More Active Posts
Front Page
Friedman: Let’s get back to work
 |
 24 Comments |
Thomas L. Friedman says he wants a president who can focus on getting
Friedman blames the declining economy on the neglect of traditional values because of preoccupation with Iraq. Noting that working and studying hard, saving, investing and living on a budget “have given way to subprime values,” he refers to the current housing crisis. The National Association of Realtors reports that foreclosures have caused median single-family existing home prices to drop 7.7 percent during the first quarter of this year compared to 2007. The economic situation can also be seen in the rising number of unemployed citizens, which the U.S Department of Labor records as up to 5 percent of the population. But Friedman doesn’t cite statistics. He concludes America is falling behind in the technological and economic spheres based on his observations of New York’s transportation centers compared to ports in Singapore and Germany. He says his arrival abroad made him feel as though he had flown “from the Flinstones to the Jetsons.”
In a Letter to the Editor the following day, Joy Jurnack agreed, saying [I] “believe in this great nation, but want to see it concentrate its dollars and sense on those of us who live between our borders. We want to help others,” she says, “but our infrastructure is near the fracturing point, and it is high time we concentrate on us.”
Friedman was not impressed with Senator Hillary Clinton’s recent TV ad that portrays her as the experienced official ready to answer the “Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom.” Anyone can do that. Instead, he wants “a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people.”
In a comment in response to John Cole’s Balloon Juice blog post on the column, a reader disagreed with the idea that involvement in Iraq is the cause of America’s economic downslide, but reiterated Friedman’s desire for a president who will help the situation. The blogger writes that he wants a president who will tell the American public, “‘OK, here is what we are doing to ourselves. We can’t fix it overnight, but we can make it better, one step at a time.’”
Jurnack says she hopes that the next president will have the ability to foster the values Friedman lists. That would fill her prescription for what she says America needs, which is a dose of “tough love.”
 |
Topic: Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: economy, Thomas L. Friedman |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
I have been spending a lot of time with real estate people in the past week, and a lot of the discussion has been about the fact that the media is not reporting that the foreclosure problem is located in certain areas, pockets, i.e., California, Florida, being the largest pockets. NJ has maintained its values. It depends where you live. Getting a loan is the real problem. And that ties into the “traditional values.” If you want the home, you have to work, save, etc.
According to one mortgage broker I met, he met people in the past few years who refused to take his good advice and took ARMs with even 30, 60, 90 days change dates — they were greedy just like some lenders. We all have to take stock and look at how we deal with money. So, yes, we need a president who will speak the truth even if it hurts, but one person can’t turn this country around by himself. No president told us to spend, spend, spend, but we did it. The “people” have responsibility on this one, too.
At the website AngryRenter dotcom former Congressman Dick Army confirms much of what you’re saying NJLawyer. But even in the midst of this so-called crisis are we not seeing young first-time homeowners snatching up great bargains in these over-valued repo’d houses?
I dont think we as a nation really want anyone in the White House to require sacrifice or deferred gratification. We have troops committed to a two-front war. No sign that it will be resolved to our liking anytime soon. Instead of making current living citizens pony up money, bite the bullet and sacrifice to bring about victory W is content to pile up debt to be paid off by those kids we don’t abort.
Nation-building internally sounds a lot like more costly nosy govt. We lack the “we’re all in this together” consensus for any type of new WPA or CCC.
Thanks but no thanks
From what I’ve seen in the past week, there are people making a FINE living in foreclosure!! (Not me — I couldn’t show up at a sheriff’s sale with 20% cash down payment for a couple of $500,000 houses with the balance due in 30 days, but a fellow I met in his 20s is able to do so!)
If you have the credit rating, you can buy, and this is the time to do it. I heard that there are decent houses in either Wisconsin or Michigan that are going for a song. It really depends on where you are and how you’ve been managing your money all along.
I’m not suggesting that people “bite the bullet” the way they did for WWII at all. (I wasn’t thinking about the war when I posted.) All I’m saying is that if people are fiscally responsible, i.e., use cash and really see where their money is going, think twice about their long-term goals, think things through before charging everything, they would actually have MORE in the long run and not have to worry about foreclosure and bankruptcy. That’s sound “advice” that’s been around a long time (even if credit cards haven’t been).
I don’t want a new WPA or any other set of letters. We don’t need that. We need to let businessmen be businessmen, but we also need to make sure people don’t get ripped off. That can be done by tightening the lending rules. We need to make sound, thoughtful investments, not greedy or risky ones. That means personal responsibility, not more government, and certainly not government “make work” entities.
Friedman has a knack for stating the obvious in 300 plus pages. The Earth is Flat was just annoying. Friedman simply wrote an amateurish ode to new technology with very little idea of counteracting ideas.
Obviously, America needs a president who will rebuild the mess Bush left behind but since Freidman writes it its supposed to be insightful.
