Obama Did NOT "Fix" The Economy; He Did Not Even Try.

[JFN1]

Simply restoring the system of greed, corruption, and social imbalance that Wall Street truly represents, does not "fix" the economy.

All this does is patch up the status quo - and this is not the same as fixing the economy. And all I can see that Mr. Obama HAS done, is to ensure the old system gurgles back to life.

Because the TARP bailout, the bank bailouts, the AIG bailout, all of these "fixes" worked to ensure the people who brought our economy to its knees, remain where they are, doing what they do.

If Obama truly wanted to save failing banks and Americans, he would have given Americans the bailout money directly - which would have TRICKLED UP to the banks, the brokers, and the insurance companies.

But this was not the choice our President made, was it?

Instead, he bailed out the big shots, the greed warriors, and the corrupt. He bailed them out without so much as a guarantee that the people who did this, would not be able to do it again. And wrung even more concessions from working Americans while he chastised the auto manufacturers, who's losses are a drop in the bucket compared to Wall Street.

So quit pumping sunshine up my ass and telling me Obama is working for me in his efforts on the economy. I LOVE Obama, I do. He's a good man, I supported him, and still do. But these things do not make his actions inherently correct, so stop pretending they do. Obama is as human as you or I, subject to the same frailties, faults, and episodes of poor judgment. So stop acting like he walks on water.

Because I think it is pretty clear that We, barely factor into this new economy - which looks an awful lot like the old economy.

And I'll tell you right now - you flame me because I dare to question a Democrat (it is our JOB as citizens to question), I am going to flame back. Being a loyal Democrat does not mean being BLIND.

[OKNancy]

1. Perhaps it's best to right the sinking ship first

and then patch it up or get a new one.
( I'm into that kind of thinking today - LOL)

You see, if the ship goes down, I and many others will drown. I'd rather have my life on the old boat, and then send it to dock to get it fixed.

[JFN1]

3. I'm not saying to let the ship sink

I'm saying get a new crew! Don't just pay the old one for fucking up, then put them back in charge of the ship! What possible good does that do? Buy us a couple more years of deficit spending sprees at the mall?????

[QC]

15. But only the crew that ran the ship onto the rocks can possibly know

how to remove it from those rocks.

Or something.

[CoffeeCat]

50. I think Obama's "crew"...

...was installed for him. I don't think he had a choice about Geithner and
the rest of the gang who started the ball rolling on this heist.

[polmaven]

85. Who "installed" them, then?

Do you honestly think that President Obama is as ineffective and as much of a puppet as was Bush? That is absolutely NUTS!

The president is in charge in this White House. Rahm is not Karl Rove and Biden is not Cheney.

Get OVER it, for chrissakes.

[ColesCountyDem]

56. After V.E. Day in Europe...

... the Allies wisely left Nazi Party members in charge of many things, not because they approved of the Nazis, but because it was necessary to leave them there until suitable substitutes could be had. The phones still needed to work, mail still needed delivering, etc. .

I absolutely believe the President when he says he's *going to change things*, but in the meantime, we need to leave all but the worst miscreants in place as a matter of necessity.

[JDPriestly]

72. The allies left Nazi Party members in charge of many things?

Actually, you are wrong, ColesCountyDem. The Allies were in charge in W. Germany after WWII.

At the Potsdam Conference (July 16 to August 2, 1945), after Germany's unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945,<1> the Allies divided what was then determined to be "Occupation Zone Germany" into four military occupation zones – French in the southwest, British in the northwest, United States in the south, and Soviet in the east. Earlier maps and plans showed the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany to incorporate the area of what became the Potsdam approved final Soviet Zone PLUS all of the 1937 German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line. The Potsdam Agreement formally removed the German provinces east of the Oder-Neisse line, within the 1937 boundary of Germany, (East Prussia, Eastern Pomerania and Silesia -- See Recovered Territories) from the pre-Potsdam unofficial Soviet Zone of Occupation and placed most of those territories under the administration of Poland, pending the final Peace Treaty (which turned out to be not forthcoming). The northerly part of East Prussia was placed under Soviet administration by the Potsdam Agreement. The Potsdam sanctioned administrative assignment of various eastern German territories to Poland and the Soviet Union ultimately had the effect of shifting "Germany" westward. Roughly 15 million ethnic Germans suffered terrible hardships in the years 1944 to 1947 during the flight and expulsion from the eastern German territories and the Sudetenland.<1>

. . . .

The intended governing body of Germany was called the Allied Control Council. The commanders-in-chief exercised supreme authority in their respective zones and acted in concert on questions affecting the whole country. Berlin, which lay in the Soviet (eastern) sector, was also divided into four sectors with the Western sectors later becoming West Berlin and the Soviet sector becoming East Berlin, capital of East Germany.
Provisional Civil Ensign

A key item in the occupiers' agenda was denazification; toward this end, the swastika and other outward symbols of the Nazi regime were banned, and a Provisional Civil Ensign was established as a temporary German flag; the latter remained the official flag of the country (necessary for reasons of international law as German ships had to carry some sort of identifying marker) until East Germany and West Germany (see below) came into existence, separately, in 1949.

. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_since_1945

In Austria, the children learn about the four men in a jeep, each representing one of the conquering Allied armies, who governed the area. Great Britain governed areas of the Steiermark Province, for example.

