The President said I don't begrudge, and I fully believe him

[AllentownJake]

When the President says he doesn't begrudge Goldman and JP Morgan's CEOs I fully believe him, because every action he's taken since after election day, say that is 100% true.

1) Appointing Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary. The guy who took tax payer dollars and handed it over to Golman Sachs, in the year long quest to "save the world" from the banksters facing consequences for their actions. When Tim was appointed, some people thought he had turned state evidence, he was now going to be working for the good guys! He was the Joe Kennedy of 2009! 2009 has shown, that is not the case.

2) Backdoor bailouts. The Fed has undergone a toxic asset purchase program (this is what TARP was originally supposed to be), however, the institution that prints our money can't let anyone know any details about it, and conducting an audit for congress would be bad according to the people at the Fed. Now the President does not control the Federal Reserve, but he picks the Fed Chair every 4 years. He reappointed Ben Bernake, which is a defacto endorsement of the policy of purchasing toxic assets from failed institutions and not letting anyone know what you paid for them.

3) Rewriting tax rules to extend losses and reduce tax liability. If you hate the bonuses, there is a policy undertaken in 2009 that rewrote some tax rule interpretations to reduce the liability of Too Big to Fail. They don't pay those bonuses without the tax breaks.

4) Finance reform policy proposed to congress was weak in 2009. It was panned by nearly every single major activist on this issue as doing next to nothing. Barney Frank's finance committee took a weak bill and made it weaker and the White House was next to silent on it.

5) Freddie has been given unlimited ability to buy toxic mortgages in 2010. Another one of those actions that bypassed congress. The Fed has promised to stop it's policy in March on Toxic assets, around that time, Freddie will pick it up. We shall see if the same level of secrecy is required on what was bought and what was paid for assets in 2010 at Freddie. It can kind of hide because it is an arm of the federal government with the illusion of being a private entity.

6) The executives at Freddie were just given banker level bonuses and salaries, despite the fact, they are working for a bankrupt government sponsored private entity that will never be solvent on its own merit again.

7) Lack of prosecutions. Alan Grayson is correct, 20% of our wealth has disappeared overnight, and no one has been held accountable for the biggest fraud in the history of the world. Like under Bush, the New York Attorney General appears to take his job and mandate more seriously than the SEC or the Attorney General of the United States of America.

I can continue if you really wish me to. This is the issue, I'm loaded for bear so to speak, because I read up on it everyday, follow it closely, and try to educate as many people as I possibly can where ever I'm at.

The reason why I don't begrudge the salaries and they are hard working savvy businessman has hit a nerve with everyone from Moveon.org to Paul Krugman, is that the words do match the actions or privatizing gains and putting losses on the public and CEOs taking huge profits while people can't find work, and a lot of people are fucking sick of it.

[TexasObserver]

1. Recommend

[AllentownJake]

2. Did I miss any of the high points nt.

[TexasObserver]

3. I think you should continue, and lay it all out.

I'm a big picture guy, so I look at the big picture and ask "what's he really done, and for whom has he done it?"

He's not delivered on the things he promised the people who voted him in, and for me, that's his biggest failure. He's put the interests of Wall Street and big banks far above those of main street. He's been callous and unhelpful about horrific unemployment and underemployment. He's allowed the health care/insurance/pharmaceutical industries to dictate the health care dialog.

He has not fought for the little people. He's rolled over for the big people.

He's got to wake up and smell the disaster coming in November if he doesn't start being more of a DEMOCRATIC president.

[AllentownJake]

6. It is about campaign donations and jobs after "public service"

I blame the administration, for the administrations actions when it comes to the things they have done, that they have not required congressional action for.

However the US House and Senate are hornets nest of me first.

Health Care reform, I blame Max Baucus on, and the administration secondly. Max basically told them you will do it in a way I can line my pockets or we do nothing at all.

They are in for some real trouble in November if they don't right the ship, but seeing that everyone is shilling for money right now, I don't see them doing it.

Remember two weeks before Coakley got humiliated, she was at a fundraiser with Pharma/Insurance Industry execs, and that part of the episode that was her big loss, is ignored by a lot of people.

[TexasObserver]

9. Our leadership has been tepid.

I blame Reid for being the most ineffective Democratic majority leader in my life time. He's just terrible, a limp noodle who is the worst choice for a job that requires someone willing to kick ass and take names.

Pelosi is less culpable.

The president has not used Rahm or Biden well, IMHO. Rahm should have been tasked with getting the president's agenda through the House, and Biden with ushering it through the Senate.

[AllentownJake]

10. Rahm should have been left in the House

He isn't really a good chief of staff. Name the Chiefs of Staff for Bill Clinton or Bush. I can't even think of them, because they are supposed to be the behind the scenes guy. Rahm attracts too much attention to himself. Calling people fucking retards is a prime example.

Harry won't be there next year. I thought they couldn't get worse than Daschle.

Harry has to stride a pretty large fence. He's a senator from a purple more red than blue state and he's the majority leader, like Dachle that ends in weakness, than being booted from office.

[bvar22]

83. Which is EXACTLY why our "Democratic" Senators put them in charge.

Perfect cover for their collective betrayal of those who voted for them...

They aren't stupid.
They might actually have to produce something if they put a Democratic Fire Breather in the leadership position.
Can you imagine if Boxer or Feingold were in charge?
The rest of those worthless assholes would have to actually show up for work.

[bertman]

224. bvar, post #83 explains the game plan perfectly. Thank you. " . . . would actually have

to show up for work." Love that one!

[Name removed]

248. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

172. I don't think he cares.

Anyone could see the writing on the wall.

My greatest disappointment, even greater than the HCR failure, is the failure to re-regulate the financial services industry. They continue to rob us blind.

[Betty Karlson]

257. With regard to that - and to the earlier

"20 % of our wealth disappeared overnight":

It did not disappear - it never was there in the first place.

This is a classic case of the circulation speed driving up the "virtual" numbers of wealth - meaning the prices of all traded stocks go up without the connected assets increasing their value. (How to do this? Simple: just sell the same stock/ bond over and over again.)

What we perceive as "robbing us" is merely the bankers cashing the real value of the traded stock - but taking a disproportional part of said value when compared to their actual numbers of stocks (the stocks they traded were overpriced). The remaining stocks then decrease their value not just to the actual value of the connected assets, but even lower - to compensate for the selling of the earlier, overpriced set of stocks.

To do that, the speed of circulation is lowered to the extreme. That means the economy as a whole is slowing down to accomodate the bankers' selling over overpriced stock. This is called an economic depression.

Now for the nasty part: in order to save the world from depression, Mr Bush AND Mr Obama decided to stimulate the circulation again. They pumped virtual money to create virtual wealth. In other words: there was a virtual recovery while at the same time the real value of the connected assets did not go up. That is why the recovery is jobless.

As long as there is no value to create, there is no demand for labour to create it. All we have is another overpriced set of stocks.

[DrDan]

259. wealth did not disappear?

Tell that to 401K owners who are looking at statements now worth 60% of previous value.

Or those who are trying to sell a house that is worth less than their current loan value.

[humbled_opinion]

178. Exactly...

There is a huge disconnect between Obama's words and actions. I remember during the Primary campaign Obama had this big dust up with Hillary because she said that he was all rhetoric and had no clear path to solve many problems.

Sadly Hillary turns out to be right again. I wish we had a do-over. Hillary should be the POTUS you may not have gotten a fully progressive agenda from her but I will tell you something. She would have gotten many more things accomplished by now then Obama.

our loss.

[TexasObserver]

185. I had no idea he really believed that "bi-partisan" nonsense.

LBJ said "if you want to be a politician, you have to know how to count."

It's a simple concept. It's about getting votes and making them happen, not winning hearts and minds. You kick their ass, tell them what they get, and pass it with or without them.

[AllentownJake]

187. If I pass something with a 3 vote margin

I've given up too much. Yeah, LBJ was a bastard, but a fighting bastard.

[Hannah Bell]

4. i recced, but it's still underwater. k/r nonetheless.

i'm having a sinking feeling about the new deficit commission as well.

[TexasObserver]

5. Anything perceived to be critical of the president gets that.

And that is true no matter how thoughtful or information filled the topic.

These are things Democrats need to discuss.

We are in trouble for November, and it's not because of what we believe in. It's because our president hasn't led from the left, but from center-right. The public is mad because our party has been in charge and has caved to the right over and over.

[AllentownJake]

12. This is highly critical of the President

and I'd rather not have a Republican Governor, because the administration is failing.

[Enthusiast]

174. That's what we will have in Ohio,

like it or not. The last Republican Ohio governor set a record for low approval, Taft. I believe his approval rate was 9%, maybe it was 12%. And this was during a good economy! Maybe Kasich can make us proud by breaking Taft's record, lol.

[AllentownJake]

179. Our Attorney General makes a sport out of political prosecutions

of Democrats, I'd rather not a John Ashcroft wannabe running around my state for 4 years.