I don’t think it is the president’s job to make individual people more fiscally responsible. If you do, provide the citation to the Constitution where that duty is listed. Nor does the president control the economy.
Really. I’m not seeing enough “Friedman Speak” here. It’s like an ice cream parlor without ice cream, and the only flavor tastes exactly the opposite of what you’d expect…hold on…that doesn’t quite work. This post is like a macaroni and cheese without cheese and the cheesy part is the craziness that is Thomas Friedman…like he was thrown from the train and into never never land where the streets have no name…and of course, the earth is flat.
That important stuff being said, the poster says that Friedman says the problem is “the neglect of traditional values because of preoccupation with Iraq.” Well, pardon my French, but that’s merde. You could also argue that you can’t get food because you’re too busy watching TV and it’s the Wizard of Oz and the refrigerator just got blown away by a tornado!! You get what I’m saying here??? This is crazy!
You know, George Bush, our beloved President, was dead set against nation building before he was for it.
…and I’m not kidding here.
The war in Iraq is not a “distraction.” It is part of a serious mission to stop Al Qaeda and other jihadist efforts and to return stability to Iraq after its liberation from a brutal tyrant who supported terrorism throughout the Middle East. Iraq is in the middle of the Middle East and it is essential that our mission is accomplished.
The ongoing war against jihadist-driven terrorism has many fronts (Afghanistan, Iraq and many big cities) and it is necessary. We can win it or we can lose it. The American people must decide.
General Patraeus is doing a stellar job, steadily making progress. The Shiite political leadership in Iraq led by Maliki, has been actually going after the Shiite militias. This has helped to motivate the Sunni citizens to continue their opposition to Al Qaeda (also Sunni) and they are helping us to oppose them too.
Talk of the war as a “distraction” is nonsense.
…and talk of the war somehow altering America’s core values seems kind of absurd. Our values had been going down the tubes for decades before the war.
2wire, Might not the war hastened the rate of deterioration in the values? Or merely turned a spotlight onto the process?
I dont think core values or ideals can ever succomb to superficial fluctuations in the politics. The conflict has certainly shown the American preference against prolonged drawn-out wars. Gimme a Greneda or Panama or even a Desert Storm: get in get it over with and then get out.
A question and a comment.
Question: What is the usual source of infrastructure funding?
Comment: I’m not convinced that the President has a direct influence on the economy. However, I have noticed that Presidents typically have a direct influence on the tone and mood of the country.
We had a president that told the truth to the American people, Jimmy Carter. During his administration, the mood was sober and somber, almost to the point of lethargy and despair. Other presidents were less pessimistic and offered the country hope and encouragement.
The truth is, Americans are resourceful, innovative, creative, and accomplished. A good leader will help us see what we already know to be true about ourselves. And a good leader will facilitate the entrepreneurial efforts of the innovative and accomplished, establishing measurable goals for them to accomplish.
Global terrorism has been steadily rising for 35 years.
My prayer is that the Bush administration will mark the turning point when that rise becomes a steady decline due to our active and focused ongoing war against it. It is likely that it will take as many years to defeat global terrorism as it did to let it get as bad as it was by 9/11 (about 35 years).
America and Americans need to keep our resolve high and our minds and wills tough in the face of the many ongoing challenges ahead. Winning this war is a matter of common courage, will and resolve to support it. If we lose this war against this great evil called jihadist terrorism, it will be because we collectively came to a point of choosing to lose it.
Joel Mark,
Are you reading from the George W. Bush play book? Post #12 is one big load of hogwash. You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. Your method will only prove to exacerbate the situation. You’re fighting fire with fire. The only thing you are supporting is more terrorism, more hatred of the U.S., and a bloated military industrial complex. This resolve to weed out jihadists by force will only cause to isolate the U.S. from the international community and encourage xenophobic reactions to middle easterners.
You should seriously reconsider position in light of scripture. Don’t take my word for it.
WIGLAF asked, “Are you reading from the George W. Bush play book?”
It would be a pretty good play book to read if I could get my hands on it. Until then, all I can do is listen to him and others and think for myself. But your question is not an argument against my points. What bothers me about the Bush-loathing left and the mainstream media is that they don’t listen to him much at all. At least I listen.
WIGLAF accused, “The only thing you are supporting is more terrorism, more hatred of the U.S., and a bloated military industrial complex.”
Wiglaf, can you please explain our mission in Iraq?
Jihadist terrorism did not start with the Bush administration. His efforts to stop it have been tough and slow with a high learning curve but still effective over all. He is our first President to take terrorism seriously.
But you may be right in claiming that Bush has incited some hatred for the USA. But it’s a hatred that specifically festers in the hearts of the jihadist terrorists who wish we would leave Iraq and give up on our opposition to their mission. I expect evil people to hate the USA.
