Obama: A Wall Street Liberal?

E.J. Dionne wrote in today’s Washington Post that Obama needs to overcome the combined disrespectful label as a “Wall Street Liberal”.  The conservatives have made hay for years discrediting liberals and the populist loathing of Wall Street has never been higher.   Contrary to the arguments, not only does Obama’s record argue against him being a liberal, he has not caved into Wall Street to the extent he has been blamed for doing.  Dionne reports, “never mind that Wall Street is fighting Obama on financial reform, particularly on his excellent proposal to create a financial consumer protection agency. The fact is that the Wall Street tag is sticking, and Obama was always going to battle the L-word.”

Dionne offers some antidotes to the Wall Street Liberal tag.  Chief among them is moving the tax burden away from middle America to those earning huge investment incomes.  There is a reason that Warren Buffett decries the fact that his receptionist’s salary is taxed at a higher rate than his own.  Our government needs the money, one sector has a disproportionate amount of same – taxation can take care of that.

Dionne explains moving the tax burden to the investment class will have the added benefit of “challenging the Tea Party movement to come clean on whether it really is populist, or merely using populist rhetoric to pursue the same old low-tax, low-regulation agenda that got us into this mess.”

Sorry, I have been MIA. 



Filed under Economics, Tea Party Movement

11 responses to “Obama: A Wall Street Liberal?

  1. lillacluvr

    I suspect the Tea Party is yet another diversion of the Republican Party.

    This same old ‘tax cut’ and ‘trickle-down Reaganomics’ crowd know that if they get enough people to put on funny looking hats, wear their Paul Revere costumes and say things like ‘vote all the incumbents out’ while having incumbent Republican politicians be their featured speakers at their events, that all will be well with their little black and white world of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer – and the middle class pays for both ends.

    • The origins of the Tea Party movement were definitely within the Republican Party, no matter how they try to make it appear as a grassroots movement. However, I do believe that there is the possibility that an astroturf movement could grow into a true grassroots movement.

      Wouldn’t it be lovely to think that one of the Republican Party’s sleezeball tricks would turn into a monster that would come back and destroy them?

      • lillacluvr

        Much like the Frankenstein monster, huh?

        Republicans may regret the day they made this little monster if the monster grows a brain and decides he is being used.

      • One of those “Republican Party’s sleezeball tricks” did turn into a monster and is in the process of destroying them — the religious nutjobs, the so-called ‘social’ conservatives (which are, btw, one of least attractive factions of the tea party movement).

  2. lillacluvr

    you were missed MIA – glad to see you back.

  3. Welcome back, iggy! Great post!

    I think if Obama had cared about labels or about appearing to not be kneeling to the Wall Street masters, he would have chosen differently than Geitner and Summers. Those were early picks and set the tone for what was to come.

  4. Good to read you, Iggy!

  5. lillacluvr

    Those social conservative Republicans are quite the group, aren’t they?

    Why, with the leadership of Pat Robertson – what could possibly go wrong?

  6. From Robert Reich —

    “Why Obama Must Take On Wall Street

    It has been more than a year since all hell broke loose on Wall Street and, remarkably, almost nothing has been done to prevent all hell from breaking loose again.

    In fact, close your eyes and you could be back in the wilds of 2007. Bankers are still making wild bets, still devising new derivatives, still piling on debt. The big banks have access to money almost as cheaply as in 2007, courtesy of the Fed, so bank profits are up and bonuses as generous as at the height of the boom.

    The only difference is that now the Street’s biggest banks know they are “too big to fail” and will be bailed out by taxpayers if they get into trouble – which means they have every incentive to make even riskier bets.”

    continue at:

  7. tosmarttobegop

    The tea party is several differing elements and yes each seems to have the own agendas.
    Part of that monster is created by some within the establishment of Politician insiders trying to control the rest of the monster.

    They saw the power within the Ron Paul revolution it’s unbridled energy and thought they could bridle it for their own gains. The problem of course with their thoughts was that they the Politician insiders were some of those that the tea party was rebelling against.

    They were against Republican establishment as with the Democratic establishment seeing no real difference between the two. Angry at the system but not know individual elements of the system.
    Eventually growing to nothing more than blind rage at the system.

    IN steps more of the establishment types as in Sarah Palin and Glen Beck…. ?
    Yes they are a part of that system but idiotic elements, tools really.

    Again two who the Politician insiders thought they could control and use.

  8. tosmarttobegop

    President Obama being accused of being a ultra-Liberal is funny at times.
    Many things he had done is Conservative thinking, a good example is the way that the attempt to save the economy started out. Save the elite financial institutions first, those who could have used a wake up call and to be reality based. Instead they were cushioned so they did not have to change their ways.
    President Obama is not the sole owner of this, President Bush actually started it Obama just finished it out.

    Business as usual, nothing changing and continuing the same thing that got us in this financial crisis.
    Maybe because it was established and to change it would mean a great upheaval.
    I know that does not make any real sense, to continue a system that was so flawed.
    Building the house of cards on the ruin foundations of the house of cards!