Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Obama Wrong?
When I left on vacation, the right was calling Barack Obama a socialist. When I got back, the new slur was "fascist." The politically impotent Dick Armey pronounced, "For the first time I have a president that scares me." At least, unlike Rush Limbaugh, Armey didn't sound an alarm about having to "bend over, grab the ankles" for Obama. Thanks, Dick, for keeping your sexual insecurities out of the debate this time and sticking to generic fearmongering. (Still, I'm so damn glad I'm not married to that guy.)
Clearly Republicans are trying a desperate strategy of displacement, to convince the country that Obama, not our devastated economy, is the monster we should fear. But it's not working. While Beltway journalists ponder big, important questions like whether Obama laughs too much during interviews or over-uses his teleprompter, the American people overwhelmingly approve of the job Obama is doing, and even trust him to get the economy back on track.
Meanwhile, Newsweek is headlining its current cover "Obama Is Wrong" -- but this time it uses Paul Krugman, not the normal cast of village idiots, to indict the new Democratic president. What a novel idea. I had to suppress my instinct to defend Obama -- Krugman doesn't think Obama is wrong about everything, folks -- because I think Krugman is alarmingly right on the key issue at hand: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's subsidizing private investors to take can't-lose "risks" and buy up the banks' "legacy assets." (Don't call them toxic!)
Krugman has colorfully labeled the plan "cash for trash," and on Sunday, he went head-to-head (sort of ) with Geithner, appearing after the treasury secretary on ABC's "This Week" and deriding his "plan to rearrange the deck chairs and hope that that keeps us from hitting the iceberg." For his part, Geithner insisted, "To get out of this we need banks to take a chance on businesses, to take risks again," and argued it was better for taxpayers to have private firms bear at least some of the cost of the bank overhaul (as opposed to Krugman's proposal that the government temporarily nationalize troubled banks).
Krugman isn't the only smart person raising these concerns. If Evan Thomas' smug tone in the Newsweek piece turns you off, take the time to read Simon Johnson's terrifying Atlantic piece, "The Quiet Coup," which lays out the foundation of our current mess and then comes to similar conclusions as Krugman about the drastic steps needed to recover: The government must take over unhealthy banks, dramatically restructure them, save the ones that can be saved and later sell them back to private investors. (The piece was apparently written before Geithner's plan was released so it doesn't comment on it directly.)
Coming out of vacation, I'm a little late to Johnson's opus -- Glenn Greenwald wrote about it here -- but I don't think it can get too much attention. Johnson traces the growing political and economic clout of the financial industry in the last 20 years, and how that power, in turn, distorted both politics and the economy. In the '70s and early '80s, Johnson found, "the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits." This decade that percentage soared to 41 percent. Likewise, financial sector salaries used to be roughly comparable to other domestic private industries, but they rocketed to 181 percent of the "average" private-sector salary in 2007.
Meanwhile, as the right and the left debate what, exactly, caused the current mess, Johnson shows that every single possible culprit had one thing in common: It benefited the increasingly powerful financial sector, the monster that ate the American economy:
"Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better-in a "buck stops somewhere else" sort of way-on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership. And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for "safety and soundness" were fast asleep at the wheel.
But these various policies-lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership-had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial sector's profits-such as Brooksley Born's now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998-were ignored or swept aside."
All of that might seem like ancient history -- Obama's moving to clean up the mess, right? Except Johnson, like Krugman, believes that the continued power of the financial oligarchy makes real reform impossible. A former chief economist for the IMF, Johnson sees scary similarities between the behavior of U.S. political and business leaders, and the titans of the corrupt and ultimately bankrupt economies the IMF had to work over during his time there:
"Elite business interests-financiers, in the case of the U.S.-played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them....
The challenges the United States faces are familiar territory to the people at the IMF. If you hid the name of the country and just showed them the numbers, there is no doubt what old IMF hands would say: nationalize troubled banks and break them up as necessary."