BTW, can you also please articulate the jihadist terrorist mission and contrast it with ours, if you can?
Sure, Joel Mark, I can. The jihadists’ mission is to get U.S. military and meddling out of the middle east. They’ve said as much themselves. You create a caricature of real people by just calling them evil. The U.S. has accomplished many evil acts in the middle east including assassinations, bribes, unlawful use of taxpayer dollars, and inciting wars and encouraging them among other acts. Because of these, would “jihadists” be reasonable in calling the U.S. government and its taxpayers evil?
Regarding “our mission,” how about maintaining the military industrial complex, keeping the sheeple in fear so they’ll willingly pay taxes to pay for this that and the other, and perhaps, attempting to correct for the mistake of the U.S. helping to place Saddam in power in the first place. I’m sure their are other reasons. One can’t be nation building. After all, George Bush was adamantly against nation building before he became president. He campaigned on it!
Wiglaf,
I think you are deficient in your description of the jihadists’ mission. It is much more than just getting us out of the Middle East. Please consider why they want us out and what they want to do in our absense. That might shed some light in your mind on their mission. Do some study. Listen to them.
Wiglaf, I ask, are Al Qaeda leaders and followers evil? Is that just a caracature?
Wiglaf wrote; “The U.S. has accomplished many evil acts in the middle east…”
I think you are confusing our boys in uniform with Al Qaeda andother terrorists. Try thinking again.
And No! No! No! No! No! The jihadists would certainly NOT be reasonable in calling the U.S. government and its taxpayers evil?
What a revealing question on your part.
Wiglaf, you are wrong in describing our mission in Iraq too. Whatever military Industrial Complex you might think we have, it was there before Iraq and it will be there after. That’s not our mission in Iraq.
We gave Saddam some aid during the Iraq Vs Iran war in the early 80s. There were good reasons for that. But this does not describe our mission today in Iraq.
You really do have a hard time answering mission questions, Wiglaf. Think about that and try thinking beyond leftist talking points.
Joel Mark,
My question regarding the reasonableness of jihadists calling the U.S. evil was rhetorical to make a point. Why do you assume that all jihadists are evil? If I were an arab in Iraq, I might very well be angry at foreign invaders in my country. Would it make me evil if I decided to side with those who wanted to do something about it?
You state “please consider why they want us out and what they want to do in our absence.” Why do you think it’s okay to see a conspiracy on their part, but all you see are innocence and goodness on the part of the Americans? That’s rather hypocritical, don’t you think?
When I speak of the evil America has done in the middle east, I’m going way back to the 50’s, perhaps even earlier. The U.S. has set a precedent of meddling in the middle east and there appears to be no end in sight. Has the CIA’s efforts been godly? Or have they sacrificed morality for expedience?
By the way, Joel Mark, my political leanings are libertarian, not “leftist.” Libertarians like to think the constitution and the declaration of independence actually mean something. Foreign meddling certainly is NOT condoned. The irony is that, while it appears to show a concern for international fraternity, it’s actually more like the bully on the street. The bully associates with others but no one likes him or trusts him and therefore, he has effectively isolated himself. Republicans accuse libertarians of being isolationists, but they are the opposite and republicans are the isolationists for condoning foreign wars and military occupation.
Honestly, Wiglaf, your question regarding the reasonableness of jihadists calling the U.S. evil did not sound “rheotrical.” I took it seriously at face value.
Wiglaf wrote; “If I were an arab in Iraq, I might very well be angry at foreign invaders in my country.”
You might also be very grateful to them for liberating you, considering what your country had been through and is still going through due to the jihadists terrorists who are trying to create chaos and destroy innocent lives.
Wiglaf wrote; “…all you see are innocence and goodness on the part of the Americans?”
Never said that and I don’t think that in such all inclusive terms. But I do see us making huge sacrifices to stabilize that country and stop jihadist terrorists from slaughtering innocent Muslims and others. That’s pretty “good” in my book.
It weas mostly the U.N. (not just the USA) that was active in the Middle East asround the 50s and before. And the terms they set up would have brought peace and prosperity if only the Palestinians could have accepted the terms and simply acknowledged Israel’s right to co-exist. The terms offered in 1948 were better than any offered since, and they turned it all down thus creating ongoing conflict.
“My political leanings are libertarian, not ‘leftist.’”
So? Right, left or in-between, it is wrong insofar as your leanings do not seem to show a grasp of our mission or that of our enemy. You even seem to confuse us with the enemy. And your harsh reading of our efforts are not fair-minded, in my view. You think we are the “bully” and that is bunk. We are there to stop the bullies and we are paying a high price to pursue that just and worthy mission.
Right or left, I think your views are wrong.
Friedman is a fool. I can’t even read his schlock anymore. He’s a bitter, foolish, misguided man who needs to come to shut up, and come to Christ.