[Enthusiast]

189. Yup, even the worst

Democrats seem to retain a sense of fair play, Republicans, not so much

[gcomeau]

20. It being critical and FICTIONAL doesn't help. -nt

[TexasObserver]

23. Which part is fictional?

[AllentownJake]

24. I expect crickets

First thing is to call you a liar, see people who were speaking up about the planned deficit reduction commission 2 months ago.

[laughingliberal]

67. And crickets, you got

This "I don't begrudge them" statement with the scramble to clarify reminds me so much of when Sebelius went on the Sunday morning talk show and said the public option was not essential. After huge outrage from the left, the administration scrambled to walk it back. But, in the end, we saw it was exactly what they meant.

Well, almost. She said it wasn't essential. After all that went down and came out later, It think the real message was the public option was not desirable to them. If this follows the same course the real message is probably, "We really like the big bonuses."

[gcomeau]

192. Obama said nothing resembling what the OP claims he said.

And just to accomodate the other genius...

<crickets>.

[TexasObserver]

197. Your supplemental answer was as content free as your original.

[AllentownJake]

200. People are sure hung up on the interview

not really so much on the trillion dollars of back door bailouts huh?

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

205. There is the lie word again

He was talking about the only two CEOs left over from the crisis who haven't moved to another firm.

I know these guys they are Savvy businessman after talking about begrudging people for making a lot of money. They weren't savvy, they got bailed out.

I'll stand by my OP.

[AllentownJake]

206. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7698036&mesg_id=7702886

[tbyg52]

182. Fictional, my rear end.

I'm sure I don't pay nearly the amount of attention AJ does, but I knew this stuff. And from the M$M, too. Right out in plain view, just like the fact that Bu$h/Cheney are common criminals is out in plain view.

[AllentownJake]

184. Amazing the number of people calling me a liar

However, no one has disputed items 1-7 and whether they in fact happened or not.

Some people want to talk about TARP, but I purposely left that out, even though the President voted for it, because it can be argued, that Paulson lied to congress.

Of course AG Holder hasn't indicted him for that either.

[QC]

219. How do you like our new era of civility, Jake? n/t

[AllentownJake]

222. Well other than people wishing me to leave again

It isn't that bad.

No out right wishes of me needing to be drawn and quartered yet like a month ago.

[QC]

223. The nastygrams really are getting deleted a lot faster now. n/t

[Raineyb]

254. You do know that fictional means made up right?

Because based on your post I don't think you do.

[pundaint]

244. There's been lots of discussion about this, the elected ones choose not to hear.

We should try to replace them in the primaries, because they don't deserve our votes in November.

[AllentownJake]

8. Don't worry

There is a sonar for when I post an OP from certain people, it generally floats back into positive.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

11. He thinks he needs to raise $1 billion dollars for 2012

and he isn't going to do that, by being FDR.

[Donnachaidh]

33. he can raise all th emoney he wants for 2012

If people are still looking at YEARS of under-employment and unemployment, he's NOT going to get the votes he needs. I doubt if people will fall for the *anointing from St. Oprah, Rock Star Campaign* bullshit if they are in worse shape (or even the same shape as today) in 2012. As lethargic as the masses are -- they see when they are losing AND they hold grudges.

[LaydeeBug]

62. Oh, well that makes it ok then.

un.fucking.believable.

[CrispyQ]

130. He seems to have confused money for votes.

If Obama would lead from the left, he wouldn't need $1 billion.

[Uncle Joe]

173. I believe he's intimidated by the power of the corporate media to brain wash the American People

if he governs from the left.

That being the institution most responsible for enabling the corrupt, incompetent Bush the Least to power, manipulating a large portion of the American People in to actually believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 by inference means, etc. etc.

After the Supreme Court's recent ruling, the corporate media's; power to manipulate the American People has been magnified even more with unlimited resources flowing in to their advertising budgets from corporations for electoral commercials.

Corporate supremacists have a stranglehold on "We the People's" government.

I believe that will remain the case until the American People become fed up with the situation and take their government back, strikes, protests, boycotts.

I also believe there needs to be an ongoing grass/net roots movement; with debates and conventions to amend the Constitution in order to undo the damage by the Supreme Court and this entity shouldn't shut down when that particular goal is achieved but remain an institution for advocacy of continuous amendments to the Constitution as a means to keep the process fluid, making it easier for the people to overcome political inertia; which is certainly favored by the corporate supremacists.

[pundaint]

245. FDR would only need about $20.

[snot]

13. Rec'd, too; still underwater.

And let me add, I personally know Repubs who are fully availing themselves of the ongoing, massive aid to banksters, and who are nearly frothing to find more ways to exploit it before the rest of us realize how we're being looted, and worse.

[tavalon]

14. I sense some slight, and only slight begrudgment on your part

I have active rage (and I'm quite sure you do too).

[AllentownJake]

15. I do begrudge the elected officials

Trying to become millionaires off of public service.

[tavalon]

16. I know

That was a really, really stupid statement on the part of our President. He hasn't had a verbal gaffe like this in a while.

[AllentownJake]

17. A gaffe

Is unintentionally telling the truth. Joe Biden is full of them.

[laughingliberal]

68. Yes, a gaffe like when Sebelius said the Public Option wasn't essential

I just posted upthread how this will probably track that. After our outrage, the administration walked it back but it turned out to be exactly what they meant.

[AllentownJake]

71. of the denials about the Deficit Commission

They telegraph their moves, say they aren't going to make them, than go ahead and make them.

[laughingliberal]

77. Exactly! And look how many here are denying that the deficit commission is going to come back with

recommendations to privatize or seriously cut SS and Medicare.

[tavalon]

127. I know, but we have to cut Obama some slack

because he's only been at the job for a year and besides he isn't Bush the dumber and he gives awesome speeches. Oh, yeah, he's playing three dimensional chess. Did I miss any?

[CrispyQ]

133. You forgot the pony.

;)

[tavalon]

261. Yes I did!

[tango-tee]

256. It is with a heavy heart that I concur with the OP

and with you as well. How on earth could things have gotten to this point? I had so much hope.

Now what? That's the question. Where do we go from here and how do we get there? And who are "we" to begin with?

My best girlfriend's son had always been a staunch libertarian. Mind you, he is only 28 years old. He held this viewpoint until his division of the company he has been working for was eliminated, old-timers were "let go"... and one of his colleagues committed suicide in the storage room over night. He was found dead by the morning shift.

My young friend still has a job, now in another division of the company, but the suicide of his colleague shook him to the core, and he has told me that we can now welcome a new left-winger to the fold.

[gcomeau]

18. How about we DON'T do the GOP's propaganda work for them?

How about that? That sound like a fucking idea to anybody here?

What Obama said was that he did not begrudge ANYONE, in general, "wealth"... but that Wall Street bonus structures were not justifiable based on performance.

Then everyone in the country promptly pretended he didn't say the last part, re-wrote the first part, and announced Obama was fine with bank bonuses despite him saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE. And I come into DU and what do I fucking find? Half the goddamn forum HELPING. And isn't that just a joy to behold? Good work folks! Keep it up!

For anyone who actually gives a shit about reality, this is the word for word quote from the interview transcript:

“I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

MY GOD!!!! Quick! Everyone get outraged!!!!

[AllentownJake]

19. His actions on this issue speak louder than his words

and I detailed the actions of the administration, in line with the I don't begrudge and JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs CEO's are savvy businessmen.

[gcomeau]

21. You mean the words you put in his mouth?

His actions aren't the only ones speaking loudly.

[AllentownJake]

22. Care to defend the 7 items

Comparing CEOs to baseball players is a pretty stupid analogy. A bad one, people like Baseball players generally.

He's done nothing but help these people for 12 months at the expense of everyone else. His soft tone and I don't begrudge comments are just indicative of his true feelings.

[Kahuna]

25. At the expense of everyone else? That's where you and your ilk are wrong.

Sorry to break it to you, but the bankers control the nation's wealth. It's as simple as that. If THEY go down, WE do down with them. If the government had not stepped in to stabilize the bankers, our economy would be in three times worse condition than it is right now. At least. Are the bankers arrogant? Yes they are. But in America we don't punish arrogance. I know you and your ilk would like the congress to enact legislation to retroactively punish the bankers, but that's not the way it works in America.

It's more than ridiculous to lay the bad behavior of Wall St. at Obama's feet. The system has been in place for a hundred years. Until we have prolonged Democratic control (the loonie left doesn't flee and punish as they are wont to do every four years), things will not change. Obama is one man. He can only do what HE can do. He's not a king.

[AllentownJake]

29. They committed fraud

What part of that do you not understand, that was what the subprime crisis after all was.

They gave loans, with bad interest rates, to people who couldn't afford them, based on applications that were fraudulent. They than packaged these loans, sold them to the Freddie and Fannie and had them securitized. From there they sold them to investors while making bets they would fail.

