Fuck Obama

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Nordic » Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:44 pm

justdrew wrote:Here's a nice sum up...

After Obama
by David Michael Green
from commondreams.org

Eight months into it, it now seems pretty clear that the Obama administration is finished.

There were some of us -- indeed, many of us, myself included -- who thought there was a possibility that Barack Obama might seize this moment of American crisis, twinned with the complete failure for all to see of the regressive agenda, to become the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt.

Many think that was a naïve position from the get-go. I disagree. Not only do I believe that it was a legitimate possibility, I would argue that it was the logical choice even just from the narrow perspective of Obama's personal fortunes. The president is every day committing political suicide by a thousand cuts because he chose not to take that track.

That's certainly his prerogative, and at this point I wish him all the worst of luck in whatever comes next. Since I never assumed he would be a progressive once elected, any bitterness that I feel is not rooted in his failure to become the new FDR. However, I am irate that, in domain after domain, President Obama has become the personification of the very Bush administration policies that Candidate Obama so roundly criticized. And I feel deep hostility toward him about the betrayal of legions of voters -- especially the young -- who believed his message of hope and thought they were getting a president on their side, not Wall Street's.

More on that in another column. Right now, the question is what comes next? The Obama presidency is probably already toast, though of course anything can happen in three or seven years. But he is on a crash course for a major clock cleaning and, what's worse, he doesn't seem to have it remotely within him to seize history by the horns and steer that bull in his preferred direction. Indeed, near as I can tell, he doesn't even have a preferred direction.

Obama was complete fool if he ever believed for a moment that his campfire kumbaya act was going to bring the right along behind him. Even s'mores wouldn't have helped. These foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics have completely lost all sense and proportion, and were bound to viscerally hate any president left of Cheney, let alone some black guy in their white house. Meanwhile, centrist voters in this country seem pretty much only to care about taxes and spending, and so he's lost them, too, without the slightest rhetorical fight in his own defense. And he's blown off a solid progressive base by spitting in their eyes at every imaginable opportunity, beginning with the formation of his cabinet, ranging through every policy decision from civil rights to civil liberties to foreign policy to healthcare, and culminating with his choice not to even mobilize his email database in support of his policies.

So if he's lost the left, right and center, just who does he think is going to be clamoring to give him a second term three years from now, especially if the economy remains lousy for most people in the country, as it's likely to do regardless of GDP or Dow Jones growth?

There is the possibility that Obama could change course significantly, just as Bill Clinton did in 1995, following the mid-term election in which his most astute political stewardship managed to turn both houses of Congress over to the Republican Party. But Clinton turned to the right and became just a less snarly version of the Republicans, while Obama is already there. I don't really think he could conceivably turn further rightward at this point, and I don't think he has anywhere near the guts to turn to the left and do what he should have done in the first place.

What all this suggests to me is that Obama and his party will manage by 2012 to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and return the GOP -- and probably an even nastier version of it than the Bush-Cheney junta, at that -- to power. It suggests that the Democrats, who were riding high six months ago over an all but destroyed Republican Party, will be switching places with them within three years time, if not sooner -- and all because of their own cowardice, corruption and ineptitude. This outcome is hardly inevitable, but it is fast approaching. Looking out over the horizon, I see five key factors most likely to effect the health and longevity of the Obama administration, and not one of them looks positive.

The eight-hundred pound gorilla rummaging around in the kitchen right now is the economy. Indeed, this factor alone could readily swamp the combined effect of all the others, particularly if it swings dramatically in one direction or another. My guess, as a non-economist (which, of course, only means that I have a better shot at an accurate prediction than the economists do), is that the economy will exhibit some substantial signs of growth over the next three years. But I suspect the recovery will be tepid, even according to establishment measures such as GDP growth or the state of the Dow. More importantly, I strongly suspect that this will be another jobless recovery, like the last ones we've had, and that the new mean standard of living for the middle class will be pretty mean indeed, significantly diminished compared to what people were already struggling to hold on to when the Great Recession began. Personally, I think if American history teaches us anything at all about presidential elections, it is that for an incumbent president this is more or less the worst possible scenario imaginable upon which to go asking the public to punch his ticket again. Americans vote their pocketbook, and that alone is likely to be the kiss of death for Obama's second term aspirations.

