreigners. He may (or may not) have changed his mind regarding NAFTA, but he still seems committed to the US being integrated in the world economy.

[spanone]

7. First, you have to run

[doc03]

8. He is too short n/t

[Gregorian]

9. Beat me to it.

Same as Kucinich. AFter all, it is a popularity contest.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

33. He ran in '08. Here's a picture of him debating Obama:

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. Because no one voted for him? DUH!

:shrug:

[JoePhilly]

13. Draft him for 2016 ...

[Dept of Beer]

14. People are shallow. They think that he is too short.

Amurka don't want smart people at the top. They only want the purdy ones that tell them nice things.

[treestar]

15. Because he doesn't run?

And then win? And if President, he'd still have the same Congress.

[Dragonfli]

18. Perhaps he wouldn't have a corporate agenda, that would be a big difference

The problem is the current administrations belief in Reagan and corporations being the trickle down heroes.
With an administration that didn't agree with half or more of what the Republicans want we the people might actually have some one on our side for a change.

[11 Bravo]

17. Ummm .. he wasn't elected?

[kudzu22]

20. Since when do we pick leaders based on their ability to run the country?

In 90% of political races, the taller candidate wins. If they're the same height, it goes to the one with better hair. Reich has absolutely no chance of ever winning anything. Sorry, but it's true.

[loyalsister]

21. Reich is Awesome

He is an focused expert. Since he hasn't held a political office, I don't see him as having enough diversity in experience in his background to be president. He serves us all well by sharing his expertise.

[SoCalDem]

23. short stature...bearded.. and probably too smart to run

Love him :)

[mmonk]

28. Well, he didn't run for one.

[IDemo]

29. Here's the long version from 2005:

An hour long, and worth every minute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCu-XnVxhfk

Reich's height is due to Fairbanks disease, a rare congenital disorder that can stunt growth.

[RobinA]

30. Agree With

the "too short" meme. (How tall is he, anyway?) Although I'd be happy with him in a cabinet position. He may have just as much impact as a commentator, however.

[hifiguy]

32. Brilliant man. Reich always cuts through the BS

and is always on target. Haters, I suppose, gotta hate.