I think you could start at the beginning of the chain and work your way up, kind of like they handled the Mafia in the 1980s.

Somehow, the last time this happened, we managed to bailout and regulate at the same time, because we said no bailout, without regulation.

[Kahuna]

37. Maybe you could make a citizen's arrest . nt

[AllentownJake]

42. I think these guys are protected by Blackwater or XE or whatever they call themselves no

I'm not in the mood for a water boarding

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

72. Yes, it was disturbing to see Goldman Sachs execs show up with bomb sniffing dogs and police guard

to announce their 4th quarter profits. These people know the public is outraged and they know the public has every reason to be outraged. Funny, though, they did not count on how many of the public are sitting back making the kind of excuses we are seeing here.

[Enthusiast]

175. Maybe we should! nt

[iceman66]

84. You're forgetting that the bailout took place under the last administration.

It is in no way Obama's fault that it was not accompanied by strict regulation, as it should have been.

As for the fraud, the system was structured in such a way so that they could commit these acts and still stay within the letter of the law, or at least be assured of a blind eye from regulators. Again, this was largely the fault of the Bush administration but Clinton deserves some blame as well.

Likewise the bailout was specifically designed to essentially allow the banksters to 'take the money and run' with no accountablity or oversight, because Bush and Paulson were able to spook a mostly Democratic majority into going along with it by raising the specter of total economic collapse. Someday this will be regarded as the greatest bank heist in history.

By the time the true situation was made clear to Obama, between the election and the inauguration, there was little he could do. The horse had already left the barn.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, Obama HAS been pushing for more financial regulation for months, and has received, at best, a lukewarm response from Congress.

It certainly doesn't help when Scott Brown can come right out and say that he is going to protect the banks and then still manage to get elected on a tide of 'populist' anger thanks to the criminally corrupt news media.

[AllentownJake]

91. Only one thing I talked about

Occurred prior to 1/20/2009.

TARP is small potatoes compared to the amount of money involved in what I cited.

I'd give you exact figures, but they are sketchy since disclosure hasn't been that great either.

[iceman66]

98. The groundwork for everything you talked about

was laid well prior to 1/20/09. Certainly the momentum was in place.

I ask you again, what exactly would you have President Obama do?

Please remember that he has to deal with a Congress where not only does the opposition party act 100% in lockstep with the interests of the elite, but a sizeable faction in his own party as well; and also a media that is completely corrupt and constantly looking for the slightest excuse to tear him down.

What can Obama do that he hasn't done already?

[AllentownJake]

102. Excuse me?

He did not have to reappoint Bernake, he did not have to do tax code rule changes, he did not have to give Geithner the authorization to give US Treasury money to Freddie to purchase toxic waste from banksters.

He says he wants financial reform, well he's sitting on a whole lot of leverage to get it. I wonder how much they would protest with the knowledge the President won't blink in their game of chicken.

[iceman66]

111. The problem is that the banksters have more leverage than Obama

They've proven they can crash the economy whenever they want to, and are basically holding our entire financial system hostage.

Maybe Obama would show more courage to confront these interests if he had a Congress that would back him up?

The banksters are simply not afraid of Obama because they know they have Congress in their pocket.

[AllentownJake]

112. They aren't afraid because they know he will cave

everytime they threaten to blow themselves up. There is a word for people that make demands or they will blow up and hurt innocent people he might want to look at using existing Bush era laws in dealing with that.

[iceman66]

115. I agree with your characterization,

but Obama just cannot do this alone.

The 'Democratic' Congress can't even manage to pass a seriously watered-down health care bill that benefits the insurance industry almost as much as the people it is supposed to help - and you expect them to take on the banks?

The BEST Obama can do under these circumstances is damage control, and he is doing a pretty good job of that.

I don't like the situation any more than you, but these are the facts/

[AllentownJake]

119. Well when Ben Nelson was acting up

he directed all the progressive groups not to attack him and that he got this.

Guess what, he didn't have this.

[iceman66]

122. Of course he did, because that would have been counterproductive.

Ben Nelson is not exactly vulnerable to attacks from the left. Nebraska just does not elect liberals to statewide office!

All Obama is guilty of here is trying to get SOMETHING done with a Congress that does not really support him.

The focus of your anger should really be Congress - if Obama had a true progressive majority, he'd be doing great things.

[AllentownJake]

123. I don't really buy that

When I look at what he does, which requires no actions from congress.

[iceman66]

170. Do you really think

that if Congress passed, say, a true universal health care bill that Obama would veto it?

Obama has a very pragmatic approach to governance, maybe too much so for some people.

[AllentownJake]

171. I honestly don't know at this point

Watching the HCR debate, I don't trust him anymore, and I was one of his strongest supporters in the primary.

[bertman]

230. Iceman66, you say "I agree with your characterization, but Obama just cannot do this alone."

He would not be doing it alone if he and his advisors had not jettisoned their election machine as soon as he was elected. There was a grassroots organization in top running order that was basically "put down", to put it bluntly, by making it a part of the DNC.

Those folks who had busted their asses, emptied their wallets, educated and excited friends, coworkers, and family members, were left standing on the sidelines gawking at the Change in the man they elected to facilitate Change. The Obama Presidency could have hit the field running with these folks organized to push recalcitrant Dems and threaten obstructionist Republicans with challengers, yet they were told "we just need you to read your emails and call a rep or senator every now and then."

The ALONE part of this is of President Obama's team's own doing. Whether it was deliberate insider sabotage to break the momentum for Change before it actually did something, I don't know. It could have been a number of things, but the fact is, it left the President without his activist base and that gave him no leverage against the Max Baucuses and Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans of the Democratic Party.

[iceman66]

258. It was indeed a mistake for them to do that,

and I think they realize that now. It was also a big mistake to abandon Howard Dean and the 50 state strategy. If they hadn't done that, we may have won some of the recent off-year elections.

Would it have made the difference on issues like heath care reform? I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't have hurt.

[bertman]

260. Absolutely it would have made the difference of healthcare reform. Putting a strong advocate

for healthcare reform in charge of it with marching orders to get it done, instead of giving the power to Baucus (Mr. Insurance himself) would have been a game changer in and of itself. That combined with MILLIONS of supporters rallying and bringing millions of others out to demonstrate FOR healthcare reform as a counterweight would have crushed the faux populist teabaggers before they even submerged themselves in the teacup.

But that's all "what if". And here we are.

[Marr]

262. Why do you think they "realize it was a mistake"?

You seem to give these people a hell of a lot of credit. It's one benefit of the doubt after another, and eventually it just seems a hell of a lot less likely than the apparent truth.

Obama and his team do not *want* liberal legislation. They pulled the plug on their powerhouse grassroots movement because they did not want it to have any actual influence past the election. It was not a "mistake".

[gulfcoastliberal]

239. He could listen to Volcker and demand congress reinstate Glass-Steagal. Why is he refusing to do so

I'd say it has very much to do with the actions outlined in the superb OP.

[girl gone mad]

151. Obama is responsible for the second half of TARP.

Not to mention that he lobbied congress to pass the first part as it was.

Then there are the trillions in backstops that have taken place since Obama took office. And it's widely known that the White House had closed door meetings with Frank in an effort to weaken the financial regulation.

[Raschel]

161. Deregulation and merging of commercial, investment banks & insurers was introduced by Phil Gramm

and passed by majority Republicans. I wish more people would look up Phil Gramm (now with UBS) and deregulation. He introduced the Gramm/Leach/Bliley Act which is the reason for the mess we're in today.

Dimwitted teaparty/freepers still blame the mess on Obama though.

[AllentownJake]

166. It will happen again

If it isn't put back, or something similar.

[humbled_opinion]

183. I am not blaming Obama for how we got there but...

I don't follow some of your logic.

1. Obama did go back to DC during the campaign and he voted Yes on the TARP funds.
2. Obama is pushing financial regulation to a fully controlled Democratic Congress if it makes sense and is popular then why wouldn't they adopt the measures?
3. MHO:
Hammering the banks with massive regulation and possible fines will ultimately lead to the banks passing costs incurred back to the customers, us, that is a severe slap in the face after we the tax payers had to bail them out in the first place and are facing a potential tax increase because the deficits are so high due to this issue the banks will blame the Government the Government will blame the banks and the Middle class will pay for it on both ends.
4. You really believe the media (not faux news) would do anything to help out the Repukes? LOL delusional.

[AllentownJake]

188. #3

You don't massively regulate, you break things up so their is competition and enforce anti-trust.

If there are 400 companies issuing credit cards instead of 3, well people have a little more leverage in who they do business with.

[Smashcut]

218. And Geithner applauded Hank Paulson et al for doing it

Pretty basically called him an American hero.

[pundaint]

246. Scott Brown got elected because Obama baited and switched us, period.

Attributing it to any other reason dilutes the warning message the Massachusetts voters sent to the Democratic Party.

