|
I forget which DU'er here shocked me by saying that shwe was going to vote for Clinton over PObama. How is it she says this. SHe is more progressive than I am, but she will bvote for Clinton?
SO I PM the lady, asking how is it that Senator Clinton will be her choice?
She PM's back: <Here I paraphrase> "The advantage to having a Hillary Clinton in office is that so many people are willing to endlessly critique her. When she props up the continued destruction of the working class, people will be outraged.
But Obama is likeable. So as he wrosens the lot of the average person, there will be nary a whisper of critisism levelled against him."
Thus we have Ben Bernanke in this administration. He has a hallowed place in the new regime, despite his being the father of the leveraging of the CDO's, SIV's, and credit default swaps, allowing these financial instruments to be traded up to thirty or forty times a piece. He should be sharing a jail cell with Madoff - as Bernanke has caused our economy infinitely more problems than Madoff's mere swindle of 65 Billion.
So we have Geithner, who is not at all interested in being really effective. He could say
that we will re-install Glass Stengall, we will revoke the Bank reform Act of 1999. Instead he pretends that by spending days or weeks or months adding some type of super structure to the deviant corporations like AIG, that there will finally be stability.
Our media sees him as being a wunderkid - but the Ozzie's have his number. They knew that he helped to worsen the crisis in the Far East during the IMF days of 1997 to 1998.
And his insisting on adding all that structure to institutions like AIG only means that there will
be loopholes after loopholes for the connivers at the top to slip their odious activities through. We as a nation might well be eating it for a long long time.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