Strangely, or not, on the same morning I read Johnson, a smart reader took the time to send me this 1999 New York Times piece about the way leading Democrats, including Clinton administration Treasury Secretary and Obama economic czar Larry Summers, hailed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that kept banks out of the insurance and broker businesses. It's as tough to read as Simon Johnson's piece, in its way.
''Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,'' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ''This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy....''
Administration officials and many Republicans and Democrats said the measure would save consumers billions of dollars and was necessary to keep up with trends in both domestic and international banking. Some institutions, like Citigroup, already have banking, insurance and securities arms but could have been forced to divest their insurance underwriting under existing law. Many foreign banks already enjoy the ability to enter the securities and insurance industries.
''The world changes, and we have to change with it,'' said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name. "Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer....''
''If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. ''There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive.''
Oy. A few Democratic heroes spoke against the bill -- North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan and, not surprisingly, the late Paul Wellstone. ''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' Dorgan said presciently.
The article confirmed a feeling I've had for a while, that the Democrats can't get us out from under this mess until they are forced to reckon with their role in creating it. Every time I see Chuck Schumer on television pretending to be a populist scourge of Wall Street, I remember his role in blocking higher taxes for hedge fund managers and repealing Glass-Steagall. I can't help thinking that Tim Geithner is too close to the industry that took over -- and took down -- the economy to tame it. A large part of the Democrats' resurgence in the last four years, ironically, has been its success raising money from Wall Street, which undermines its populist street cred at a time like this. Fortunately for the party, Republicans are just as compromised, so it's not too late to for Democrats to take leadership in bucking the financial oligarchy and develop real solutions to the financial crisis.
But if you believe Simon Johnson, it may almost be too late. That's what we should be debating, not Obama's teleprompter use, or whether Paul Krugman has it in for the new president. So I'm glad to be back from vacation, really; we have a lot of work to do.
- Posted in
68 Comments so far
Show AllWell Joan you seem to miss the critical point too. Workers wages have been forced down through long term economic and political policy; therefore, they cannot spend enough to stimulate the economy so that companies WILL borrow even if the banks will lend. People are losing their jobs and homes and comparatively little is being done for them compared to the financial rocket fuel being given to the few wealthy interests. Put simply, Obama's Uncle Tom approach to this crisis is just plain wrong and the elites know it, and Obama knows it. Workers are no longer respected enough to even be called citizens. Now they are mere consumers. Will the next step be forced sterilization, then genocide? That is the normal path that Fascism travels.
When I got back, the new slur was "fascist": ah, Stone, I see you're right up to date.
There are varying degrees of Fascism.
Compared to Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, and other non-Republicans, Obama has demonstrated fascist characteristics in dealing with the financial industry and medical industry.
Compared to Dick Armey and most other Republicans (Lincoln Chaffee is an example of an exception)Obama represents fascist lite.
That being said, we also need to also consider that because Republicans have controlled most media for the past quarter century, they have the luxury of redefining anything they want to redefine...including fascism.
The country has been in a downward spin for so long, it is going to be tough for any one person to pull us out of it. Of Course Obama is the fall guy we knew that would happen. Sure he is making a lot of mistakes, but even if he was doing everything right it would still be wrong. Just because of the country he is running. We Americans have a short memory and even shorter patients. It's officially Obama's fault the country is headed the direction it is headed in. Because the media will say it is.
It makes me so mad when people continue to moan about him not being progressive enough. He is having a hard enough time trying to find middle ground with the center right policies he is pulling out of his ass. No what sort of wall do you think he would hit if he was going center left, or even dare I say actually left!
If the country isn't ready for center right, it damn well is not ready for left.
He would be impeached on something very shortly after. Or he would be pushed to the side and mocked and ran through the wringer and our country would be set back another 30 years, before we get a chance do move forward.
So... my point is and always will be. We need to change the system to allow progressive politics to grow, instead of insisting, that the president become progressive, in a country that is not progressive.
So now we are doomed to wait other 4 years while, for another chance to have the same conversation.