[Kahuna]

27. You're talking to the wrong person. nt

[paulk]

106. YOU have not rebutted a single one of his arguments

:eyes:

[Name removed]

168. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donnachaidh]

34. *we're* not -- this Administration is doing FINE by itself.

Nice republican tactic of virtually calling ANY dissent as traitorous.

[laughingliberal]

73. Yes, "why do you hate America?"

:sarcasm:

[laughingliberal]

69. This is the same kind of message we see every time the President endorses GOP ideas

People on the left are outraged at the shift to the right. A chorus shows up to explain why what he said wasn't what he meant and how the left is a bunch of whiners. But, in every case I remember, it turned out the GOP idea that was floated was exactly what we got in the end.

[nashville_brook]

157. How about we don't do the GOP's POLICY work for them!

I'm just sayin'.

[Smashcut]

217. Really? He didn't say those CEOs were "savvy businessmen" hence IMPLYING they deserved the bonuses?

In the context of that statement, together with his additional statement that he doesn't begrudge anyone wealth, the implication was clear.

I am so tired of the "helpful interpretations" from apologists when we can all use our own COMMON SENSE to arrive at the likeliest meaning of his words and actions.

[Greyhound]

253. "Ignore what they say, watch what they do."

Here again, we have an excellent example of why we had to replace political involvement with team mentality cheerleading.

What Obama said is irrelevant beside what he's done.

[BzaDem]

26. You seem to be looking for a President that would never authorize a bank bailout.

You will never find such a President (at least on the Democratic side). While there are plenty of people on the left who demagogue the TARP bailout of 2008, any person not on the far-right who could be elected President would do more or less what Paulson and Bernanke authorized in 2008. You put "save the world" in quotes, as if the world would not have collapsed into a depression had AIG/Morgan/BOA/Citi/Money Market Funds/etc. all been allowed to simultaneously fail. This is the difference between demagogues posting on a message board and people responsible enough to be elected.

As for prosecutions, what statute and specific violation of criminal law do you propose people be charged with? I'm really curious. Statute and line numbers would be very useful here. Again, it is really easy to demagogue this (and throw around words like "fraud", which obviously apply from a more macro perspective but much less so from a criminal law perspective). It is somewhat more complicated to actually make a case of a criminal law violation. After all, the reason we need financial reform is because much of what these banks did was unambiguously legal. If it was illegal in the first place, we wouldn't need to pass another law to make it illegal. Even the Attorney General of New York is only filing a civil suit against Bank of America, not a criminal charge.

It's funny that you are complaining about Barney Frank's finance bill. Because Barney Frank's bill (as watered down as you say it is) doesn't have a chance in hell of actually becoming law (under this Congress or certainly the next one). Obama actually wants to enact financial reform. He doesn't want to just talk about it.

Yes, what Obama said was stupid and certainly bad politics (even if he didn't specifically say he was fine with the bonuses). But your "evidence" that Obama loves to privatize gains and socialize losses is steeped in the fantasy world where the bailouts of 2008 somehow weren't needed, where there are easy criminal cases to be made against various executives, and where Obama could pass stronger financial reform if only he snapped his fingers more.

[AllentownJake]

28. No new regulation, restarting the failed system, and people profited from it

Yep, I'm sure we aren't going to have a re-run of 2008 sooner rather than later. Here is the thing, it will come faster and bigger than before, because there were no consequences for the people who did it, and they made money off it.

It is illegal for a bank to send mortgage applications to Freddie and Fannie that are fraudulent, let us just start with that one.

[BzaDem]

31. We probably will have a re-run, but it has little to do with the lack of consequences.

What do you imagine would have happened to the CEOs had there been no bailouts? Yes, they would be out of a job. But they would have kept their millions they received in wages and bonuses in years past. Most (if not all) had more than enough in liquid assets to live like kings for the rest of their lives. The real consequences would be on people who didn't have such assets (almost everyone else) to survive an economic climate worse than the 30s.

On top of that, in the current regulatory climate, even the most well-intentioned CEO is essentially forced to take insane risks with the knowledge of an implicit backing of the US government. What would happened if a well-intentioned CEO decided not to take such risks? People would pull their money out of that CEO's bank, since this hypothetical conservative bank would be generating rates of return well below that of their competitors. At that point, either the CEO would have to make huge changes (in the direction of higher risk) or they would be fired by their board. The problem is systemic, and cannot be solved by individual people even if they are afraid of "consequences" (which in terms of lowering their standard of living in any way, don't exist).

The reason we will probably have a re-run is that regulatory reform might either fail in the Senate or be watered down to nothing. We still might get a bill out of the Senate that helps reduce the too-big-to-fail problem (though it is probable that such a bill will be awful from a consumer protection standpoint). But the chances aren't that high for this. However, make no mistake: the only thing that would have any chance of preventing a re-run is an adequate financial reform bill passing the Senate.

And for your hypothetical criminal charge, you would have to flesh out your definition of "fraudulent" in this context. Banks are usually pretty savvy at exploiting every loophole possible to avoid violating the law, which is why they usually aren't charged with crimes.

[AllentownJake]

32. FDR had an equation

Want a bailout, accept regulation. They accepted rules if it meant saving themselves.

We are at about 20% unemployment/underemployment and wages have declined significantly, I guess we could have been at 30% unemployment. It will take us 8 years to dig ourselves out of this hole with perfectly straight GDP growth and not another crisis in that 8 years, and given the lack of reform, another crisis is a matter of time which will blow out that other 10%.

They weren't that "savvy". There has been evidence on plenty of sites that shows, how not savvy they were. They just figured they could get away with it. They appear to be right.

Pay me now or pay me later with a higher cost, you pick your poison.

[Kahuna]

40. Unfortunately, FDR wasn't the president when the bailout was enacted. Bush was.

Did you expect him to enact stringent regulation as a condition of saving our economy? Also, there really wasn't time for that. The financial structure was in crisis. Something had to be done at once.

[AllentownJake]

41. TARP was a minor portion of the bailout

The 7 things I listed, have nothing to do with TARP. Only one predates January 21, 2009.

[Raineyb]

125. The problem isn't the bail out per se. It was the lack of conditions at a time

when it would have been optimal to do so.

Giving the banks money with a bare minimum of condition and no changes in regulations isn't going to fix the problem that caused the banks to need the bailout in the first place. And once the banks are making money again as they re-inflate the bubble they aren't going to accept any new regulations and will use the money they make thanks to the bailout to lobby against any regulations on the bank which is exactly what is happening. This was easily foreseen as it's the habit of these institutions to do things like this. Predicting this from past behavior doesn't really take a lot of brain power or even study of logic yet when people were making their objections to the bailout this was ignored. Fast forward 15 months and here we are.

Bernanke was in charge of the Fed when the shit hit the fan. Why the hell is he being reappointed? Are we supposed to take anyone seriously that they want to do something about the financial system when given a chance to get rid of the clown who was in charge when it all went to hell you fight to put him BACK in the same position?

Are we supposed to take seriously the few reforms that have been enacted when you give the banks months to screw over their customers before the new rules take effect?

The fraud was the sub-prime loans to begin with (sub-prime loans being written in such a way that they KNOW that they will never be paid off in the first place) And what are we doing to make sure that this doesn't happen again? We still have politicians who are under the impression that the federal regulations should be the ceiling rather than the floor with states making more stringent rules as they see fit.

And once again we see a party that will make some populist noises when they want to be elected then once again do the bidding of their corporate masters when it's time to actually govern and for some reason people seem to think that it's impolitic or worse, disloyal, to point out the obvious about the party.

[AllentownJake]

143. You have a drug addiction or gambling problem

and you spend all your money. If someone gives you more money without getting you to seek help, the action is called enabling.

[Raineyb]

162. Exactly!

And both parties are guilty of it. If I call it out when Republicans do it I'll damn well call it out when Republicans do it.

[Fire1]

190. You mean, "when Democrats do it." I agree. n/t

[Raineyb]

255. Oops! I did mean Democrats. n/t

[WVRICK13]

30. I Believe Him Too

We are indeed living in pathetic times when you can get the Democratic voters excited over electing a President who is right of center and have us think it is a victory. When we even move toward the center we are called liberals like it is a dirty word. Why is welfare fine for the wealthy but becomes socialism when you help the poor? The bank bailout has become yacht and Lear Jet assistance while a huge number of Americans stave, freeze and lose hope for a decent future. Even more perplexing is the percentage of the population who are suffering that support the Republicans. Obama is not the left of center savior we hoped but can you imagine what McCain and Palin would have done?

[Fumesucker]

35. K&R

[iceman66]

36. Obama HAS to play along to some extent because,

frankly, the banksters are a lot more powerful than he is and they have our economy by the balls.

Don't think for a minute that he likes this.

That said, the "don't begrudge" thing was completely taken out of context and blown out of proportion by a hostile media, which itself is much more firmly aligned with the banksters than Obama could ever be.

Honestly, what would you have him do?

