TOI - PART DEAUX
So, my friends George and Patrick, didn't even budge a little regarding my argument that the Dems should think about backing off Obama right now. Well, not one to go down without a fight, I decided to devote another post to my comments on their comments. Here goes ...
- You are both poopy heads.
- Okay, I read the Rolling Stone article ... Here are my brief high level thoughts: I totally agree that it's a very thorough account of the history behind this financial mess we're in, and I actually do share the feelings of the author (as well as those of you two). But that was never really my point. I mean, yeah, I'm pissed that the Republicans deregulated everything and that Bush's incompetence made a bad situation worse. And yeah, the rich have been getting richer, and the middle class has been getting screwed. That -- I would argue -- is one of the reasons we elected Obama in the first place. I think the key question is whether or not Barack really intends to maintain that pattern; where his heart is. It is my feeling that - based on his policies and budget -- his intention is to reverse the trend, no?
- I don't know Heilbrunn from Adam; I just enjoyed the post because it sort of mimicked the way I've been feeling about the Left over the last few days. Just because he's a hack, doesn't mean he's wrong about this issue.
- For the record, I am not suggesting that Democrats should be like Republicans and check in their brains at the door. All I am saying is that we should be looking at the bigger picture here. If you analyze Obama's budget, you certainly can't argue with the fact that it is extremely progressive. The main problem in my opinion is that he is going to have this gigantic fight on his hands just to push through all those worthy goals, and the Repugs have already shown that they are going to do everything in their power to stop it and to stop him. So, what chance does he have if the Left is already declaring him an economic failure after only 2 months? No, we don't have to be sheeple, but yes, I think it's important to be generally united behind Barack right now.
- Let me try to put my thoughts into a bigger context ... I am not saying that I agree with Geithner's philosophy. And I am also not saying that Obama is king and that you guys shouldn't say anything bad about him. What upsets me is this idea that Wall Street "owns" Obama and that his approach to the banking crisis is proof that he's in bed with these guys. If you truly believe that, then how can you trust anything he does? Sure, criticize all you want, but call it a mistake or bad judgement or whatever. Because the implication I heard at dinner was that Obama is doling out money to rich banksters as payback for all those campaign contributions. If you really think that's true, then Obama is just some sleazy politician. Well, I'm still all about the hope thing, and I choose not to believe that.
- At the end of the day, the question is not about how angry we are at the past; it's about what do we now. Sure, it would feel great to nationalize all the banks and kick the bastards out. But as I said last night, Obama is already fighting off claims that he's a socialist from every direction. So, taking over the banks could actually be political suicide. And if that's true, then forget about all the other good stuff that you do acknowledge he is trying to do.
- Batman is not Bush.
Sincerely,
Trekking Left
Labels: barack obama, timothy geithner
posted by Trekking Left @ 8:19 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
What upsets me is this idea that Wall Street "owns" Obama and that his approach to the banking crisis is proof that he's in bed with these guys. If you truly believe that, then how can you trust anything he does?
I think Obama is doing the "we know what's best for you" thing--so he can be good on the right of choice, and on the environment, and on closing down Gitmo, etc., but still think he's one of the oligarchs and they should be making the decisions.
At least that's how I'm trying to reconcile things in my head and be charitable.
That Wall Street owns Obama is too strong, I admit. Still.
The sympathetic scenario is either: 1) He doesn't have the political capital to do the right thing (and campaign contributions will figure mightily here); or 2) He feels the need to get the economy going again before making the structural changes required (see Robert Reich on why the economic downturn is actually more structural than cyclical, so we have to change the structure not simply wait out a cycle and things will be back to peachy). In both of these cases, the presumption is that Obama's heart is in the right place and he would have my sympathy.
I fear, however, that, given his choice of Geithner et al and the direction they're taking, from which there is no easy correction other than disaster, Obama actually believes that there is nothing wrong with Wall Street derivatives and credit default swaps and hedge funds and enormous salaries that a couple trillion in bailout money and the promise (shangra la!) of tighter regulation won't cure.
In other words, I fear with George that Obama is one of them, albeit a kindler and gentler Democratic version.
Excellent post, TL.
hello t.l., a.m.,
Obama is owned by the banksters, every president since wilson is/has been. His cabinet is filled with summers, geithner, rubin, etc., all banksters and hedge fund maggots. Even now he is fighting to circumvent the salary caps and to funnel money to the hedge funds and banks. Many people, angelo mozilo types, belong in prison. Each succeeding administration is more corrupt than the last. Sorry it's been so long since my last vist.
edgar
Yah, the felonious obomba regime is a puppet for the banksters and the mic, fer sure.
8 reasons 2 dump summers
Obomba fights for loopholes so executives can get taxpayer $ & lavish pay too.
from kunstler:
A peeved public is going to start wondering why the bankers and insurers have not been called in by the criminal division to do a little ‘splainin'. As the spring yields to summer, the Obama team’s current fix-it plans are also likely to have run out of credibility. Mr. O better be prepared to get a new game.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: What we're doing with -- no, Treasury and both administrations. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration kept secret from us what was being done with AIG. AIG was being used secretly to bail out favored banks like UBS and like Goldman Sachs. Secretary Paulson's firm, that he had come from being CEO. It got the largest amount of money. $12.9 billion. And they didn't want us to know that. And it was only Congressional pressure, and not Congressional pressure, by the way, on Geithner, but Congressional pressure on AIG.
Where Congress said, "We will not give you a single penny more unless we know who received the money." And, you know, when he was Treasury Secretary, Paulson created a recommendation group to tell Treasury what they ought to do with AIG. And he put Goldman Sachs on it.
BILL MOYERS: Even though Goldman Sachs had a big vested stake.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Massive stake. And even though he had just been CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasury Secretary. Now, in most stages in American history, that would be a scandal of such proportions that he wouldn't be allowed in civilized society.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, like a conflict of interest, it seems.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Massive conflict of interests.
TL, what do you say about Jonathan Turley coming down on Obama on Olbermann last night?
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/tags/countdown-keith-olbermann
I'm beginning to worry more and more....
Super-Barry-O is one of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home