We need a third party but no third party will ever get a chance to speak, because our media is owned by one or both of the ruling parties.
As much as we disagree with Obama we need him to be successful. We need him to prosper. We need the appearance that "left wing politics" can succeed in the USA. Then maybe we have a chance to actually have Real Left Wing Politics come to the forefront of American Discourse.
So what in the world are we to do?
"If the country isn't ready for center right, it damn well is not ready for "left." "in a country that is not progressive"
Correction - our government fits this description; our media fit this description; but America, as a whole, is well left of center in nearly every measure.
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge....
Good Point Random. This whole thing is just frustrating. I hate how ignorant people are. It's like they don't even know the wool is being pulled over their eyes.
Myth: The MSM is liberal. The MSM is owned for the most part, by very wealthy, conservatives like Moon of the Washington Times and Roger A. of Foxy News, who have put forward this most egregious, canard. By the way, you cannot sell that bridge in Alaska, as it was sold to the American Sheeple a long time ago!
What we need to do is support Instant Runoff Voting.
This economic mess has nothing to do with "Progressive politics". It is about a long class war that has decimated the bottom 60%. It is about both political parties morphing into a political class that fronts for the elite. If you keep talking about how the Left has the answers, you will marginalize the Left. And what about Obama says "left-wing politics"? He is a statist, nothing else. He thinks the gov't should manage every aspect of our lives. And he doesn't seem to have a problem with the Empire which is the source of disaster for us all. See what his friend Cass Sunstein has to say in "Nudge". The answer is smaller gov't, less concentrated power, not more gov't.
"We Americans have a short memory and even shorter patients. It's officially Obama's fault the country is headed the direction it is headed in. Because the media will say it is."
So do shorter patients require smaller doctors? Speaking of patience, I fail to see why we need to be patient when the actions of our new Executive run counter to logic, counter to common sense and counter to what seems to be the correct approach to the economy and our foreign policy concerns.
Further what you seem to suggest is silence not patience, regardless of the height of our doctors....It is the duty of a concerned citizen to speak out when an elected official appears to be the new boss same as the old boss, and it increasingly appears that the differences are ones of degrees not paths. Your silence is really tacit agreement and the only way to change something is to actually change it. Your expressed fears of impeachment are simply ridiculous if not cowardice, sorry.
Barack Obama actively campaigned for two full years to win this office, now you suggest he cowers instead of acts in a way that would make our nation safer not more at risk,and refuses to accept that our financial systems are in dramatic need of overhaul. Worse you see the need to change our system, and do so dramatically, yet post apologies for inaction or incorrect action. I just do not understand your message apparently, or you are rather conflicted.
Sioux Rose
RED RICK: I wanted to play the "patients" card, but you did so with wit and due diligence. There is a site I came cross on the Internet where someone solicited others to come "Prey with me." Forever I see people confusing there with their, or its with it's. Truly tough stuff to countenance as a former English teacher!
Even worse, I daily hear, on TV and radio news, butchered syntax, mispronunciations, and misplaced adverbs and the like. Considering these folks are mostly reading copy makes this even more egregious.....
Ok Ok, sorry everyone looks like I might have made a typing error or two. I am so very sorry. But thanks very much for pointing it out. Maybe I should have stopped and spell checked. I was a little upset when I typed it. Maybe I can be as good as you all one day.
But my point still stands. I do not feel we should be quiet and complacent. But I do think it is a mistake thinking that we have to wait for a new president to put the country in order. I think we need to focus on the entire system. From Local to State, all the different types media, and political education for the masses.
Thanks,
O Rei
I would hope that you dont think the thrust of my comments were directed at your syntax errors....they were a bit more directed at what I think is an error in your political view.
I also hope you were not insulted by my attempt at a wry humor.
Sioux Rose
RED RICK: Because I've gotten involved with self-publishing books I've had to beef up on editorial skills. Many of the books I have purchased of late, done by mainstream publishing houses, also contain errors! Fact-checkers are largely gone from magazines.