Meanwhile, of course, he's also chosen to put healthcare reform on the table as the signature legislative initiative probably of his entire presidency. That's fine, but watching him in action I sometimes wonder if this clown really and actually wants a second term. I mean, if you had asked me in January, "How could Obama bungle this program most thoroughly?", I would have written a prescription that varies little from what we've observed over the last eight months: Don't frame the issue, but instead let the radical right backed by greedy industry monsters do it, on the worst possible terms for you. And to you. Don't fight back when they say the most outrageous things about your plan. In fact, don't even have a plan. Let Congress do it. Better yet, let the by-far-and-away-minority party have an equal voice in the proceedings, even if they ultimately won't vote for the bill under any circumstances, and even while they're running around trashing it and you in the most egregious terms. Have these savages negotiate with a small group of right-wing Democrats, all of them major recipients of industry campaign donations. Blow off your base completely. Cut secret sweetheart deals with the Big Pharma and Big Insurance corporate vampires. Build a communications strategy around a series of hapless press conferences and town hall meetings, waiting until it's too late to give a major speech on the issue. Set a timetable for action and then let it slip. Indicate what you want in the bill but then be completely unclear about whether you necessarily require those things. Travel all over the world doing foreign policy meet-and-greets. Go on vacation in the heat of the battle. Rinse and repeat.

Altogether, it's an astonishingly perfect recipe for getting rolled, so much so that I'm not the first person to have wondered out loud if that was actually the president's intention all along. Look at this freaking fool. Now look at the guy who ran a letter-perfect, disciplined, textbook, insurgent, victorious campaign for the White House. Can they possibly be the same person? And, since they obviously are, is there possibly another explanation for this disaster besides an intentional boot? I dunno. But what I do know is this. Obama's very best-case scenario for healthcare legislation right now represents a ton of lost votes in 2010 and 2012. And the worse that scenario gets, the worse he and his party do. But even a ‘success' in the months ahead will produce a tepid bill, a mistrustful public, an inflamed and unanswered radical right, and a mealy-mouthed new government program that doesn't even begin to go online until 2013. A real vote-getter that, eh?

Which brings us to a third major electoral liability for Obama. Human beings, by and large, like to be led. They like their leaders to inspire their confidence -- even when doing so takes the form of the most fantastically shallow dress-up kind of blowhard buffonery, à la George W. Bush -- so that they don't have to think too much about how little personal confidence they themselves actually possess. Obama is the complete antithesis of this model of the presidency. He is Harry Reid's incontinent grandmother as president. He is Neville Chamberlain's squirrely little nephew knocking shit over in the Oval Office while he plays "Mr. President", in-between episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants. He is a bowl of Jell-O. That someone forgot to put in the fridge. He exhibits no competence as a chief executive. He inspires no confidence as a national leader. And, increasingly, his credibility is coming into question. Who wants to vote for that?

A related problem is that he loves to flash that big toothy grin of his right before his venomous adversaries knock his choppers back into his head. I'm trying to imagine what a wimpier president would look like, and having a very hard time coming up with an answer. I'm trying to imagine how the regressive right could possibly bathe their country's president in a more acidic pool of vitriol, and I'm having a difficult time topping their assertions that he's out to kill the elderly while simultaneously indoctrinating grade-schoolers into the ranks of the Revolutionary Spartacist League. I'm trying to conceive of how vacant a White House could possibly be of any whiff of push-back against these assaults, and I can't quite envision it. Maybe if they went out and did some real scandals and filmed it all as a gift for the GOP? Perhaps they could dig up Vince Foster's body and murder him all over again, this time on video? Or they could hire Ken Starr to just run amok in the White House for a few years, looking for anything remotely juicy? But could Obama's Keystone Kops even do a scandal properly? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident the public is losing trust in this guy as their Big Daddy Protector. Who in America would vote for this eunuch to be in charge of keeping their little suburban Happy Meal-stuffed brats safe from tawny evil-doers with bad intentions?

As if all that weren't enough, Obama is probably also sitting on several national security powder kegs - including Guantánamo, which he is unlikely to close; Iraq, which he is unlikely to leave; and Afghanistan, which he is unlikely to win. The latter in particular has now become his war, and lately it is smelling a lot like Vietnam, circa 1964. An decades-long struggle against a popular nationalist adversary. Endless calls from the Pentagon for more troops. Incredibly inhospitable terrain for fighting a war. An American-made puppet government hated for its corruption and for its gross incompetence at every task other than raw predation. Mmmm-mmm. What a yummy stew. Haven't dined on that fine cuisine since 1975. And what another great vote-getter to add to this sorry list, eh?

Put it all together and it's pretty hard to see how Obama gets a second term. Which can mean only one thing: We're looking at a Romney or a Palin or some sort of similar monster as the next president, despite the fact that their party was absolutely loathed only a year ago, and actually still is today. It won't matter. People will be voting against the incumbent, not for any candidate, and that will leave only one viable choice, especially for centrist and right-wing voters. Whoever wins the Republican nomination will be the next president, crushing Obama in the general election (assuming he survives the Democratic primaries). And that's a particularly scary notion, since the party's voting base who will make that choice in the Republican primaries is the same crowd you've seen featured all this summer at town hall meetings. Olympia Snowe is not going to be the Republican nominee in 2012. Know what I mean?