Lower level NAZIs were not always punished. That may be what you are thinking of. But, the NAZIs were not allowed to play a role in the government in the years immediately following WWII. In 1949, a West German government was instituted.

[theblasmo]

78. I believe...

... what he/she was saying was not that the Nazis were allowed to be in charge of anything, but, because they had run things before, they knew how things worked, so they were allowed to continue working at those positions, but without any authority until Allied officers/soldiers could be trained to replace them. Not the most popular of moves, or course, and Patton especially caught a lot of hell for it, but understandable, given the chaos after the war.

I'm not sure the comparison really works, since a lot of these people are being allowed to stay at those positions, but are also keeping the authority.

And, of course, some Nazis were allowed to be "reformed" and were used in our nascent space program.

Apologies if I'm completely incorrect. I'm going by a history degree that was earned about 12 years ago, and haven't touched the stuff since then.

[ColesCountyDem]

105. You're 100% correct that that is what I was saying.

I used the term 'Nazis' merely to refer to the individuals affiliated with the Nazi party, per se, until VE Day and the de-Nazification of Europe that subsequently took place. I wasn't quite awake when I posted, and apologize for any lack of clarity.

:hi:

[Two Americas]

19. extortion

Why must we be coerced into thinking that we must bail out the fat cats or else we will all suffer?

Whose ship is being righted here?

Saying that we must first help the wealthiest - or else they will hurt us even more than they already have - is a variation on trickle down Reaganomics.

You don't right a sinking ship by helping the people who torpedoed it.



...

[Zhade]

35. SAY IT AGAIN - IT'S EXTORTION!

"Nice economy ya got here, shame if it failed."

[omega minimo]

40. That dock's in China

[Kitty Herder]

55. It's a pirate ship.

And it's run by big-time, master pirates robbing all of us blind. Perhaps it needs to sink. At the very least, the pirates need to be brought to justice.

[Schema Thing]

2. talk to me in two years.

[JFN1]

6. Will do.

But I'm curious. Why? Do you believe that simply patching things up with no consequence to those who screwed us, will get us out of this?

If so, I take it you've never had kids. Telling a kid not to do something again, without assessing consequences for the original act, and the promise of future consequences if the act is repeated, is meaningless.

And I don't see much difference between how these Wall Street types act, and children...

[Schema Thing]

12. I do have a child, and I think that a world that looks like 28 Days After

would not have been a good thing, just to make a point to some amoral people, most of whom were working their greed within the law.


I think the strategy of stabilizing the economic system and then making systemic changes is the good (and only workable) strategy.


Frankly, you sound a little like Ron Paul to me.

If it was up to me, Obama would sweep his hands, and viola! America would be every bit as socialized as France. But it's not up to me, and even Obama couldn't make that happen even if it was.


I'll admit I'd like to see Obama channeling the people a bit more, but I know it's a fine line he walks.

[omega minimo]

41. The time to decide whether you endorse the U.S government run by corporations is NOW

You don't have two years

[ProSense]

4. I don't know. Krugman see signs,

here. Maybe they're bogus, but who knows?

[patrice]

5. Let is sink? Tell me, whom will it be acceptable to let that hurt and how much should we allow the

"sinking" to hurt them, while we get our act together to do whatever's next?

Please enumerate the groups who are expendable and the specific types of and how much damage we should allow to happen to them here:

[MarjorieG]

7. There will be imbalance until we stabilize. Need to keep some system, until we re-regulate.

There is also just so much he can do against Congress. We are taking stock of institutions and will work with increasing public sentiment and awareness. Obama did not promise radical change, and he also did not decide the bailouts, did not cause this, so I'd appreciate less anger directed at him.

[salguine]

8. Couldn't have said it better. Every last word is true.

[stillcool]

9. Of course that bail-out happened..

in October. And I'm sure you are far more knowledgeable about the Global Financial System than I am...hell almost anybody is...I'll take your word for it that Obama has completely fucked up, but to be honest...I've heard that before.

[wellst0nev0ter]

54. Obama Has Taken Time Off From His Campaign

To lobby for the bailout, especially with the members of the CBC. So don't pretend he doesn't own this.

[stillcool]

73. Yeah...he 'owns' everything...

no one else is responsible for anything that has happened in the last hundred years. I live in Massachusetts and Barney Frank is one of my favorite members of Congress.

[earth mom]

10. This country needs commerce-not big capitalism. The bailout money needs to be in the hands of people

who can use it to start small businesses and grow them.

I'm thinking ebay, etsy, one of a kind stores and small manufacturing.

Ever since the bailout out I've said that those trillions belong in the hands of the people.

Not in the hands of the banks & Wall Street so that they can continue their pyramid/ponzi schemes! :grr:

I'm angry that Obama is cheered around DU when all he has done is uphold the lying cheating status quo of * & Co's beloved corporate america while we pay for it! :puke:

[patrice]

21. Name the groups that you are willing to hurt while we shift gears, away from banks & Wall Street

to us and Main street, please.

If a house is collapsing with people still in it and it's lost 2 corners already should we just go ahead and knock out the other 2 before as many people as possible have a chance to get out?