Remember the first copy of "George" as done by JFK, Jr? The horoscope column was done by Sly Stallone's mother. She didn't even have Bill Clinton's birthday correct, or other errors as per planetary cycles. I photocopied the page and used a yellow magic marker to indicate all the incorrect aspects of her data. I mailed it to the magazine and related that she was to astrology what a drunk was to air traffic control; and then I fully expected a knock on my door from Sly. "You insultin my Mudder?!" No knock came.
No knock? Lucky you! You do know that Stallone is about four foot eleven dont you? You could kick his butt!
Also, I know you and Sioux were being comical in your finger pointing at my grammatical error. But to others, that is the type of smug stuck up attitude that turns people off to progressives sometimes.
Again it was my error, and it happens. I mean I am human. I think? Anyway, but I personally appreciate it. Means I have to slow down when I rage type lol.
Thanks :)
No such smugness intended..How about a comment on the actual contents of my post?
"the American people overwhelmingly approve of the job Obama is doing"
Pardon me! Where are you getting your figures? Overwhealmingly approve of the job he is doing? Thats bunkum.
Personal popularity is not approval of job performance. And he has so far made only three positive moves. Equality of pay, forcing GM's CEO out and apparently allowing Chrysler and its Hedge fund owner go on their own.
Let us not forget that overture to Syria as well. I guess the "overwhelming" refers to his 60 plus percent rating, which, as you correctly note, is a personal popularity rather than an agreement with positions and actions.
"I guess the "overwhelming" refers to his 60 plus percent rating, which, as you correctly note, is a personal popularity rather than an agreement with positions and actions."
Voting on positions and actions always gets me flanked but I always take it as a sign that I must be doing something right. :)
"Pardon me! Where are you getting your figures? Overwhealmingly approve of the job he is doing? Thats bunkum."
Thank you Thomas More ! I get so sick and tired of even my friends, family, and coworkers who keep acting like a bunch of Obamabots just like the die-hard Dubya dittoheads did in the last 8 years when they kept judging by those misleading corporate media polls.
"Personal popularity is not approval of job performance. And he has so far made only three positive moves. Equality of pay, forcing GM's CEO out and apparently allowing Chrysler and its Hedge fund owner go on their own."
Thank you again Thomas More. When I voted thrice for Nader this decade, I voted on the issues alone and actually took the time to assess the candidates and what they're actual and/or most likely stands on the issues are. I don't judge a book by its book cover but the die-hard Dubya supporters and the Obamabots seem to have a knack of doing just that. Even when I try to bring up the issue of the 700b bailout that both Barry and Mcsame supported, I get hissed and shouted at. On Saturday, in response to an article and some user's posts, I described what last year's election hell was like and how I kept my courage (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/28-3) despite all the cursing and tormenting. A friend of mine whose username is JWVerez introduced me to this site some time ago. You can read the details there. I also talked about courage and what I think a lot of us could learn from these real heroes who put substance over personality and I admitted to their courage influencing my way of life. Pols who allow mainly personality to put them in office always end up being the biggest cowards and letdowns. :(
P.S.: Pleased to meet you. I would generally read the posts but would be nervous on posting until I started out on alternet.org. I notice that on this site, more people share my frustrations, bitterness, and upset feelings of the current politically dysfunctional climate than even alternet.org although there are a lot of cool people there too. I read a lot of your posts and even enjoyed looking at the archives of those countless dialogues you and JWVerez had on lots of issues. I forgive you for voting Obama because I can see you're not an Obamabot unlike many I've put up with online and in person. You should see the way us independent voters are trying to battle the Obamabots and Limbaugh dittoheads on alternet.org. You remind me of the user maxpayne on alternet.org.