So the question then becomes, what next? What happens after Obama?

I see two possible general paths going forth from that point -- one bad, and one worse. The bad path would involve a frustrated but essentially beaten-into-submission public oscillating between incompetent Republican and Democratic administrations, turning one after the other out of office -- not on ideological grounds, but instead seeking any change that has the possibility of stanching the empire's hemorrhaging wounds. This would look a fair bit like Japan or Britain does today. The former just replaced its government and the latter will likely do so next spring. But I don't think either of these major party shifts are really ideological in nature, and I don't think either new government is likely to be hugely different from the one it succeeded.

But Americans seem to me especially piggish critters these days, and the benign model that is sufficient to placate disgruntled citizens of long-lost empires may not suffice to soothe the savage soul of Yanquis still deep in the process of watching theirs crumble around their feet. That moves us from the bad path to the worse. Given what the American public is capable of happily countenancing during relatively flush times (can you say "Reagan"? "Bush"?), imagine what could happen when spoiled Baby Boomers go to the polls under conditions approaching the 1930s.

Such a crisis could conceivably entail a sharp turn to the left, and in every rational country certainly would. But this is America. We pretty much don't go anywhere near socialism, at least not overtly, and in any given decade -- especially the recent ones -- we're lucky to get away with anything less than creeping fascism. Moreover, elections are almost always reactions to the status quo. Since Obama is ridiculously -- but nevertheless widely -- perceived as a liberal, the reaction is all the more likely to involve a sharp turn to the right in response.

Under this scenario, anything portside of Torquemada would be buried alive if not annihilated, and the next regime would likely be one that could make Dick Cheney shudder. And that's the happy side of the equation. If history is any guide, a nifty (not so) little war could only be right around the corner, for the helpful purpose of jump-starting the economy, crushing the domestic opposition, and distracting the public from that pesky nuisance once affectionately referred to as ‘reality'.

I don't want to lay odds on which of these outcomes is the more likely, but I feel pretty confident, I'm sad to say, that any happier scenario is considerably less likely than either of these. For a lot of reasons, America's near-term future looks bleak to me, and this country -- which already has a remarkable tendency to make dangerously foolish and sickeningly selfish political choices -- is altogether too likely to do something that would make the Bush years look like a scene from a Norman Rockwell canvas by comparison.

This tragedy, if it comes, will have many sires who share responsibility for driving America from Republican red to fascist black. But on that list must certainly be included the powder blue of the effete Obama administration that came in between.

Rahm Emanuel once famously averred that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

I don't really believe that corporate-controlled fascism is what he had in mind when he said that.

But, who knows? Maybe that's exactly what he was thinking.
Or -- perhaps most likely of all -- maybe nobody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is doing much thinking whatsoever these days.

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York.


I am totally serious here:

It seems Obama's real function is to recessitate the Republicans.

They had to be defeated, of course, they planned it that way. McCain could have picked someone besides Palin and might have actually had a shot, could have been close enough to steal. But no. The plan was for McCain to commit hari-kari and let Obama win in this massive "movement" to give Americans the illusion that Democracy still actually exists in the United States.

Now that he's in power, his sole purpose seems to be to re-legitimize the Republican Party. His whole thing is to be "bi partisan" to a group of irrelevant losers who are only supported by a tiny majority of the population, to let them create the illusion that they ARE still relevant and that they actually do have some power. Neither is true.

If Obama was for real, he and his people would be in the process of planting the daisies over the grave of the Repub Party.

But he's not for real, so instead, he's watering their seeds instead, so they can be revived and come back as the "dominant" party yet again in this country.

He's literally a nursemaid.

And to those of us who actually thought he would do what he promised (I wasn't one of them, but seeing as how he was gonna be the guy, I did hope that he would turn on his masters and just go ahead with the "right" thing), well, it's become abundantly clear that WE'RE the ones who are utterly irrelevant, not the losers and psychos and fascists and nutjobs of the suicided Republicans.

Obama: Ignoring the people who voted for him, nurturing and revitalizing the Republican Party.

He's a fucking douchebag.

The resignation of Van Jones should be the last straw for anybody paying attention. Let's see, what was his real crime? Calling Republicans "assholes". THAT was his crime. He called war criminals, people who should be blindfolded and in line for their turn at the guillotine "assholes" and for that, he must be ostracized from the official government party. Obama gives the Republicans a huge win here, this in fact is a watershed moment for them, this is the lighting that flows into the fetid corpse of the Frankenstein monster and brings it back to life.