[Kahuna]

38. DING DING DING DING! How many times can it be said? Those bankers

are in control of the wealth of our nation. Therefore they ARE more powerful than the President AND congress.

[AllentownJake]

43. Yet the require congressional and Presidential Action

to keep themselves funded.

Odd at how "powerful" they are.

[Kahuna]

48. As someone else said, they could have walked away with their millions.

Though the problem was caused by individuals it affected billions of people around the world. Nobody was going the fiddle while Rome was up in flames.

[AllentownJake]

50. Where were they going to go?

They collapsed the world financial markets. Where was their safe haven going to be?

If the doom that Paulson predicted was accurate, I'm assuming that digits on a computer screen weren't going to mean much, which bank were they going to go to to get their digits converted into actual paper or metal.

[iceman66]

87. Actually,

there are 'safe' areas for the elites already set up in remote parts of the Southern Hemisphere.

At US taxpayer expense!

[AllentownJake]

89. Well if they want to be farmers

They are welcome to try it out.

[iceman66]

93. You have no idea.

[AllentownJake]

95. They'd need a pretty big secuirty force

with an interest in keeping them alive against angry local populations, food, entertainment, and water.

They can run to Argentina, they just better have the resources to be able to keep the Argentinians out of their compounds.

[iceman66]

99. They have all that and more.

These facilities are already up and running.

And once again, WE paid for it!

[iceman66]

86. Well, they have the power to get Congress to do their bidding,

which is more than we seem to have as voters.

[Lorien]

128. He appears to like it just fine. He's obviously not just controlled by them,

he identifies with them. His statements and actions make that pretty clear. The banksters don't have us "by the balls" unless America allows it.

[asdjrocky]

39. Absolutely,

These are his BFFs and anyone here who denies it is full of it.

[Kahuna]

44. Yours is a very naive statement. In the real world things are not as black or

white as you would like them to be.

edit the title to include "not"

[AllentownJake]

46. Saying they are his BFFs is simplifying things

Saying the administration is not interested in tackling this problem is another matter.

That being said, I expect a trade war with China to develop in the next year. It is about the only place the President can go to create employment. Congress is going to destroy the good parts of the job bill and he can't regulate at home.

No one on the right is going to get pissy at picking a fight with the Chinese and they stopped buying Treasuries in a large scale. They've also started to dump Municipal and State debt which is going to kill California. They aren't helping him, so he's going to pick a fight.

Taiwan weapons sales and another Dali Lama visit are evidence of that.

[iceman66]

88. A trade war with China would not be a bad thing.

Actually it would be a very good thing.

We should never have become a debtor to China in the first place, and something certainly has to be done to restart manufacturing in this country.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

45. "I can continue if you really wish me to"

Yes, we really wish you to. K&R for another great post. :thumbsup:

[AllentownJake]

90. Don't worry

I will

[DisgustedInMN]

49. Correct. President Obama has...

.. in many ways, become exactly what Candidate Obama railed against. He stills tries to pretend to be "populist," but his real corporatist agenda becomes more evident with each passing day. As much as he kisses Wall Street's ass, what he doesn't get, is that just like the Repukes in Congress, the banksters and corporate scumbags, will STILL stab him in the back every chance they get.

[depakid]

51. I actually saw the headline in a local paper in rural western New South Wales

where matters like this don't tend to get a lot of coverage. While it didn't surprise me (for the reasons you outlined) -the fact that it merited attention on even there just goes to show how far and wide that framing like this ends up getting spread- as well as the perceived "shock value" the editors of the paper thought it would have when they saw it on the wire.

If it's out there, getting people talking and making associations, one can only imagine the impact in America.

Makes one wonder just how tone deaf and cut off from political reality the administration has become over the past year.

It's gone from health insurers aren't "bad people" to "I don't want to punish the banks" to "I don't begrudge them huge unearned bonuses" because "they're like baseball players."

:crazy:

[AllentownJake]

52. He was doing an interview for Bloomberg

Which is a pro big business, pro wall street news organization. The way that politics works in 2010 is you say different things to different people. You try to micro-target your message to different communities.

He doesn't need Wall Street's vote, he needs their money for elections in the fall.

The President didn't make a gaffe, he was trying to sell himself to Wall Street, and it got picked up by other news services.

I detailed actions of the administration, that is where my focus lies.

Wall Street will throw a temper tantrum over light reform. Might as well go for the real deal because the temper tantrum is going to be the same regardless. They aren't reasonable in this regard.

Wall Street will fund both the democrats and the Republicans and claim they helped the victor in whoever wins. It is how they managed to win on everything since Clinton got re-elected in 1996.

[depakid]

54. I'm with Simon Johnson: looking to Wall Street for funding progressive Democrats is futile

even counterproductive to fundraising and volunteering from the base which is vital to electing Democrats nationally and down ticket on the state and local levels.

Been without internet for a week, so I'm still digesting this- but wow. I mean WOW.

Johnson writes:

Does the president truly not understand that Dimon and Blankfein run banks that are regarded by policymakers and hence by credit markets as “too big to fail”?

This is the antithesis of a free-market system. Not only were their banks saved by government action in 2008-09 but the overly generous nature of this bailout (details here) means that the playing field is now massively tilted in favor of these banks.

...Not only that, but the incentives for the people running these megabanks is now to take on reckless amounts of risk. They get the upside (for example, in these compensation packages) and – when the downside materializes – this is belongs to taxpayers and everyone who loses a job. (See my testimony to the Senate Budget Committee yesterday; there was no disagreement among the witnesses or even across the aisle between Senators on this point.)

Being nice to the biggest banks will not save the midterm elections for the Democrats. The banks’ campaign contributions will flow increasingly to the Republicans and against any Democrats (and there are precious few) who have fought for real reform.

The president’s only political chance is to take on the too big to fail banks directly and clearly. He needs to explain where they came from (answer: the Reagan Revolution, gone wrong), how the problem became much worse during the last administration, and how – in credible detail – he will end their reign.

http://baselinescenario.com/2010/02/10/president-obama-on-ceo-compensation-at-too-big-to-fail-banks/

After the way the administration has behaved both toward the health insurers- and now the banksters, no one can reasonably expect them to follow though with that strategy- and even if they did, they've lost a TON of credibility.

At this point, I'm looking beyond 2010- a major thumping is pretty solidly in cards. We may well be looking at a one term president here, provided that that Republicans put forward an ostensibly competent and ostensibly moderate nominee.

[AllentownJake]

56. You will have independents voting for Republicans

and democrats staying home if there is not a major course correction by the end of March. Once March is over, the narrative for the fall is pretty much set.

[Romulox]

55. I think you're right Jake, but are Obama, Axelrod ignorant of youtube, DU, FR, Huff, Drudge et al?

Take the "I never campaigned on the Public Option" gaffe--it's as if the President doesn't appreciate the durability of internet video, and the ease of creating side by side clips of contradictory statements.

The Obama/Axelrod team may be the first team to effectively use the internet, but I'm starting to suspect they don't fully understand it.

[AllentownJake]

57. They are playing 21st century games

believing in a 20th century media.

The story hit the blogs first, and than was picked up by the papers and the cable media.

The President thought he was doing an interview to Bloomberg and talked in a very Bloomberg fashion to sell himself to people, for the most part, don't give a shit who is in charge as long as they are getting money.

The White House is acting surprised when the non-bloomberg community is reacting up in arms.

[Romulox]

60. Ever hear Chris Matthews rail against "the bloggers!!1!!!!"?

As if the internet will go away if Mr. Potato Head simply rants loudly and frequently enough? It makes Matthews look ridiculous and out of touch.

It's hard to believe that the President (not to mention the people around him) are that old, out of touch... It's easier for me to believe this Bloomberg thing (like NAFTAgate and POgate, etc. before it) is some grand feint in the larger game of three dimensional chess.

Still, I struggle for any explanation other than the idea that these guys just don't get it. I'm not talking about values--I'm talking about basic politics and perception management!

[AllentownJake]

64. The communications department hasn't moved on from 2008

You can get away with things during a campaign you can't get away with while your governing. They don't seem to get that yet.

As for Axelrod, he plays second fiddle to the Chief of Staff, who has been a disaster in every political operation he has run post 1998.

[gcomeau]

194. HE. DIDN'T. SAY. IT.

So you might want to stop wondering how the administration can be so "tone deaf" and start wondering how a blatant fabrication of what the president actually said is managing to get this much credible play on DU.

[depakid]

215. Methinks you would benefit greatly (as would many Dems) from reading Lakoff, Drew Westen and others

who research and apply the science behind political communication and messaging.

Suffice it to say, this was eminently foreseeable and reinforces a narrative that's been developing though previous public statements and substantive policy actions.

[Smashcut]

220. HIS. STATEMENTS. IMPLY. IT.

[MadHound]

53. But hey, he's willing to raise taxes on you and I

And cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, all in order to keep feeding his corporate masters
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7697739>

Why, again, should we vote this man into office again?