when i listen to henry kssinger extolling obama's virtues and describe him as the man who can best take advantage of this "opportunity" (see the crisis is man made by the banks as a scam to steal even more cash as the country descends into a clump of quivering guava jelly) - the "opportunity" is there to advance one world financial system - nwo - headed by the american elites of course has never been better
this betrays obama for what he is - a nwo shill whose job it is to oversee the raid on the last few crumbs in the treasury - which he is doing very efficiently - the last tally of the "bail out" is in excess of 7 trillion - with lots more to come
his job is to be calm and if he can - and he can - be charming while this all boils up
with the credit card ponzy scheme about to pop and be the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, they need to get the funds out now
that is why there is a rush
meanwhile back in the real world another 6 million american families face eviction/repo this year for being unable to pay their mortgages
all this set against the right wing facist wall street take over of usa ltd
take me to the fema prison and gas me
Why is it so important to sell off the banks again after taking them over?
To make money off of it. But long-term of course the government could make more money by turning them into government banks.
Joan Walsh is on the edge of stating the obvious, the entire corporate managerial class (our patricians) have lost their way, and by the virtue of their hubris inspired incompetence, should be stripped of their privileges. What is worrying about the Obama administration is their over-reliance on types from the aforementioned tainted patricians to fix the mess that their fellows "engineered."
This implies they ever knew their way.
Follow the Corporate Culture throughout history. From the East India Company to the Carpetbaggers post Civil war. From "Standard Oil" under Rockefeller to the textile mills and coal mines that used Children in the most dangerous of occupations.
When did they find the right path without being FORCED onto it?
The 1999 NY Times article Joan Walsh quotes, extolling the wisdom of repealing Glass-Steagall, is priceless in more ways than one. Who (but prescient folks like Dorgan and Wellstone) would have thought that the Wall Street masters of the universe were all too smart for their own good - or that in order to prevent European or Asian banks from supposedly taking control of the global economy, the solution was for corporate America to mimic and proliferate the business model pioneered by Citigroup and AIG?
Crunch time on this issue will be watching how Geithner's proposed new regulatory package fares in Congress. The big boys at Goldman Sachs, the hedge funds, and the conglomerate banks and private equity firms will spend millions and millions on lobbyists to chop it up piecemeal, much like the Clintons' health care plan was subjected to the death of a thousand cuts in the early 90's. Passage of meaningful future regulatory reform of the financial system will hinge upon the willingness of people like Larry Summers and Chuck Schumer to run political interference, confess past error, and do a public mea culpa. All in all therefore, the prospects look bleak.
I still say that, along with restoring an updated version of a host of measures like Glass-Steagall that were foolishly repealed during the de-regulation mania that gripped Washington from the Reagan era forward, the key conceptual issue that needs to be legislatively addressed is the Alice in Wonderland world of credit default swaps.
Credit default swaps are, and always have been, nothing but 21st Century alchemy. This "market" in trading (and ostensibly insuring) credit default swaps should be squarely outlawed by Congress. The underlying sliced and diced debt backed securities (which do have real world value, and which can legitimately contribute to future lending leverage) should then be rendered transparent, rated for investment grade by a public agency, taxed, and subjected to rigorous regulatory oversight before such instruments are sold domestically or abroad under the brand name "Made in USA".
Bill from Saginaw
Sioux Rose
BILL: You are so polite and cavalier about this gigantic heist, as well-planned as any the Chicago School has ruthlessly engineered onto other nations (see Naomi Klein's comprehensively chronicled historical list) that it makes me think if you encountered an armed robber INSIDE your home, you'd speak to him in the language of kind regard. I can't believe how calm you are, seeking smooth reasoned explanations for acts that are directed at America's jugular! Obama IS part of it...he is not the doctor here to fix the wound! You sure give white collar criminals the benefit of any doubt. You should be a sought-after human commodity with your calendar booked years in advance for serving jury duty. (I do not mean to sound harsh... your reasoned arguments are welcome on this site, but you remind me of the singer singing the song, "Still I looked to find a reason to believe." Rod Stewart was it? "If I listened long enough to you...")
Dear SiouxRose,
That was Tim Hardin, who also wrote "If I Were a Carpenter" and "Lady Came from Baltimore."
