It's difficult though and goes back to my questions from last night.
No the actions of Congress are not encouraging. But for argument's sake let's assume the best, that McCain won't win and that an Obama administration would have the will and the actual leadership ability to be able to change things and institute a new New Deal. That we can have, in the end, a peaceful democratic revolution.
If we agree that we need a democratic revolution in the US and we need a new New Deal but we also agree that Wall Street has the ability to bring down Main Street and that we are in a crisis where Wall Street may be bringing down Main Street - then we have a dilemma of timing.
I know many people would argue that it would only be possible to pass a new New Deal if Wall Street has destroyed Main Street as during the Great Depression. I consider those people idealogues who care only for theory and not for flesh and blood people. As a practical matter and as a matter of common decency it would be easier on the average person if the new New Deal could be passed before Wall Street has destroyed Main Street. So that should imo be our goal.
There is no possible way that a new New Deal can be passed in less than 4 months when the new Congress and new Administration take office and that is just a possibility and not reality. In reality it is going to take much longer.
So even a good intentioned Congressperson TODAY who cares nothing for financial elites and would pass a new New Deal as soon as possible has to think about doing something to stop Wall Street from destroying Main Street in the interim.
To me, that is how we are going to have to evaluate whatever this very flawed package turns out to be.
Because despite the idea that Congresspeople only work for elites - they also work for average constituents and they DO know that (at least on the House side). If by doing nothing the majority party in Congress is seen as throwing us into another Great Depression, their constituents will throw them out. Deservedly so. It is inconceivable to me that the majority party would be able to do nothing in this situation once the administration threw out the idea of another Great Depression unless they were positive that the adminsitration is wrong. So in the end they will pass legislation that they will justify as helping the have-nots by averting a Great Depression (which it might) but will help the haves more.
If it is possible and probable to have frozen credit markets for the next 6-9 months and not destroy Main Street then they should have done nothing. If that isn't possible then they needed to do something NOW. You say the credit markets can't get any worse but this isn't sustainable over the long run. I ask what is the long run. It is what every Congressperson is asking. How long is the present situation sustainable.
If it isn't sustainable for 6-9 months then all this talk about alternative plans that should be considered right now seems ridiculously idealistic to me. The only practical question right now is how many good changes they managed to get into the administration's plan and how hard it is going to be for the next administration to come up with a new New Deal with this plan in place.
Arise, members of Congress, you have nothing to lose but your chains :-) As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Take a look at this old article in the New York Times from the primaries last year.
Of the $33 million Mr. Obama raised in the second quarter, about a third consisted of donations of less than $200 -- more than the $10 million raised in $2,300 checks from big donors. Mrs. Clinton, in contrast, raised $2.3 million in donations of less than $200. Contributions of $2,300 made up $12.3 million -- or more than half -- of the $21.5 million that she raised for the primary during the second quarter. Both candidates now have about the same amount of cash to spend on the primary. Mr. Obama's roster of 258,000 donors has exceeded the national mailing list that Mrs. Clinton accumulated through her two Senate races and Bill Clinton's two runs for the White House. None of the other primary candidates in either party has claimed more than 100,000 individual donors. In some ways, Mr. Obama's donor base differed from those of his rivals. An analysis of his Federal Election Commission filing using census data by ZIP code found that in the 3,210 ZIP codes with the largest proportion of black residents -- at least 25 percent -- Mr. Obama led the other candidates for both parties in money raised in the first half of the year. He received $5.2 million from those ZIP codes in the first half of the year, while Mrs. Clinton received about $3 million.
Mr. Obama's roster of 258,000 donors has exceeded the national mailing list that Mrs. Clinton accumulated through her two Senate races and Bill Clinton's two runs for the White House. None of the other primary candidates in either party has claimed more than 100,000 individual donors.
In some ways, Mr. Obama's donor base differed from those of his rivals. An analysis of his Federal Election Commission filing using census data by ZIP code found that in the 3,210 ZIP codes with the largest proportion of black residents -- at least 25 percent -- Mr. Obama led the other candidates for both parties in money raised in the first half of the year. He received $5.2 million from those ZIP codes in the first half of the year, while Mrs. Clinton received about $3 million.
For a more recent take, see this article by the AP from May.
Riggs and Schwartz are foot soldiers in Barack Obama's 1.5-million-strong army of campaign contributors. Dozens of Associated Press interviews with donors and an AP financial analysis show how contributions that make only a soft ka-ching by themselves, arriving in increments of $10, $15 and $50, have collectively swelled into a financial roar that has helped propel Obama toward the Democratic presidential nomination. Altogether, Obama's campaign has taken in an unprecedented $226 million, most of it contributed online. His donor base is larger than the one the Democratic National Committee had for the 2000 election. These are hardly political fat cats. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less, and 41 percent have given $25 or less, according to the Obama campaign. Overall, he has raised 45 percent of his money in small contributions. Hillary Rodham Clinton's figure is 30 percent, Republican John McCain's is 23 percent.
Altogether, Obama's campaign has taken in an unprecedented $226 million, most of it contributed online. His donor base is larger than the one the Democratic National Committee had for the 2000 election.
These are hardly political fat cats. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less, and 41 percent have given $25 or less, according to the Obama campaign. Overall, he has raised 45 percent of his money in small contributions. Hillary Rodham Clinton's figure is 30 percent, Republican John McCain's is 23 percent.
Obama does have big donors, and they do have an influence on the campaign, as shown by this article in the Washington Post from April.
But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. Obama's success in assembling bundlers offers another perspective on a campaign that promotes itself as a grass-roots effort. While the senator from Illinois has had unprecedented success generating small donations, many made online, the work of bundlers first signaled the seriousness of his candidacy a year ago and will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite. One-third had never contributed to a presidential campaign, much less raised money. The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. California is the top source, with 19 bundlers. Both Illinois and Washington, D.C., have six, and five hail from New York.
Obama's success in assembling bundlers offers another perspective on a campaign that promotes itself as a grass-roots effort. While the senator from Illinois has had unprecedented success generating small donations, many made online, the work of bundlers first signaled the seriousness of his candidacy a year ago and will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).
The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite. One-third had never contributed to a presidential campaign, much less raised money.
The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. California is the top source, with 19 bundlers. Both Illinois and Washington, D.C., have six, and five hail from New York.
However, even this article notes that
The campaign maintains that its fundraising success among average Americans has lessened its reliance on big donors. Donations of less than $200 account for nearly half of Obama's contributions, compared with a third of Clinton's and a quarter of Sen. John McCain's, according to the Campaign Finance Institute. More than 1 million people have given money to Obama's campaign.
When the third quarter filings are posted, we'll be able to see better how this trend has fared during the general election campaign.
It's harder to see the influence of this internet-mediated small-donor revolution on down-ticket races, but a quick glance at the Daily Kos Orange to Blue page says something. $150,000 in a House race means quite a bit.
The modern system is only unique in that enough non-elites ALSO get something from the system that it is not universally loathed and despised as a tool of oppression.
The debate now is more between neo-feudalist elites and those elites who still believe in the industrial state.
Given that, I'd argue that the "elites buy our politicians" argument is not so useful, and that the "neo-feudalist elites set the terms of debate and prevent the arguments of any other elites from being heard" is the bigger problem.