[HughBeaumont]

58. Because there are no more Ross Perots to keep them focused on the middle/working/poor.

It's either Clinton Redux or (insert typical batshit insane right wing nutjob here). Thanks for the big MENU, UHmericUH.

Wouldn't want to be like those sissy Yer-Uh-Peons or Canadians and have multiple parties from which to choose, would we? Not to mention when they pay taxes, it actually goes to help people and prolong their lives. Our taxes . . . go to rich people . .. and yeah, more rich people, who proceed to hoard it or commit genocide in sovereign nations with it.

[MadHound]

63. So the question becomes what do we do about it

Keep voting for the same ol' same ol', just gussied up in a new advertising campaign? Or do we actually go out and vote for a real change? I suggest the latter. It's a tough row to hoe, it goes against the conventional wisdom, but it might, just might hold the salvation for our government and our country.

Either that or we simply continue to let things slide, keep going down that road we're going, and here in about ten, twenty years watch as the whole thing blows up into a revolution or civil war.

[AllentownJake]

65. Where there is a vacuum

there will always be something that comes into fill it, eventually.

[HughBeaumont]

74. I'm thinking we're heading toward an official Plutonomy.

And because the American population fears arrest, conviction and prison (knowing it would effectively kill their employability forever) . . . I just don't think anything is going to be done to stop it. A Kucinich/Sanders type, should they survive the media marginalization and mudslinging and miraculously get elected President, would be shot within a year by a corporate-paid assassin. Not that they'd ever be elected because we're too divided and uninvolved. That other party blames all of the wrong people for their problems. We blame the right ones, but we have no voice.

Even Democrats we elect vote for free trade, private insurance, corporate-favoring legislation and lately, to actually extend the Bewsh tax cuts for the rich (snuck into the jobs bill by Baucus). If Harry Reid didn't kill that jobs bill, we might actually have seen it happen.

We absolutely HAVE to make sure these tax cuts to expire. We NEED at least ONE promise, if no others, to be kept. This debt cannot survive another three years with billions upon billions left on the table.

[iceman66]

92. Obama originally wanted to repeal the Bush tax cuts

as one of his first official acts in office. That wasn't just a promise; he really intended to do it.

Then the financial 'crisis' hit and he was 'convinced' to just let them expire 'for the good of the economy'.

Now there will be tremendous pressure from the REAL powers-that-be to make them permanent.

[AllentownJake]

97. Why would he repeal something that expires before the end of his first year

seems like a needless political battle

[iceman66]

103. Most of them don't expire until 2011,

and it would not only have been a grand symbolic gesture, but it would have allowed him to push for more comprehensive health care reform without increasing the deficit.

The 'crisis' of late 2008 was a game changer in many, many ways.

[AllentownJake]

107. It always will be

and you can play it like FDR or you can play it like Hoover, neither guy was a better or worse person...one just had a little more Moxy.

[iceman66]

114. FDR was unique among American presidents.

We could spend our entire lives waiting for another FDR!

Unlike Hoover, who was a willing tool of the elite, Obama's heart is in the right place. He is just dealing with a very, very difficult set of circumstances.

He is CERTAINLY better than the only viable alternative that our electoral system affords - which would be a rar-right Republican.

[HughBeaumont]

105. If they're made permanent, that's what will send a great deal of us, including me, into the streets.

This is a huge issue with me since there's overwhelming evidence that tax cuts mean little to nothing as far as job creation goes. That was the reason Bewsh said he enacted them, and like all things Bewsh said, it turned out to be a WHOPPER of a lie.

Honestly, I think they're going to expire since there's no legislation needed for such an action and there's really nothing the powers that be or the both-party corporatists can do about it except bitch and threaten. This debt and deficit needed to be handled yesterday, and the expiration of these damaging cuts will make some headway in that area. Ending the useless occupations (at least one of them) will help also.

[iceman66]

116. Good.

Maybe if more people besides the teabaggers took to the streets, something would get done.

Obama is at least ending the war in Iraq, and has thus far resisted the pressure to attack Iran. At least give him credit for that!

[humbled_opinion]

191. Yea, but..

He sent 30k troops to a failed quagmire in Afghanistan that is unwinnable. No sense in that at all, even Bush wasn't stupid enough to surge in Afghanistan, but Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize you would think that would have jolted him a bit toward erring on the side of peace.

He really lost me when he did this move. How many innocent civilians will die because of this decision? That is blood on his hands, how can this man whom I once respected as a humanist sleep peacefully at night?

I don't trust his judgement anymore, i.e., Joe Biden recently said that Iraq is becoming one of the greatest successes of this administration... WHAT? So the admin now is in the process of vindicating BUSH? I just don't understand this.

You said he has resisted pressure to attack Iran well Bush resisted that pressure too but the only reason he did was because their was a very vocal very well established anti-war movement rallying in the grassroots of America, what happened to it? So no I think if we get hit again Obama will retaliate with force I see no change to the Bush Doctrine..... Seems like he could have dedicated a few words at the SOTU toward setting up the Obama Doctrine a doctrine of Peace and unity but he didn't.

So you can keep right on looking at Obama thru those Pollyanna glasses you wear but in my view he needs a severe makeover.

[AllentownJake]

198. That and attacking Iran is crazy

You are occupying two hostile countries to the east and west who are engaging in guerrilla warfare, they have a large army that hasn't been bombed 3-4 times a year for crossing the no fly zone and their army is bigger than yours in the region and it is their home turf. Oh and if they strap bombs to their trucks and drive it into your forces, they think they are going to heaven to fuck 70 women. Without a draft and about 2,000,000 ground troops it would make about as much sense as invading Russia in winter.

[bertman]

236. I beg to differ on the attacking Iran point. There is ATTACKING IRAN and there is

Invading Iran. Attacking Iran does not require boots on the ground if you're willing to send in lots of aerial firepower. An attack on Iran would be to shut down its infrastructure, as you well know from other discussions we have had.

While I think it would be disastrous in many ways, if this administration felt for some reason that it had to be done, it would be an air and missile assault of proportions never seen since the Allied bombings of WWII.

But, we digress from the original point of your OP, with which I agree very strongly.

[AllentownJake]

243. Drop a bomb on Tehran and those Iranian troops are in Iraq

handing out guns, grenades, and I.E.Ds to every single Shiite in the country on a pretty large basis.

You don't have the troops to watch the border.

[bertman]

250. First, you take out the military units that can maneuver to the border, or decimate them

to the point that they can be suppressed by followup air power. Then you drop cluster mines by the millions on every major route (we are not signatories to the non-use of mines). Every early target would be strategic military neutralization. Once that strategic goal is fulfilled, you work on the infrastructure. Anything that resembles resistance in Iraq gets dealt with in shock-and-awe fashion while you reinforce your defenses around the most defensible oil fields.

It would be a shitstorm for sure, but if you're a neo-con there are lots of UP sides: you finally give the Navy and Air Force a chance to "do their thing". After all, they've been "support" since Iraqi Freedom began, so they will be delighted to get in on the real action. The mercs get to become real soldiers without their "leash" on, so they would make Atilla and Genghis Kkan look like boy scouts. The military-INDUSTRIAL-complex gets its biggest economic boost since '03. The anti-war movement in the U.S. becomes a force to be reckoned with, justifying the domestic control tactics that the fascists have been drooling over for decades--and planning for. President Obama gets to use his Imperial Executive powers to the hilt whether he wants to or not.

The devil is in the details, of course, but it's within the realm of possibility. Especially, if Khomeini were to do something really stupid, or some group were to do some serious terrorist attack on Israel that could be traced back to Iran.

[bertman]

233. Excellent points, Hugh. I'd give you a candy heart for that if I hadn't run out.

Referring to post #58 way back yonder.

[ipaint]

59. There are people who know how to clean this mess up.

They are being ignored. One example- William K Black

"With most of America's biggest banks insolvent, you have, in essence, a multitrillion dollar cover-up by publicly traded entities, which amounts to felony securities fraud on a massive scale.

These firms will ultimately have to be forced into receivership, the management and boards stripped of office, title, and compensation. First there needs to be a clearing of the air -- a Pecora-style fact-finding mission conducted without fear or favor. Then, we need to gear up to pursue criminal cases. Two years after the market collapsed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has one-fourth of the resources that the agency used during the savings-and-loan crisis. And the current crisis is 10 times as large.

There need to be major task forces set up, like there were in the thrift crisis. Right now, things don't look good. We are using taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out European banks like Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, and UBS -- and even our own Goldman Sachs. To me, the single most obscene act of this scandal has been providing billions in taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out UBS in Switzerland, while we were simultaneously prosecuting the bank for tax fraud. The second most obscene: Goldman receiving almost $13 billion in AIG counterparty payments after advising Geithner, president of the New York Fed, and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former Goldman Sachs honcho, on the AIG government takeover -- and also receiving government bailout loans.

What, then, is staying the federal government's hand? Have the banks become too difficult or complex to regulate?