Sioux Rose
JETHRO: Thank you for the correction. With all the passwords we're expected to remember these days, it's a wonder I have any room in my brain for lyrics, no less their authors!
Tim Hardin song...
Ooops...didn't notice that somebody else below had pointed out who wrote that wonderful song.
Bill,
Did you notice Geithner's response to Rep. Maxine Waters at the Congressional hearing a few days ago, when he was asked why shouldn't we do away with these CDO's, CDS', and other bogus financial "instruments"? He replied (paraphrasing) that it would do no good since Wall St. would quickly figure out ways to invent other similar vehicles and "innovations" that would accomplish much the same thing as the present ones. In other words, just try to keep your eye on them with "regulations", instead of banning them outright.
I don't know about you, but I have zero faith in Geithner's (or other Clinton and Bush retread's) ability to properly regulate or oversee anything.
'This "market" in trading (and ostensibly insuring) credit default swaps should be squarely outlawed by Congress'
Trading and hedging risks, etc are not a problem per se, as everyone who carries risk can see the value of insurance. The problem arises when these instruments are abused for gambling, or theft.
This implies that more complexity in society's various systems may benefit the people as long as those systems are governed by the simplest of ethical rules. The idea that simple ethics must prevail over complex systems has to remain at the center of the table because it is key to the people's ability to self-rule. The people must retain the ability to smash complex systems into shape with the hammer of simple ethics. Hammer down, people!
Simon Johnson's terrifying Atlantic piece, "The Quiet Coup," which lays out the foundation of our current mess and then comes to similar conclusions as Krugman about the drastic steps needed to recover . . .
This is what Obama obviously doesn't have in him. This is what the Democratic party, pimped out by Bill Clinton to fashionably bald headed Daddy Warbucks and his ever growing brood of looters and scoundrels, doesn't have in it. The cannibals of finance are eating this nation alive. The Democrats will protect them at any and all costs, while the rest of us get a free joy ride over the cliff in a junkyard car. Reversing decisions on stem cell research is one thing; it doesn't take much courage or vision to do that. The thought of telling the money magicians and rainmen of finance that their day is done, that from now on, for the very survival and sustainablility of this nation, there will be strictly enforced limits on their greed, makes the Democrats sick to their stomachs and as frightened as a five year old watching "The Exorcist". Fuck 'em all! What a way to start Monday.
The thought of telling the money magicians and rainmen of finance that their day is done, that from now on, for the very survival and sustainablility of this nation, there will be strictly enforced limits on their greed, makes the Democrats sick to their stomachs and as frightened as a five year old watching "The Exorcist".
Nicely put. I would add that the Democrats are every bit as afraid of the MIC ghouls and quiver at the thought of a confrontation with those fiendish crooks as well.
''The world changes, and we have to change with it,'' said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name. "Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer....''
Looking back 10 years at these words, we realize that we were at the beginning of The Rule Of "We don't need no stinkin rules". It is easy now to see how George Bush, the boy who flaunted all the rules, was awarded the presidency. It is easy to see how we progressed into illegal war, torture and Alberto Gonzales. Not to mention "the increasingly powerful financial sector, the monster that ate the American economy".
Unfortunately for the American people, the rules got even tougher and more complicated.
Government isn't the answer, freedom isn't the answer, just simple, sensible rules that are the same for everyone, that exist to enhance the freedom of the marketplace.
Despite the sentiment, shit doesn't just happen, it is legislated.
Great article Ms. Walsh. I agree with you, once the Democrats come clean about their roles, it will clear the air enough for them to gain credibility. Someone should tell them that confession is good for the soul.
I believe that Paul Wellstone's seat is the one that Al Franken has won. I hope that his state has the presence of mind to make sure that Franken is seated very soon.
Thank you DaveBronstein. You won't believe what the Obamabots keep saying everytime we bring this issue up to them. The truth can indeed hurt but I like the way you frame it every time in most of your posts. Alternet.org could use a braveheart such as yourself to counter those irritating Obamabots.