Thanks, Obama.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby chiggerbit » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:17 pm

They had to be defeated, of course, they planned it that way. McCain could have picked someone besides Palin and might have actually had a shot, could have been close enough to steal. But no. The plan was for McCain to commit hari-kari and let Obama win in this massive "movement" to give Americans the illusion that Democracy still actually exists in the United States.


Hah, name me one single Republican who could have done that. I suspect the only one who could have even come (barely, as in within a thousand miles) close was Romney, and he's saving his chits for the big slot, not the second. And he read the writing on the wall, knew McCain would never come close. Second place would have been Pawlenty, and he's such a miniature poodle, at a time when the Repugs needed a rottweiler..
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:25 am

chiggerbit wrote:Hah, name me one single Republican who could have done that. .


A man.

The election was probably closer than you are remembering.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby chlamor » Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:47 am

Healthy Profits: Corporate Money Moves Tell the True Tale of Obama's "Reforms"
Chris Floyd

September 11, 2009

Want to know the true significance of Barack Obama's speech on health care "reform" Wednesday night? Then just follow the money: Insurance Stocks Rise After Obama Speech (Truthdig):

Remember President Obama’s reference during his health care address to "Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations"? Well, those expectations were apparently met by that same address. Insurance company stocks got a boost from the speech, which foreshadowed the death of the public option and promised to deliver millions of currently "irresponsible" customers.


Truthdig then quotes Reuters:

Shares of U.S. health insurers climbed on Thursday after analysts saw no "game changers" from President Barack Obama’s highly anticipated speech on health reform.

Following the speech, analysts predicted any changes to the system would be moderate, with Obama backing many initiatives put forth earlier this week by a leading Senate committee. The possibility a threatening public health plan would be enacted also now seemed doubtful, analysts said.


Think about that: "No game changers." But isn't the point of reform to, you know, change the game?

But of course there will be no reform, and there was never going to be. Obama is going to "reform" America's broken health care system the same way he has "reformed" the War on Terror and "reformed" Wall Street: by taking the existing policies and making them even worse.

My old Moscow Times colleague Matt Taibbi nails the reality of the situation to the wall in his latest Rolling Stone piece: Sick and Wrong. In addition to detailing the deliberately engineered failure of any genuine "reform," Taibbi rightfully ties the health care debacle to the larger system failure of "the political entity known as the United States of America."

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/co ... ormsq.html
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby marshwren » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:37 pm

chiggerbit wrote:
They had to be defeated, of course, they planned it that way. McCain could have picked someone besides Palin and might have actually had a shot, could have been close enough to steal. But no. The plan was for McCain to commit hari-kari and let Obama win in this massive "movement" to give Americans the illusion that Democracy still actually exists in the United States.


Hah, name me one single Republican who could have done that. I suspect the only one who could have even come (barely, as in within a thousand miles) close was Romney, and he's saving his chits for the big slot, not the second. And he read the writing on the wall, knew McCain would never come close. Second place would have been Pawlenty, and he's such a miniature poodle, at a time when the Repugs needed a rottweiler..


Actually, Sen. Kay Baily Hutchinson (Tx), or Sens. Collins or Snowe (Me), to name a few (or, in the alternative, Colin Powell). Problem was, all were personally repulsed by McCain (esp. Hutchinson) from their experiences with him in the Senate; and none of them was enough of a babe for the proverbial John. The one thing he had in his favor was the image (totally undeserved) of being maverick-y--enough to be clear of Bush's legacy, and unite the mainstream GOP by standing up to the religious right and the conservative movement (and giving them no alternative except to not vote, and thus cut of their only nose to spite McCain's 'moderate' face).
Otherwise, this was McCain's election to lose, and once he secured the nomination, moved heaven and earth TO lose.

As you note, it started with his VP pick (and yes, he really did need a poodle, not the pitbull-in-lipstick); declined slowly but steadily until the TARP negotiations (where his grandstanding covered himself in something quite opposite of glory), in which he proved what a shallow gadfly he really is, and it became inevidable after that.
marshwren
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:22 pm
Location: outland
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chlamor » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:16 pm

One year after the financial crash
Obama goes cap in hand to Wall Street
By Barry Grey

15 September 2009

On the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the onset of the greatest global economic crisis since the Great Depression, President Barack Obama came to Wall Street Monday to plead with the bankers not to block his proposals for marginal changes in financial regulations.