The government is reluctant to admit the depth of the problem, because to do so would force it to put some of America's biggest financial institutions into receivership. The people running these banks are some of the most well-connected in Washington, with easy access to legislators. Prompt corrective action is what is needed, and mandated in the law. And that is precisely what isn't happening.

The savings-and-loan crisis showed that, too often, the regulators became too close to the industry, and run interference for friends by hiding the problems."

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123940701204709985.html#articleTabs_panel_article%3D2

The Obama administration is now complicit in this cover-up by obstructing the truth and the rule of law. This part of Obama's quote about bonuses stuck out for me, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,”. They are no businessmen they crooks and criminals that need to be investigated, charged, tried and jailed. If the president can't see that we are in for much more economic pain and suffering.

[AllentownJake]

61. Generally speaking

After a big bank heist, a bank robber will rob another bank. Seeing that these guys decided not to retire from the industry, they are planning another heist.

[ipaint]

66. Exactly. This time our guy is assisting them. nt

[dgibby]

80. This should be a stand alone op.

Thanks for posting.

[bvar22]

108. Exactly.

Please post this as an OP.

[vegiegals]

146. thanks for the post. very informative.

[snagglepuss]

226. Good info. Like others have stated, this should be a separate thread. nt

[HughMoran]

70. Don't worry Jake, we would expect nothing less than the most negative interpretation from you

...it's what you do best. ;)

[AllentownJake]

75. Last time I checked

People who think the world is great and going in the right direction, generally don't make that much of a crater.

I still want change, even if the leaders and the guy who ran around shouting it in 2008 don't seem to want it as much as they said they did

[laughingliberal]

76. +1

Last time I checked your record has been one of pretty much hitting the nail on the head. Why do we still even bother to argue with those who told us how the appearance that he was selling HCR out to the corporations was really 3 dimensional chess?

[asdjrocky]

85. You almost always attack on a purely personal basis.

I've noticed that. Nothing about the facts laid out in the op, just an insult.

Funny, don't you know you debate the issue not the person. You need to take a debating class.

[QC]

113. All he's done since arriving in 2005 is bully and attack. Why stop now? n/t

[Bluebear]

264. who is ignored?

[dionysus]

163. !

:rofl:

[ChiciB1]

169. Sorry, But Jake Is Spot On... Those Who Are Still Hanging On Everything

"Hope & Change" are seeing their numbers dwindling it seems. Ratigan just talked about a poll that was done and 81% of the people want EVERY MEMBER of Congress kicked out. I would bet that the WH's record is just about the same!

Obama is well liked as a person, but his policies have begun to stink really, really bad! And it's just waaaaaaaaaay toooooooo SAD!

And I REALLY, REALLY mean that! This country is going down in flames and we just can't get it together or get THEM to listen to "WE THE PEOPLE!"

And NO, I don't have a link, or numbers or anything else to PROVE what I'm saying, but I can SEE what people are writing here and at other blogs!! Just wanted to make that comment BEFORE someone screams "linky!"

[pampango]

78. If we could restore progressive taxation, they could pay them all they wanted because we would get

most of it in taxes. Every big bonus would help pay for government or reduce the debt. And since that's the case they probably wouldn't pay such high bonuses so that CEO's would have to live a slightly more modest lifestyle. :)

[Oilwellian]

79. I totally agree Allentown Jake

I thought banking reform would be one of the first things Obama would tackle when he took office. Instead, we saw him appoint to his economic team the very men who helped lead the greatest heist in the world's history. There are many on this thread who have said Obama needs to wake up and realize the disaster in store for democrats in the Fall elections. My question is, what makes one think he doesn't already see that? He is a very bright man, afterall.

K&R

[dgibby]

81. Another good post.

Thanks, Jake. I tried to rec, but for some reason, I'm being blocked from hitting the rec button, so here's the best I can do:

K&R!

[Tashca]

82. I did it for you

The rec worked for me.....so I did it for you.

I rarely rec. or unrec. anything....consider it a freebie. Besides it's an excellent OP.

[dgibby]

96. Thanks so much!

It was blocking like it does sometimes when I've forgotten I've already recced, but this time I knew I hadn't. Again, thanks!

[Better Believe It]

94. Yes it is. I recommended without any problem.

[ProSense]

100. The President made perfect sense

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They're very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

more

[AllentownJake]

104. He always makes perfect sense

and is always right on every issue, except when he changes his mind than he is being pragmatic and what he said last week doesn't matter anymore and you shouldn't question the changing of the mind.

Oh and the Chocolate ration increased from 20 grams to 15 grams this week.

[ProSense]

109. Here you are criticizing flexibility and thinking.

"He always makes perfect sense and is always right on every issue, except when he changes his mind than he is being pragmatic"

Part of making sense is realizing that changing one's mind is not a bad thing, especially when it leads to better outcomes. Were you impressed with Bush's "stay the course" mentality?

[AllentownJake]

110. He seems to change his mind in one direction nt.

[QC]

118. Careful, brother. Keep talking that way and you might end up

in the re-education facility.

That would be doubleplusungood.

[freddie mertz]

117. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. And Everything is Fine and Dandy.

And if people on the internets would just stop discussing and critiquing things, the sun would shine every day.

Got it.

[ProSense]

131. Nonsense is nonsense, but

some people use it to justify their right to spin.

[freddie mertz]

135. You are spinning at least as much as anyone else here.

The spin you have been spreading is not doing the trick however.

Have you noticed?

Far as I can see, the ONLY people who continue to deny the obvious implications of what the president said are those who never, ever, under any circumstances, allow themselves (or anyone else) to make the slightest critique of the man or his policies.

In other words, you are wasting your time.

[ProSense]

136. "In other words, you are wasting your time." Yeah,

because the people stuck complaining about everything are changing the world.

[AllentownJake]

137. Oh the world is changing

Biggest wealth transfer in History!

[ProSense]

138. "Biggest wealth transfer in History!" You're attributing this to the constant complainers?

If not, how does this relate to my response?

[AllentownJake]

140. I'm attributing to those who think they are working for change

but really making the status quo, a heck of a lot worse.

[ProSense]

142. "but really making the status quo, a heck of a lot worse."

Keep believing that, and complaining still isn't changing the world.

[freddie mertz]

150. Denial isn't changing the world either.

Didn't the president tell us to "hold his feet to the fire" or some such?

I thought I hears something like that.

It is our duty and right as citizens to petition our leaders (as MoveOn has done regarding this very issue) and hold them accountable.

You sneer and label this very legitimate activity as "complaining."

Why?

[ProSense]

153. "Either"? Is that an admission?

Denial? Obama is the President. Complaining (or accusing other people of being in denial) isn't going to alter the reality that he is getting things done.

[AllentownJake]

156. Getting things done for who? nt.

[ProSense]

158. Getting things done whether you approve or not. Period. n/t

[AllentownJake]

159. Bankers Richer, Americans Poorer, You are happy!

[freddie mertz]

165. So we have no right to an opinion then?

Is the president a dictator now?

I thought he was an elected representative.

[freddie mertz]

164. Nice try. No it is not.

You seem to want no discussion at all.

In a discussion forum.

That's a bit odd.

[snagglepuss]

227. BINGO nt

[donheld]

240. Do you ever get dizzy?

[Jim Sagle]

101. The worst part is that we have NO leverage on "our" people in DC, including Obama.

His statement was no gaffe, it was intended to demoralize the base. Obama has no intention of winning a second term, as he intends to cash out big in private industry as soon as he can. One term is better than two because he gets paid 4 years sooner.

[riderinthestorm]

139. I'm beginning to believe this too Jim, that Obama does not intend to run for two terms.

And that's he's just being pragmatic as Allentown Jake indicates: why go through the hassle of the Presidency for four more years when he can just cash in that much earlier? He's now a member of the "club" and entitled to his fair share of the money grab.

I'll eat my words with lots of crow if I'm wrong but I'm beginning to feel the same way as you....

K & R for the excellent OP as well.

[Enthusiast]

181. I have actually considered

the same thing.

[amborin]

120. K and R totally agree

[spiritual_gunfighter]

121. I supported Obama wholeheartedly during the campaign

I even supported him in the IL Senate race in 2004. But now I feel like I wasn't paying close attention to the reality of what was going on with him. Like this for example

Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=200 ...

It was there the whole time.

[freddie mertz]

124. Goldman Sachs at number two!

And that's just the "legal" stuff.

We are so screwed.

[Skittles]

149. it sure was

and anyone who tried to point it out was roundly hooted down - on DU no less - very disconcerting

[Imagevision]

154. General Electric who own countless media...

[Jakes Progress]

126. K&R Facts You know they are upset

when they don't address the post but the poster.

As the usual gang parse the sentences and diagram the comma faults, they avoid the most telling part of the exchange. He said this in response to a question about the bonuses.

Suppose you asked me how I felt about Michael Vick and the first thing out of my mouth was "Well, no one disputes that dog owners are savvy handlers. And let's not forget that actors who own animals make a lot of money."