I'm sorry, but Johnson is coming across as an apologist for the IMF, which would not just say nationalize the banks, but would add "devalue your currency, repress labor and wages, and cut social spending massively" without ever raising the issue of the corrupt and bloated Pentagon budget. Most discussions on the economy totally ignore the 2 wars and the Pentagon budget and the role all of this plays in the economic collapse. You can't have guns and butter, guns always wins. And when will we learn, capitalism cannot be reformed, only replaced, and we need to start over with a good old dose of democratic socialism, something we have never tried.
Sioux Rose
TIM: Excellent points. Until enough American citizens are fully versed in "The Shock Doctrine" to recognize the planned protocols already used on other nations now being deployed here at home, the vast majority will be led, like Pavlov's dogs, to pre-programmed conclusions.
Is Obama wrong? In a word: Yes.
Yes , he is wrong and we are all missing some key elements to understand that what happened on 9/11 is still happening........."The Carter Doctrine" and "Project For A New American Century" are being played out thanks to that planned "Pearl Harbor Type Attack" and "Financial Crisis".........
If you google search "Bernie Madoff and Larry Silverstein", up pops all kinds of strange facts and information......Was Bernie Madoff financing Mossad Activities in the United States? Don't forget 5 Mossad agents were celebrating on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River as the towers were coming down. Mossad agents were living two blocks from the alleged terrorists in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (Andreas Von Bulow, "La CIA y 11 de Septiembre")
Was Bernie Madoff and AIG using two Israeli Banks in New York to funnel money to the Israeli government from 2000 on?
Why has the Israeli government not spoken out against Bernie?......Silence has been bought with a guilty plea and the U.S. Government does not want to seek any of the information.. As Obama says, "I only want to look forward!" What a sin!
Yes. He. Is.
wrong?
here is 1,
where he could be wrong...ethics breach...
http://www.zimbio.com/Attorney+General+Alberto+Gonzales/articles/601/Obama+Counsel+Accused+Ethics+Breach+Over+Role
this one is about the deal he made with karl rove and harriet myers..
Barry's nothing but a shill for the monied elites, the military industrial complex, and the religious bigots. I tried to warn others about Obama's deceptive campaigning and his strong tendancy to be Bush-lite but they refused and chose to be Obamabots. While I wish Obama well, it irritates me that issue after issue, he goes in the WRONG direction against the public mandate.
The citizenry has no real power in a system which was designed to preserve wealth. Only occasionally has the possibility opened up for someone to deal us in; but without any real revolutionary force on the ground yet, unlike the 1930s, Obama has decided to go with what he let slip a few times during the campaign, as he did during the interview in Nevada when he praised Reagan as someone who changed politics, and on being greeted with howls, insisted that he didn't mean for the better.
I can't blame starving people for jumping to eat the slops thrown to the pigs, or for leaping at some bones with some shreds of meat clinging to them as if it were heaven-sent manna. Partly because I was one of them, and I preferred a few bites to being kicked in the stomach & having a vengeful, ill-tempered, brain-damaged loon like my state's senior senator and a true fascisti-femme like Sarah Palin roaring into office on the backs of Joe the Plumber and the SS guard who introduced her at that Florida rally.
We are only dealing with the inevitable results of capitalism; we could be dealing directly with honest-to-goodness fascism.
I was absolutely disgusted with Obama praising Ronnie Raygun. I can see where the financial crash goes beyond who's in office. It's just that I cannot stand it when people go out of their way to knowingly vote against their own economic interests and with glee. Btw, you're forgiven and I understand.
Here is a solution...pass a law that CEO's bonuses must be paid only in non-convertible stocks in their own companies...cashable only on retirement...then they might actually learn to give a shit.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I keep hearing this guy at work say that Obama wants to print more money and that will devalue the dollar. I keep googlig and am only finding videos from Glenn Beck and free market lover Peter Schiff. Can anyone help me out here? Does Obama plan to print our way out of this? I'm not finding anything of substance. I know there was an article on CD from Ellen Brown not long ago about printing greenbacks.