Think of the consequences of saying, in effect, "Contracts (and Contract Law), which were legal when they were signed, will not be honored. What people legally owe other people is ir-relevant." HOW would we draw a line for where Contract Law will be enforced and where Contract Law will not be enforced? If you were a holder of some of these contracts and some of them were just flat out thrown away by the government, what would you do with any other contracts that were supposedly still good? Say for stuff that YOU owe for? Don't you think that you'd say, "Well, if you all say those other contracts are no good, I say these contracts aren't any good either"? And what grounds would anyone have to dispute that legally? The problem is the sheer SIZE of the hole; some estimates are that the total "value" represented by these derivatives that were in these hedge funds is $700 Trillion dollars, far far far FAR beyond anything that we can cover with whatever our remaining assets are (because we don't produce anything anymore). We're talking about bringing absolutely EVERYTHING to a screeching halt here, banks, almost all paychecks, credit cards, all of the taxes, end of Medicare, Education, Social Security, End of Everything. So if we're going to do that, we need to step up right here and now and SAY who will be cared for and who will not, because there isn't going to be enough of anything, goods or services, to go around.

[earth mom]

30. The Obama Administration & Congress think nothing of kicking Auto Makers & Union workers to the curb

What about all those people and all those industries associated with the big three?

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. Not when elected officials are so eager to kick such a huge part of the economy and so many well paid employees to the curb.

Plus you know as well as I do that Taxpayers don't have 700 Trillion to bail out the crooks of Wall Street and the Banks.

So, let's cut our losses now, because everyone knows this situation with Wall Street and the Banks is just a bottomless pit.

Time to stop throwing good money after bad and start over with something that actually helps the majority of the people instead of a rarefied few.

Give the people the money and let them kick the economy into gear.

Which they will do, no doubt in my mind.

[BelgianMadCow]

38. Cenk on The Young Turks spoke exactly about that, and I found it VERY interesting

it was in his discussion with William Black, and they were speaking about how to handle insolvent banks.

For example, CDS between parties that don't even hold the underlying assets are basically pure bets - and letting these (a BIG part of the problem) evaporate into thin air harms nobody in the real economy.

It's not like the only choice is between what happens now and a total system collapse. The FDIC procedure for insolvent banks has proven it can handle such things. Close on friday, open on monday, with deposits and loans etc ongoing. No screeching standstill. This from a guy who has DONE it in the S&L crisis.

All of the "whoaaa system collapse" is just another form of terra terra!

here's the audio of the interview:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x294058

[omega minimo]

42. anyone and everyone associated with scamming us that the bogus assets must be revalued and retained

There's no there there. There never was. They knew it. We know it.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. What about UAW contracts?

And you know, I've HAD contracts with companies that went broke in my own life, and guess what? No payout.

[Zhade]

36. Especially considering IT'S OUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

NT!

[leftofthedial]

11. with a trillion dollars,

you could reanimate an Egyptian mummy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. .

:evilgrin:

[Uzybone]

13. The GOP will use this headline in 2010 and 2012

you can count on it.

[Two Americas]

20. they will?

You mean the Republican party is going to become the left wing party in the country? Or....?

[Telly Savalas]

33. Why not? It's pretty easy to link up vague populist rhetoric with right-wing policies.

Lou Dobbs does it every night.

[Two Americas]

43. what could happen

It could very well be that we are watching the Democratic party become the conservative party in the country. It has happened before and is not out of the question. There are many signs that this is happening.

It is a shorter path from populism to left wing politics then it is to get from the aristocratic, gentrified, authoritarian, and economically conservative politics that are coming to dominate the Democratic party to anything even vaguely left wing.

The Democratic party has been becoming the party of the "winners" - the upscale, enlightened and educated professionals - and more and more dominated by those in the upper 10% income bracket for quite a while now. People here routinely express the most contemptuous and condescending attitudes toward the every day people imaginable. Positions that were once reserved to Republican 40 years ago now win the day here again and again.

I have watched over the last few months as poor people, homeless people, people without health care and single payer advocates, anti-war people, GLBTQ people, teachers, Labor advocates, Bill of Rights defenders, advocates for safe food and family farming have all been systematically "thrown under the bus" and then viciously attacked.

All of the excuses from the past have now evaporated - "the people are too conservative" for example. The people just utterly rejected Reaganomics and the religious right. "Things need to get worse" was another one. Things are worse now. "We don't have the numbers" was a favorite for a long time. The Democrats now have more seats in Congress then either party has enjoyed for decades.

So the time is now right, the people are behind us, and we have the numbers and a clear mandate. If the party still moves to the right - and I can't see how anyone can deny that this is happening - then something else is going on.

That all sure indicates a political party that is becoming the new conservative party to me. Party loyalists want to deny that now, not because they support left wing politics or oppose the party becoming conservative, but rather because it is not tactically sound, it would work against partisan advantage for "our team," to acknowledge the simple and obvious truth about this. For the time being it is essential to keep people convinced that the Democratic party has not changed, until the new conservative positions are solidly entrenched and unassailable.

Stranger things have happened. It is rare for the liberal party to become the conservative party, and these things work in cycles - about once every 100 years. 1810s, 1910s, ....? - but it can and does happen.



...

[Telly Savalas]

48. I wouldn't count on it.

Do you know of or have heard of any liberals or leftists flirting with joining the GOP? Have you heard any current Republicans moving to a liberal philosophy? Regardless of the direction you perceive the Democratic Party to be moving, the GOP doesn't look like it plans to change lanes anytime soon.

We might see more incoherent Joe-the-Plumber style anti-government populism coming from the GOP, but the path from this to far right wing laissez faire economics is a lot shorter than the path to rational economic policies.

