I agree with all of that, and Obama’s plan for privatized low-cost housing is another example. He championed the idea 100%, and then didn’t follow through with any oversight of the developers/slumloards. (See the Boston Globe cite in the OP.)
I only bring it up because it’s always mentioned that he took this job for only 13 grand, like that alone makes him a saint. As I said when I first brought it up, I was only trying to put the amount into persepctive, in case people couldn’t remember how much starting salaries were in those days.
It wasn’t his job to follow through on the oversight of developers.
Oh, I’m not judging Obama on the success or lack of success of the projects he worked on back then. I’m questioning the efficacy of such projects, and whether or not it’s smart to pursue them as public policy.
It’s implied all over the place. Read the Boston Globe article that Sam Stone linked to. I’m not saying he necessarily did anything illegal, but come on…he sponsored a bill to give billions in government contracts to private developers. The private developers in question not only were slum lords (which Obama claims he knew nothing about…I don’t know which is worse, not knowing about it, or knowing about it and not doing anything about it), but also huge campaign contributers & donors, and “friends” who do big favors for him that I would never, ever ask a friend to do for me. What do you think that all adds up to?
The point is that NO ONE knew NO ONE followed up. Public money shouldn’t be going to ANY project…governmental or privatized…that isn’t going to have some oversight. If he’s going to push such bills through, he needs to be sure that these kinds of bases are covered.
You took the best job you could get. He turned down jobs that would have paid 5 or 6 times as much to start and would have led to six figures within the same time frame he worked for DCP. Does it make him a saint? Not necessarily. Does it indicate somebody with sincerely idealistic motives? Yes it does.
Nonsense. Nobody is trying to paint him as a saint. Not for this, or for any other act he’s ever done. Please stop making that offensive allegation.
And in this case, what has been pointed out, isn’t that Obama could only command a mere, paltry $13,000 salary, but that he turned down opportunities to make much, much, much more lucrative salaries in order to do something he cared about more than he cared about money.
When I took my first job out of college, my starting salary in the early 80s was, IIRC, $10,500. But I was very aware that had I pursued the career my major was actually in, which I decided I didn’t like afterall, I could’ve been making more than double that. So don’t pretend that just because some salaries at that time, or even the average salary at that time, was in the range Obama actually ended up taking, that that was all he could’ve commanded had he chosen the route he was groomed for instead of the one that spoke to his heart.
The objective was to rehabilitate buildings to use for low income housing. It was not his responsibility to oversee its implementation or to hire the contractors, nor would he have had any power to do anything about it anyway.
On the contrary, he could have influence over all of those things.
As I’m sure you are aware, it is a figure of speech. Please stop mischaracterizing my statements.
Again, you are reading things into my words that aren’t there. Please cite where I said that he couldn’t have earned more. Please cite where I said that he didn’t give up anything to take such a job. Please cite where I said anything but that it was an admirable thing to do. My ONLY point to what I said was that it was, while a low wage, certainly a livable one. There’s only so much credit I’m going to give him for choosing to live like the average person.
Usually, it adds up to a Republican.
Not in Chicago it doesn’t.
Thing is, Sarahfeena, whenever a political structure is dominated by one party, the corruption inherent in any human endeavor offering money and power will be similarly concentrated. Here in Massachusetts, the Republican Party is nearing extinction as a political force, notwithstanding the recent past governorships of Romney and his immediate predecessors. I attribute this in large part to the extreme (at least to New Englanders) rightward lurch of the GOP over the last few decades – it just doesn’t play well here, even among people with conservative tendencies. The Republicans could win some power back if they could offer us candidates like Eliot Richardson, Frank Sargent, Endicott Peabody – Republicans of the old school, before the neocons and the social-issue fundamentalists seized control of the party.
I’d really, really like to see that happen. It’s not healthy to have what’s in effect a one-party system. But the GOP as currently constituted is barren ground, sown with salt, for the growth of such Republicans, alas. I wish it were not so.
Oh, I don’t disagree with anything you say here…elucidator was the one who started with pointing fingers at a particular party. But your point is very well taken in terms of my questions about Obama. In Chicago, it is virtually impossible to get anything done politically without the help of the Democratic machine. I don’t say that as a way of blaming the Democratic party as a whole, or to claim that the Republicans don’t have their own corruptions. But in Chicago, the Democratic machine is simply a fact of life, and Obama was a part of it.
I guess that makes it all the more remarkable, then, that Obama was able to swim in that sewage without getting any of it on him.
Yup, he sure is special.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
From me? Never.