Obama made another fine speech on the The anniversary is the collapse of Lehman Brothers (ok 1 day beforehand)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32841497/ns/business-economy_in_turmoil/
1. Obama is bought and paid for by Wall Street.
2. Obama crisis management skills are exactly equal to or defeated by a wet paper bag.
You can say Obama's economic policy is not bad, but you should know that they are really the last president's bailout policy.
Also the TARP plan has a good intention, but it's just a one time fix. It's supposed to kick the economy back up to speed. As if.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32841497/ns/business-economy_in_turmoil/
1. Obama is bought and paid for by Wall Street.
2. Obama crisis management skills are exactly equal to or defeated by a wet paper bag.
You can say Obama's economic policy is not bad, but you should know that they are really the last president's bailout policy.
Also the TARP plan has a good intention, but it's just a one time fix. It's supposed to kick the economy back up to speed. As if.
Hell hath no fury like a hypocritical Siftocrats'.
What you actually thought he would say the truth.
It's not about what you say but what people hear.
TARP wasn't about kicking the economy up to speed, it was about stopping the financial sector from being utterly destroyed, and it was structured poorly (ethically speaking).
I'm not hopeful about what kind of regulatory framework Obama will be able to put in place either, but I think you're overshooting the mark with your comments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-obama-wont-be-able-to_b_286408.html
quoting arriana Huffington
And that's the way it is with our leaders. They stand on the bridge making theatrical gestures they claim will steer us in a new direction while, down in the control room, the autopilot, programmed by politicians in the pocket of special interests, continues to guide the ship of state along its predetermined course.
quoting arriana Huffington
doing everything in its power to kill things like cramdown legislation, derivatives regulation, and the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and the president is asking them to be nicer people. That's like tossing a wounded seal into the middle of a school of Great White sharks and hoping the beasts will nurse it back to health.
I've only read the first two pages, and already I see things the Bush administration would've never proposed. A new regulatory authority? Closing tax loopholes? Talking up fiscal stimulus in coordination with ferigners? Bush would've vetoed the lot.
Yeah I mixed up TARP and the stimulus package. Doh!
The proposed Financial Consumer Protection Agency...(CFPA)
Please Please gimme some hope here. I know the banksters are going to declaw it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tram-nguyen/dont-let-bankers-gut-the_b_253336.html
anyhow Netrunner thanks for comments. I must say that I see Obama really as a diabolical obstacle to change. Am I right in saying that even the most loyal Obama people see him as more status quo than change? After His first 9 months?
quoting Obama
Eight months later, the work of recovery continues. And although I will never be satisfied while people are out of work and our financial system is weakened, we can be confident that the storms of the past two years are beginning to break.
Someone quotable said, "you have to know U.S. presidents are always centrists"
Given Obama is a centrist, is he an obstacle to regulation of banks, union busters, clean energy etc?
I sent a message to my congressman the other day. About net neutrality. The congressman replied and said he was for Net Neutrality and against internet regulation. Now I don't expect the sifttalk people to know that "against internet regulation" is just a telecom lobby codeword for "anti-net neutrality."
What can you do when lobbists have so much pull that they can keep the hood over politicans eyes?
The sooner we see Obama for what he really is, a politician that is playing his image as a reformer large for the suckers. Obama let's palms be greased behinds the scenes, he's playing both sides.
Yeah I know how innocent or naive that sounds being shocked about a politician being under a lobbyist's thumb, but in Obama's case I just can't stand it.
If you're like me, you're mad as hell that he's still trying to work with Republicans at all to get legislation passed.
You're also mad as hell that Obama is apparently beholden not to the 50th most liberal member of his caucus, but the 60th "most" liberal member of the Senate, who was a Republican when he was sworn in.
Now, you can look at that situation, and place the entire blame at Obama's feet...or you can direct it at the people who're really standing in the way (i.e. Republicans, and more than a few sellouts in the Democratic caucus in Congress).
I have yet to see anything that really indicates to me that Obama's moderateness is anything like the limiting factor in getting a progressive agenda pushed, unless you're talking about prosecution of the Bush administration for war crimes.
So, when Arianna Huffington uses her platform to apply leftward pressure on Obama to try to get him to be more FDR and less Bill Clinton, she's going to use language like "Obama is just a tool of big business."
But I think a lefty who reads her articles, and comes away declaring Obama progressive enemy #1 is making a mistake.
Look at the things Elizabeth Warren is saying about the Obama regulatory reforms he's proposing (as well as this diarist).
How does the leader of the House Of Representatives Progressive Caucus treat Obama?
He defies him and refuses to vote for the bill without the public option.
I paraphrase the Congressional Progressive Caucus:
No public option, No bill.
Do I consider Obama enemy no. 1? Please! You are making me laugh!!!
But he's in my way and he's not one of us.
And I'm not a racist.
Oh, I forgot he forced Van Jones out. I guess he's not environment either.
How does the leader of the House Of Representatives Progressive Caucus treat Obama?
He defies him and refuses to vote for the bill without the public option.
I paraphrase the Congressional Progressive Caucus:
No public option, No bill.
Do I consider Obama enemy no. 1? Please! You are making me laugh!!!
But he's in my way and he's not one of us.
And I'm not a racist.
I've been calling members of the CPC myself, asking them to take that exact stance.
I wouldn't say that I did so because I felt a need to make a stand against Obama, but because I wanted to make sure Obama got a bill with a public option in it to sign, like he wants.
Speaking purely about the political machinations, I don't think a veto threat from Obama would have improved the likely legislation from the Congress. It just would've turned conservadems from having soft opposition into having stern opposition. Doing things this way leaves the door open to arm twisting later. So I can't really get worked up into a froth about his refusal to issue his own "no public option, no bill" threat.
I certainly am not going to call him a traitor to the progressive cause, or declare him not "one of us" over it, or anything else he's done up to this point.
I do wish he'd embrace some of his own sappy sayings like the Audacity of Hope, and the Fierce Urgency of Now, rather than the Naive Hope for Bipartisan Unicorns, and the Fierce Urgency of Whenever he seems to be practicing.
If he wins anyways, I'm willing to forgive it. If he gets rolled, I'm not. Right now we don't know what kind of record he's ultimately going to have, but so far he's 1 for 1 on major legislation (teh stimulus), and I suspect he'll win on this one too.