[Two Americas]

49. not how it works

There were no Whigs flirting with moving to the Democratic party in the 1850's, nor Democrats flirting with moving to the Whigs. Still, millions were unhappy and neither party was representing them. They were told that they had "nowhere else to go" then, just as we are being told today.

The argument - which we hear now more than we ever have - and not merely in the lead up to a general election anymore - that we have nowhere else to go is a symptom that things are volatile and unstable, that does not support the idea that things are stable.

However, what I have been seeing over the last few months is that it is getting easier and easier to talk left wing politics to Republican voters, while it become more and more difficult to do that with the Dem party loyalists. That is another sign.

One has to assume that the two parties will remain the same, and that we will always have the same two parties in order to make the case that the two parties will remain the same, and that we will always have the same two parties.



...

[Old Michigander]

61. Laissez faire Economics Not Conservative

Laissez faire economics is actually a classicly liberal concept, not a conservative one. Conservative economics would have been more closely associated with various monopoly corporations chartered by the crown as well as the traditional system of guilds for each occupation.

[Romulox]

86. The "Liberal" in neo-liberal economics is not (directly) related to "Liberal" in the American

political sense.

[Old Michigander]

90. Liberal Definition

Yes, liberal in the traditional 19th century sense involves the extension of individual rights and freedoms to more and more segments of the population, whereas the more recent definition involves the curtailment of individual rights in pursuit of societal objectives.

[mdmc]

79. Bloomberg son,

Bloomberg

[gorfle]

80. I think you are on to somthing.

It could very well be that we are watching the Democratic party become the conservative party in the country. It has happened before and is not out of the question. There are many signs that this is happening.

I think you are right. Perhaps it is not all bad though. I know a lot of left-of-center folks will be unhappy, but I think a lot of what has diluted the "purity" of the Democratic party is the fact that a ton of traditionally Republican voters, like myself, have become utterly disillusioned with the Republican party. It's not so much that we are "liberals" in the traditional sense, but more that we have grown tired of the hypocrisy of the Republican party.

Many folks like me who are tired of seeing religion play a role in politics. People who are tired of spending trillions of dollars on a "war" that in reality is nothing but an Iraqi welfare project with every corporation bellying up to the trough that can find a place at it. People who are tired of corporate welfare that protects the interests of corporations and multi-millionaire corporate officers while screwing the regular American worker. People who are tired of seeing the environment take a far back seat to profits. People who are tired of the erosions of civil liberties such as habeus corpus, and pervasive domestic surveillance. People who are tired of hearing there is no money for Social Security or National Health Care but that there are trillions for Wall Street bankers and wars.

BUT, we tend to be more pro-self-reliance than pro-welfare. We don't mind social programs that we all benefit from, but we don't want social programs that we only pay for but can't use ourselves. We tend to be pro-firearm. We tend to be anti-Union.

So I think you are right. The self-destruction of the Republican Party has made countless right-of-center folks flee to the Democratic Party.

[Romulox]

87. I think this would make a very compelling OP. Please consider reposting it. nt

[Mithreal]

97. Very well written warning and damn right, TA, thanks. nt

[Political Tiger]

16. Oh for God's sake!

The man has been in office for less than three months, of course he hasn't "fixed" the economy!

But yes, he is trying.

You don't want him to fix the economy, you want him to change the economy. Those are two different things. You may not like his approach, but claiming "he did not even try" (correct term would be 'he is not trying') does show a certain amount of blindness to the problem.

And what's really ironic is that it is those who claim people who actually support President Obama are "acting like he walks on water" yet it those who don't like Obama who are the ones expecting miracles from him!!

[Hekate]

109. I think you're definitely on to something there, Political Tiger...

... when you say:
"And what's really ironic is that it is those who claim people who actually support President Obama are "acting like he walks on water" yet it those who don't like Obama who are the ones expecting miracles from him!!"

Hekate

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. It's from the P.T. Barnum School of High Finance. Guess who the suckers are who get to pay for it.

It won't work but, what the hell, at least they're "doing something".

[opihimoimoi]

18. IMPEACH HIM...GET McCain in there...he would fuck it even more

Get the GOP in there to restore DeLusion and other fuckups...Restore Cronyism and Ineptness....

Those 8 horrid years unner Bush was just peachy....

Obama is the best thing down the Pike in YEARS.....

[HughMoran]

22. You're just repeating the "bank bad, people good" argument

That's nice, but cutting taxes was the Republican way of doing it and it got us where we are today.

[bajamary]

23. please watch Bill Moyers and William K Black

Bill Moyers Journal PBS broadcast

April 3, 2009

The financial industry brought the economy to its knees, but how did they get away with it? With the nation wondering how to hold the bankers accountable, Bill Moyers sits down with William K. Black, the former senior regulator who cracked down on banks during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Black offers his analysis of what went wrong and his critique of the bailout.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

24. "When nobody around you seems to measure up, it's time to check your yardstick." ~Bill Lemley

[blue neen]

25. His name is President Obama.

I don't care if you are a loyal Democrat with 20/20 vision. His name is President Obama.

[Runcible Spoon]

31. Oh jeebus not that shit again.

HIS NAME WAS ROBERT PAULSON.

[Romulox]

88. No it's not. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. His TITLE is President.

Nothing worse than a sloppy pedant! :hi:

[geek tragedy]

26. Obama is not trying to fix the economy, but I love him.

I call bullshit.