[Lorien]

132. +1. He's defending failure at best, criminal behavior at worst. nt

[bertman]

237. Perfect analogy using Michael Vick's dog handling "savvy", Jakes Progress!!! Perfect.

[lib_n_proud7650]

129. I'm struggling to see any of the "change" he promised

[inna]

134. Excellent post! One of the best of yours I've ever read!

:thumbsup:

[AllentownJake]

141. Thank you

:blush:

[snagglepuss]

228. +1

[vegiegals]

144. Thanks for keeping tabs on this issue AJake. Rec.

[AllentownJake]

145. Thank you

To people debating both sides of this issue for keeping this thread relatively clean.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

148. I prefer not to go back to that old term

I think some people don't think that these people can be fought. There are about 330,000,000 Americans and 10,000 of these guys. :shrug:

I really haven't seen anyone defending the administrations actions, just saying there was no choice.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

155. Yes there are about 40 unrecs

However, posting my name will get you 40 unrecs.

:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

160. i really liked Skinner's suggestion,

which was to identify policies/politics rather than people (so, pro-banker policies vs rahrah/etc). I think that's what we really mean, acutually, when we're speaking on a message board. There's no "people' in the room with us...we're in here with our ideas.

It's a big change in communication style, and it won't happen overnight...but you're way cool to point that out nicely.

[Drops_not_Dope]

167. Me too

[Nikki Stone1]

234. :)

:)

[impik]

176. Bullshit

He said he didn't begrudge rich or successful people. Not every rich or successful person is a criminal. But obviously you do begrudge people who are doing well in their lives. How sad.

Anyway, just hang in there. It's only 3 years to go, and life will be much better under the next president you and Krugman will elect.

[AllentownJake]

177. Items 1-7 will elect another President

before any screed I post on the internet.

Honestly, I'm irrelevant, I'm a whiner, I'm an idiot, etc

Now suddenly that policy, I've warned about for months is unpopular, I'm responsible for the bad policy. I think I have about 2000 views on this site for this OP?

Thank Goodness I'm so powerful...the same goes for Paul Krugman and the criticism people lob at him..if he was so powerful, Hillary Clinton would be President.

So there you go, I'm either an all powerful God whose postings on DU can determine the fate of the country or I'm an irrelevant whiner.

Make your pick.

[ProSense]

193. "Honestly, I'm irrelevant, I'm a whiner, I'm an idiot, etc " I wouldn't say that

but Kucinich threads always get dozens, hundreds sometimes, and he has no significant achievements.

[AllentownJake]

195. You gotta go trashing Dennis now

Ok, bash Howard Dean and you get the trifecta star for the day, I'll even buy you a heart Pro if you do.

:loveya:

[ProSense]

196. Trashing?

It's a fact. Howard was pretty good on Rachel the other day.

[AllentownJake]

199. Oh you get a heart anyway

Bringing Dennis into the thread earns you one.

[ProSense]

201. Who you supporting in 2012?

:rofl:

[AllentownJake]

204. I'm supporting Dan Onorato in 2010

I'll worry about 2012, in 2012, for all we know the Mayans could be right.

[ProSense]

208. .

:rofl:

[AllentownJake]

212. Who you like?

Wagner? Hoefell?

[Jakes Progress]

203. If you ask me what I think about bernie madoff

and the first thing out of my mouth is "Well, you know he's a really savvy businessman. We celebrate success in America. Maybe he was a little out of line, but let's remember that those guys on friends got millions of dollars for every episode."

What would you take from that. If you say that you would think I understood the theft and that I loved free enterprise, you would be really gullible or really duplicitous.

Now when it come to projecting and putting words in people's mouths, Your third line take the cake. You make up what you want and throw it without regard for truth. How about actually doing a little reading and a little study. Then maybe you could be as calm and make a point as well as the OP.

[laughingliberal]

247. +1 nt

[Goldstein1984]

180. The monopolies were too big to exist, so they were dismantled

For several decades, under the leadership of both parties, mergers have been rebuilding the monopolies. Repeal of Glass-Steagall (under a pseudo-Democratic president), allowed commercial banks and investment banks to become one.

So, now the fatcats can hold us hostage? Let us speculate; let us privatize our profits; socialize our losses, if you know what's good for you.

If Obama is truly a leader and a president, then let him demand 1) a breakup of the new monopolies; 2) downsizing of anything that's too big to fail; 3) re-regulation of economic functions that, if managed for the benefit of the few, threaten the welfare of the many; and 4) a trickle-up jobs programs that doesn't begin with tax breaks and economic incentives for those who have proven they aren't the least concerned about Main Street USA.

There's only one reason why a president who has the best interests of the working class in mind would refuse to do any of these simple things. That reason would be that he isn't in control. If he isn't in control, then he needs to be replaced with someone who can take the lead effectively. We need a leader willing to rally the working class, not another neocon in liberal clothing.

If the corporations truly have a stranglehold on our government; if democracy is dead; if this is "Rollerball"...well...then we're going to need more drastic measures to solve the problem. May I suggest reading Tom Paine and Saul Alinsky as a place to start?

[ipaint]

186. +1 nt

[farmout rightarm]

207. I'm very sure my President is not a liar.

I don't agree with every single aspect of his administration but I believe he's one hundred percent truthful.

[AllentownJake]

209. He has to lie from time to time

For instance, when the campaign loaded all the reporters on the plane to Chicago, while he and Hillary met in private, the campaign lied to the reporters where the President was at. They had to so they could meet in secrecy and privacy.

They've lied on where he was going, if he's going to visit Afghanistan, they lie about where the plane is going for security purposes.

Every person in this world lies and every administration lies, no person is 100% truthful.

Is there such thing as a good lie, I don't know.

[farmout rightarm]

214. That''s not a lie, it's a fib. :-) But "a good lie"? Coincidentally, this happened this morning:

our next door neighbor, a dear elderly lady who cares for her semi-invalid stroke victim husband, occasionally cooks up a batch of 'supper' and calls us up offering a portion. We have not even come close to thinking of a way to tell her that the crap she cooks is about as appetizing as dogshit. I just don't know how to avoid lying about a thing like that. Today, I returned the tupperware thing her inedible "enchiladas" were in; she asked "did you like them?"

What the hell am I supposed to say..."No, Virginia, they tasted like shit"? I had to lie "They were good, thanks a lot" is what I said.

[bread_and_roses]

210. great big K & R here, AJ.

And you didn't even mention the sweetheart deals with Big Pharma and the huge be-ribboned box to Big Insurance in the form of mandatory purchase by citizens. I guess he doesn't begrudge them their millions and billions either. They work so hard, doncha know?

[AllentownJake]

211. Was staying off the topic of HCR

That is a debate, that has been played out for 9 months, and everyone is exhausted from it.

[scentopine]

213. We need a third party to fight the republicans in the two parties we currently have -nt

[pleah]

216. K&R

[bertman]

221. Ooooohhhh Raaaahhhhh!!! You nailed it, Jake. Rec. nt

[theFrankFactor]

225. More of Our Own Are Shaking it Off! Smelling the Scam! K&R

[Jefferson23]

229. This is true, and why there has been such disappointment, I mean Geithner ?

That made me cringe and Larry Summers and his Harvard legacy....it sucked!

A former quantitative analyst at Harvard Management Company, the university’s once-vaunted endowment manager, tells the Harvard Crimson she was fired for voicing concern to then-university president Larry Summers’ chief of staff about the money manager’s risky use of derivatives the traders didn’t understand.

The episode dates back to 2002, when analyst Iris Mack, whose website identifies her as the second African American woman to earn a Harvard PhD. in applied math (and someone who likes primary colors) joined the much-venerated Harvard Management Company, which invests the university’s then $18 billion endowment, to find what she termed a “frightening” state of affairs.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/04/did-larry-summers-fire-derivatives-whistleblower-at-harvard.html

Obama is responsible for these choices.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

232. The post is about the administrations backdoor bailouts

That are totally under the control of and at the discretion of the administration and the federal reserve.

Some people would rather argue over language unfortunately.

[Nikki Stone1]

235. They don't want to believe how badly we've been sold out

Again...

[MannyGoldstein]

238. This Fucking Retread Is In Full Agreement

(Avoiding a word that is sporadically banned on DU)

Obama is held in the thrall of the privileged class. The rest of us are of little concern.

[tabbycat31]

241. can I steal this for my blog?

giving you full credit of course. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[AllentownJake]

242. Yes We Can!

or you can that is.

[tabbycat31]

249. thank you so much

and here's the link to my blog post
http://outspokenliberal.blogspot.com/2010/02/president-said-i-dont-begrudge-and-i.html

[saracat]

251. K+R to Jake one of the best and most factual debaters on DU

:yourock:

[Greyhound]

252. Same as it ever was. K&R.

[Dinger]

263. Shit, I'm Too Late To Rec

But I'm happy to give this a kick!:)