To my ignore list you go.

[SanchoPanza]

27. A minor quibble.

$296 billion in TARP funds were spent under agreements made prior to Obama taking office. The breakdown:

- $195b through the Capital Purchase Program (basically buying equity shares in shaky institutions)
- $80b in directly purchasing shares of AIG, CitiGroup, and BoA ($40b, $20b, and $20b respectively)
- $21b in loans to automakers

There's another $60b to $92b that's scheduled to be spent under previous agreements. Loan guarantees to BoA and Citi, guarantees to the NY Fed, and the rest that was allocated to the CPP. There's a possibility that the Treasury might scale down the CPP from $250b to $218b, hence the "$60b to $92b" figure.

No TARP funds have been spent under new agreements after Obama took office, but up to $200b is scheduled to be spent. The breakdown:

- $75b to $100b through the Public/Private Investment Program ("The Geithner Plan")
- $50b through the Home Affordable Modification Program
- $30b in preferred AIG stock
- $15b in credit to small businesses through the purchase of SBA loans
- $5b in payment guarantees to domestic auto suppliers

I realize that all this amounts to is a rather general overview of spending priorities between two administrations, but it might help to know precisely what you're talking about before ascending the soapbox.

[Boomerang Diddle]

28. "So stop acting like he walks on water."

I can't tell you how many times I have heard that from cons - and PUMA's during the primaries. Never gets old.
NOT!

[JFN1]

29. Here we go...

Compare me to a neocon, or a Republican ALL YOU LIKE. It does not change the facts.

There are three main areas that caused me to give my vote to Mr. Obama.

One, the economy and his campaign promises about how he would manage it. He has not kept his promises (see not raising taxes on working Americans yet taxing cigarettes, a product dominated by the poor and working class - and no, I do not smoke), and I disagree with the manner in which he is going forward with the "fix." Spanking the auto industry while filling Wall Street's pockets is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Mr. Obama campaigned on, and what I believe he promised the rest of us.

Two, torture and war crimes prosecution. His failure to uphold international and US law, his continued use of Bush tactics to refrain from following the law, are just plain wrong.

Three, illegal wiretapping, which he is continuing to defend using Bush tactics.

Now tell me: Should I truly act like a neocon or a Republican and lockstep behind EVERY ACTION our HUMAN President takes? Should I continue to worship Mr. Obama, as so many here seem so willing to do?

Or should I do my DUTY as a citizen and QUESTION HIS ACTIONS, HIS MOTIVES, HIS METHODS, HIS POSITIONS?

[Zhade]

37. I, for one, applaud you for your honesty.

I like Obama. A lot.

I HATE the things you mentioned more.

[Thickasabrick]

32. Actually, Bush and Paulson created TARP. Obama just followed

through. Why waste all those initial billions with a do-over?

[Zhade]

34. I just don't get why someone as brilliant as he is can't understand he's failing.

He's handing the republicans exactly what they want -- because you're right, this won't fix the economy.

[Political Heretic]

46. No it probably will "fix" the economy for another cycle of wealthy rape of the American worker,

leading to an even larger economic collapse as we continue our recovery/bust cycle which gets worse every time we go through it.

The rich only care about setting up their next Ponzi scheme, they don't give a fuck about setting up the next economic disaster, because THEY NEVER FEEL THE EFFECTS, GOVERNMENT HAS GOT THEIR BACK.

[Life Long Dem]

39. In what year would the banks be bailed out by the trickle uppers?

[Two Americas]

44. never

So what?

[Life Long Dem]

102. That's the whole point of most of these freeper post.

It's the Limpballs failure crowd.

[Political Heretic]

45. Is that what we're calling it now? Seriously? You're seriously going to mock people that suggest.

..we should be focusing policy on the majority of Americans rather than a privileged few... you're going to call them the "trickle uppers?"

Wow.

It's like the worlds gone up side fucking down. You realize if you're mocking people for a belief that policy should be focused on Main Street, then you're arguing Ronald Reaganomics. The opposite of "trickle up" is what.... say it with me.... trickle down economics.

So I guess you've become a Republican now?

[JFN1]

82. It wouldn't even take a year.

I'll bet that 90% of Americans who are having financial problems - paying their mortgage, their auto loan, their health care costs - would use such funds to get even - or ahead - on their financial responsibilities. Yes, there would be some Americans who would use such funds for a trip to Disney Land - but most of us, would do the responsible thing, and PAY OUR BILLS.

Why are the banks failing? Because people cannot pay their bills. Start from the bottom up, for once, instead of the top down, and see what happens.

It cannot be any worse than what we have now...

[Raineyb]

101. WTF?

You cannot be for real.

[nini]

47. "He Did Not Even Try"

You may not agree with what he did but that statement is ridiculous.

Sad thing is.. we're tied into this mess and what will happen if he doesn't try and save those assholes will be harder on the rest of us than if he didn't.

We're up against a wall here - be pissed at those who allowed us to get into this position in the first place more than someone you disagree with on the method. Also, this isn't a straight black and white issue so taking a position as such doesn't make much sense.

[JFN1]

89. He moved to fix the Wall Streeet economy

NEWS FLASH: Most Americans (99.9999%) live on Main Street.

[nini]

96. If you really don't see how everything is inter-connected

then there's no use trying to discuss it.

[Prophet 451]

51. I take your point

However, I also tend to take the view that Obama is a very smart man and this was the best that was politically feasable at the time.

[shireen]

52. ok, a question for those who criticize the critics

Can you please explain why President Obama is listening to the likes of Rubin, Summers, and Geitner? Why are the banks getting bailed out for failing, and not small businesses that are the victims of their incompetence? Really. Please help me understand.

I want to trust him. I want to believe there is a method to his madness, that he has a trick up his sleeve that will make everything right. But we all have been let down too many times by our leaders, and i've run out of trust.

Yes, it's been just over 2 months since he took office. I'm trying hard to be patient. But i'm also horrified by what i've seen so far. Too many people are hurting.

JFN1 is right. In a democracy, it is our duty to question our leaders.

[Old Michigander]

63. Something has to be done about corporate control of Congress

Obama will not Cbe able to get more radical changes approved by Congress. The congress is under the control of the corporations. If Obama want to make REAL changes he will have to change the congress. Perhaps he could start out by finding some good candidates to run against some of the most corrupt incumbants in the primaries. What about Chris Dodd? Is he up for re-election next year? Get someone honest to run against him in the primaries. For God's sake, even his father was a crook! How many generations of crooks do we need in Congress?

[TheWatcher]

53. FINALLY. Sanity.

Please Post More Of It.

:applause:

[RBInMaine]

57. There are stark differences between Bush and Obama. There are major changes. QUIT YOUR WHINING !

Must is ALWAYS come to this!? Must some FOOLISH people on "our side" ALWAYS insist upon standing in a circular firing squad? There are MAJOR regulatory changes coming under Obama/Dems, and MANY other more progressive changes which have already been put into place with more on the way. He is doing his best under very, very difficult circumstances. Geitner and Summers know the terrain, and they have carved out a centrist path in this. Give the team a chance for Christ sake, be happy that Bush is gone, see the WHOLE picture, and quit this NONSENSE that only plays into the hands of the R's who we are committed to POUND INTO ELECTORAL HELL FOR DECADES ! Train your fire there for Christ sake !

[FedUp_Queer]

99. Oh I get it....

WE MUST OBEY!!!! WE MUST OBEY!!!! WE MUST OBEY!!!! WE MUST OBEY!!!! WE MUST OBEY!!!! WE MUST OBEY!!!!

I for will NEVER be cowed into accepting something that is bad not matter who says it. I, for one, will always be a seeker of truth. If a number of Democratic "loyalists" get their feelings hurt because they don't want to take the time to speak up, then SCREW THEM.

I am sick and damn tired of the "X is better than Y" argument. A cold is better than the flu, I guess. In either case, you are sick. Here is the thing that nobody wants to talk about. Here is why it's hard to have a discussion about the monetary system. Most Americans don't know the first thing about who owns the "system." Most have no idea who owns the money. Most have no idea that our monetary system is completely privatized. The fact is this: the federal reserve banks are all privately-owned. They are not public entities. As such, the federal reserve banks "own" our currency. You don't "own" your currency. The system is only public only has a "pseudo-stake" at best in the financial system. The federal reserve board, which sets monetary policy, consists of 7 people, whom the president appoints. They are appointed for FOURTEEN YEAR TERMS. The chair and vice-chair are appointed to seven year terms. In other words, members of the federal reserve board could conceivably be board members for at least two different presidents. In addition, the "Fed" (the federal reserve board) is not a member of any of the three branches of government. In fact, while the president can fire members of the cabinet at any time because they serve at his pleasure, the president can only fire a member of the Fed "for cause." In other words, it's nearly impossible. So, what we have are 7 people who serve in what is, in essence, an "extra-constitutional" role outside, unaccountable to...nobody, except loosely the federal reserve banks, which are all privately-held. This is why Bernanke can lend $2.2 trillion to banks but tell the congress to F-Off when they asked whom he lent it to. After all, what are they going to do, fire him?

Remember that in 1998, Clinton signed Gramm-Leech-Bliley, which essentially repealed Glass-Steagall. Who lobbied for this? You guessed it: Bob Rubin and Larry Summers (who is Geithner's protege). So...here's the deal. We are not dealing with a system that is sick and curable. We are dealing with a system that needs to be taken down and remade. The only way, unfortunately, to do that is to allow it to crash; allow it to fail. Will it be painful? Most definitely. Is it necessary? Most definitely. We have a house whose foundation is crumbling. You cannot fix it by replacing the shingles on the roof. We need to take it down and remake the system into a system that is accountable to the people. We need to have a system that we own, not one bankers who own, who then steal money from our treasury to prop up their system.

[RBInMaine]

107. Are ever going to be satisfied with anything? Or are you going to protest forever?

Obama has been in office for a few months, and all you endless protesters can do is bitch bitch bitch. No, you can't be happy that Bush is gone. You can't be happy that the military has a mandate to get out of Iraq completely by 2011. You can't be happy that Obama has just opened up much more to Cuba. You can't be happy that we are well on the way to restoring our standing in the world. You can't be happy that many new banking system regulations are on the way. You can't be happy that we got a stimulus bill and will hopefully have a budget that reinvests in healthcare, infrastructure, and a newer and greener economy. You can't be happy that we got SCHIP. You can't be happy that we got the new stem cell rules. You can't be happy that we now finally have a chance to get Card Check and to get rid of the Social Secturity offset rules. You can't be happy that we have large Dem majorities in both houses of Congress. You can't be happy that we certainly do have a more progressive, albeit overall centrist approach to the financial mess, created under Bush/Cheney (including new rules coming on the bailout money, bonus contracts, bank fees, etc. GIVE IT SOME TIME !). Like it or not, we need a functional banking system. It's a tough situation. Your idea of simply giving money to the masses does not firm up and prevent a banking system collapse. The goal is to stabilize the system and reform it over time with new regulations. Again, give it some time. A great deal of positive change has come with more on the way. Train your fire on the right wing for Christ sake !

[Demeter]

58. Sadly, These Bailouts Don't Even Do that

they just delay the inevitable, buying a few months and an unaffordable cost.

[nolabels]

60. Sort of like heroin addict upping the dose looking for a high they had once before

Neil Young - Needle And The Damage Done: lyrics and video
http://crocmusic.com/track/147370/neil_young/needle_and_the_damage_done/

[Old Michigander]

62. Bailouts

Yes, the bailouts will just delay or postphone the final collapse, making it far worse when it does happen. Rather than just having a deep recession or depression, you will have a complete collapse of the currency, destroying the life savings of many average people.

[ProfessorGAC]

59. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah

You clearly don't know anything about macroeconomics. Your concern about the bailouts is valid, but to consider this a valid criticism of Obama's economic efforts is just silly.
GAC

[NNN0LHI]

64. Being a loyal Democrat ... And I should believe that because you say so?

I might have been born yesterday but it wasn't last night.

Do you believe everything you read on anonymous political chat sites?

Don

[BzaDem]

65. Sorry. Your proposal will not work as a matter of economics.

It is very easy to say what you said -- that we should just give everyone money and everything will be OK. But it is much harder to show using the tools of economics that such a plan would work. It is actually impossible, since it would not work. Giving everyone a check for several thousand dollars will not cause banks not to fail, and despite everything you say to the contrary, letting the banks fail would not "fix" the economy. We would have the same result as we had in the 30s when we let the banks fail.

[JFN1]

103. First, you've way oversimplified my suggestion

and second, we are not on the hook for a few thousand dollars - we are EACH on the hook for around $40,000. And my point is, if - for once - we tried TRICKLE UP instead of the tried and truly, spectacularly failed, TRICKLE DOWN, we might see something amazing and absolutely just, happen. If, instead of each of handing $40,000 in bailout cash, WE were handed that cash, I believe we would see something amazing happen to this country. I don't have facts and figures to back me up, as to my knowledge, such a thing has never been done - any more than the huge bailouts going on now have been done.

But following my suggestion would certainly be more just than giving - at this point - TRILLIONS of dollars - to rich, corrupt, irresponsible corporations, with nothing but the hope and a promise that these same assholes won't take our money and just screw us again in a few months or years...

[Johonny]

106. I agree

Worse giving everyone a thousand dollars won't build a bridge or any other infrastructure. It seems like a silly argument to make. The rest of the rant is ok by me. Until the Obama administration comes out with a new regulatory plan... I think it's fair game for DUers to complain about the lack of it.

[progressoid]

66. Simply restoring the system of greed, corruption, and social imbalance...does not "fix" the economy

Yep.

[SlingBlade]

68. Welcome to day Eighty-Four (84) of the Obama Administration

Watch as Freeper Heads explode all over the Nation

Marvel at the stupid comment section of your local paper

Experience the thrill of being an honest to god Arm Chair Monday Morning Quarterback

Jump right in, It's Fun :toast: :bounce: :wow: :thumbsup: :hi: :grouphug: :headbang:




YAWN !
:sarcasm:

[nevergiveup]

69. Sorry, but this is hogwash

If a ship is sinking you need to start bailing water and fix the leak. After you have righted the ship then you can go after the causes and make certain it doesn't happen again. Obama inherited a sinking ship. Handing out money to the passengers would not have solved anything.

[TheEuclideanOne]

70. I think that you are lobbing way too much blame on Obama

Two things that come to mind are that,

1) This process started before Obama took office. You can't say that he was 100% in charge of this and that he should have decided to give everybody the money. This is not a dictatorship where one person makes all of the decisions, and he obviously can not make any decisions when this started, which was before day 1 of his taking office. He has inheritted one big clusterfuck on a number of levels.

2) It is oversimplifying things to say that there was really just one super simple solution, just give the money to the people. To be fair....Like you, and many other people, I have pondered this solution myself.

Sure, he bailed out the big shots and people received bonuses that they should not have. In my opinion, some of the recipients should be in jail instead of getting millions. But look at how hard it was to even roll back or cancel those bonuses. Not that easy, eh? Not everything is as simple as it appears on the surface. At the same time, he does not repeat history with the auto makers, but you criticize him for chastizing the automanufacturers. Shouldn't you be arguing that he should NOT give money blindly to the auto manufacturers? After all, you are not happy with the way things turned out for the banks. (who is?).

[IsItJustMe]

71. Same old shit, different president. The definition of insanity is doing things the same way and

expecting a different result. Sooner or latter the people of this country will get tired of it.

[BlueJac]

74. When and if I get a job will be the test for Obama.....

The crooks at the banks and Wall Street have stripped this country down, reduced all our retirement accounts and flew off in their private jets. At this point in my unemployed senior years I really wanted to see the change we were promised instead of more of the same failed policies. People seem all giddy that everything is all good because the banks got their big payoffs, not so fast. A loose fitting patch has been applied to our flat tire banking system and will probably start leaking again soon. We have been a debt based economy for a long time now and to resume borrowing and spending is not going to work to stabilize our faltering system. I didn't really think "Yes we can" meant more of the same.

[MUAD_DIB]

75. I know! OMFG! It hasn't been 3 months since he's been in office

and he hasn't fixed everything yet: just the way you want him to.

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

[natrat]

76. surprise, obama just like the rest of the lovely democrats in washington,just bad people

[gorfle]

77. I agree with you, JFN1!

I agree with you, buddy.

The way I see it, the way this bailout should have been handled is to purchase all of the "bad" loans and then refinance them so that the people struggling under them could handle them.

The reason why I say "bad" in quotes is because these loans are not actually "bad" loans. OK, so on a $200,000 30-year loan instead of making $400,000 over the life of the loan they will only make $100,000. But that's still one-hundred-thousand-fucking-dollars to be made with absolutely no effort.

I don't know why the solution to this problem was to give all the bankers more money in the hopes that they would hand out more debt obligations to the people of this country. The solution to this problem is not to increase credit and thus increase citizen debt. The solution to this problem is to increase the citizenry wealth. You can do this by reducing the amount of money they spend on their biggest expense - their home! And the people who need this help the most are those in danger of losing their homes.

[closeupready]

81. I agree entirely.

n/t

[bertman]

83. Recommend. Wall Street and the Financial Industry will continue to get fresh infusions of

cash from us cash cows, I mean taxpayers, because they control the levers of power. In what parallel universe would the commander turn to the guys who lead the charge of the Light Brigade and ask them for advice on military matters? This is what our President WAS FORCED to do by the Financial Elites who control this country. Believe it or not, our President answers to people who have more power than he does.

We flatter our inflated vision of America as a a nation of, by, and for the people, when we fail to see who really controls things.

[OhioChick]

84. Completely agree. n/t

[OneBlueSky]

91. me too . . . n/t

[dlfuller]

92. k&r

k&r

[leftchick]

93. the robber barons and their enabling politicians

are back in full force.

k&r

[inna]

94. "Beyond Here Lies Nothing: Surging Further Into the Abyss"

from Chris Floyd:

"I've never been a starry-eyed idealist. I've never preached the counsel of seeking the perfect at the expense of the good. And I've never believed that any single politician or administration could take office and magically transform the nature of the American empire overnight. I acknowledge the aptness of the metaphor used by many of Obama's defenders: the image of a sea captain, beset by virulent opponents on the bridge, struggling to turn a vast ocean liner in the opposite direction, in the midst of a raging storm. That would indeed take a long time, and tremendous effort, and require stoic patience from the passengers.

But that is not what is happening. The long, hard, thankless effort that it would take to roll back the bloated global empire of bases and curtail the power of the oligarchy (for you can't do one without the other) has not even begun. Obama is not trying to wrest the ship of state toward a new direction; he is deliberately and willingly continuing on the same disastrous, destructive course as before. Every day carries us further and further away from the shore, and makes any effort to reverse course that much harder -- if indeed, it is still possible at all."

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1732-beyond-here-lies-nothing-surging-further-into-the-abyss.html

[inna]

95. rec# 76, btw. from the same article by Chris Floyd - this is rather brutal....

"The wagon train with its rotting cargo keeps lurching on. A change of drivers has not meant a change in direction. As Tom Englehardt points out, in both foreign policy and on the economic front, the Obama Administration is trying frantically to preserve an imperial system that is cracking under the weight of its own immoral excesses, its own arrogance and willful ignorance. But owing to the latter, their only solution is to do more of the same things that have plunged the system into severe crisis.

In fact, the domestic side of their efforts is even more radical, more shocking than Obama's dull-witted "continuity" in Terror War. The new administration is openly transferring trillions of dollars to a small core of financial elites, in effect placing the rest of the country into a state of economic peonage to these remote and unaccountable overlords -- who have, astonishingly, used the fear and suffering created by their own actions as an opportunity to take their domination of society to even greater heights. What Obama and his economic team are abetting is, as Simon Johnson and others have noted, nothing less than an oligarchic coup d'etat. I lived through one of those in Russia in the 1990s, and it was not a pretty sight. And again, because the scale of the American power structure is so much greater, so too will be the far-reaching, long-lasting consequences of this coup."


it's pretty bad, to say the least, if he is correct in his assessments.

[SkyDaddy7]

98. So...

I like what has been done so far so I will continue drinking the Obama economic Kool-Aid...I like Capitalism and I think it can be saved.

I guess time will tell who gets it right and who gets it wrong.

To those who think Obama is not even trying to fix the economy and that he is no better than a Republican as many have said...Who will you be supporting to challenge President Obama in 2012? After all we can't have a no good slacker Republican acting as Democrat so who is your man/woman for 2012?

[steelmania75]

100. Obama passed an economic stimulus that's going to create new jobs...

...and he wants to get a budget passed that makes investments in healthcare, energy, and education in the long run. So...don't say he's just helping out Wall Street.

[WI_DEM]

104. your entitled to your opinion and I treat it as such.

[and-justice-for-all]

108. Who said it was 'fixed'? nt