The spectacle of the elected chief executive as supplicant in the citadel of finance capital, while not surprising, was nevertheless a degrading sight. What had been billed as Obama’s challenge to the financial elite only underscored the subservience of his administration and every other branch of the government to Wall Street.

Speaking at Federal Hall, only a few steps from the New York Stock Exchange, Obama outlined his regulatory proposals, which have stalled in Congress since their release in June in large part because of opposition from many of the 150 bankers, traders and financial executives who were assembled to hear his speech.

Despite the fact that they and their peers have profited immensely from the multi-trillion-dollar bailout engineered by Obama and his predecessor, they gave his remarks a decidedly cold reception, applauding only once during his 30-minute speech.

In what was meant to give the appearance of a stern rebuke, Obama declared, "I want everybody here to hear my words. We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall."

Wall Street took these words with the huge grain of salt they merit. The bankers and speculators who precipitated the crisis know full well that everything the Obama administration has done since taking office has been directed toward protecting their wealth and power and offloading their bad gambling debts onto the American people. They long since took the measure of the man, who, in any event, they helped place in office with tens of millions of dollars in campaign funds.

And they correctly took Obama’s announcement last month that he was reappointing Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve chairman as a signal that they had nothing to fear from his administration in the future.

Following the speech, Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn gave the president a verbal pat on the head, saying, "I thought he did a good job," adding that he struck "the right tone."

Wall Street gave a collective shrug to the speech. Down at its start, the markets rallied in its aftermath to register a modest gain—continuing a stunning rally led by financial stocks that has seen the S&P 500 index rise by 54 percent since last March.

As a number of articles on the anniversary of the financial crash of September 2008 have noted, nothing of substance has changed in the practices of the banks and finance houses in the intervening year. Rather, the administration’s policies have strengthened the grip of the largest financial institutions on the economy, enabling them to resume the same type of speculative activities that led to the crash.

Not a single significant restriction has been imposed on the banks that were bailed out with taxpayer money. Bank profits are once again rising and executive pay is soaring, in some cases, such as at Goldman Sachs, hitting record levels.

In fact, the underlying crisis and instability of the financial system has been heightened by the government’s measures. The disappearance of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and other large institutions has given the biggest banks even greater control over the market, and since it is now established that these firms are "too big to fail," they have a de facto license to speculate at will, secure in the knowledge that should they run into trouble, they will be bailed out by the government.

Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning former chief economist at the World Bank, said Sunday, "In the US and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger. The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis."

An article in the New York Times on Friday began, "One year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the surprise is not how much has changed in the financial industry, but how little." It went on to cite economists who, pointing to the massive amount of bank debt assumed by the government, warn that the industry’s systemic risks "could cause an even bigger crisis—in years not decades. Next time, they say, the credit of the United States government may be at risk."

In his speech, Obama alluded vaguely to "some in the financial industry who are misreading the moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them." However, he made no mention of the bumper profits being recorded by bailed out banks or the huge compensation packages which executives are awarding themselves.

Having opposed any limits on executive pay, the most Obama could suggest is that the banks accept his token proposal to allow shareholders a non-binding vote on executive bonuses.

The ethos of the financial aristocracy whom Obama was addressing was summed up by Kian Abouhossein, an analyst at JPMorgan Chase in London, who told the New York Times, "I don’t know anyone on Wall Street who goes to work every day thinking of anything but how to increase their bonus."

The web site Politico pointed out that Robert Benmosche, the new CEO of American International Group (AIG), the insurance giant that was at the center of the financial meltdown and which has received $183 billion in government handouts, "recently showed off his palatial estate on the Adriatic Coast in Croatia—the one with 12 bathrooms, Italian tiles, and 18th century French tapestry, and a well-stocked wine cellar. ('Every bathroom is like a piece of art,’ he told Reuters. 'Women go wild when they walk in here.’)" Benmosche’s compensation package for 2009 is estimated at $9 million.

This is the parasitic social layer which exercises the decisive voice in government policy. Nothing that Obama said on Monday suggests that any member of this oligarchy will be held accountable for the fraud and illegality that helped plunge the world into a crisis that continues to wreak havoc on hundreds of millions of people in the US and around the world.

On the contrary, Obama took care to balance his verbal wrist-slaps with paeans to the capitalist market. He declared, "I’ve always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. I believe that jobs are best created not by government but by businesses and entrepreneurs willing to take a risk on a good idea. I believe that the role of government is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle markets, but to provide the ground rules and level playing field that helps to make them more vibrant."

He went further, implicating the American people in an economic catastrophe for which they bear no responsibility and whose victims they are. "The crisis was not just the result of decisions made by the mightiest of financial firms," he declared. "It was also the result of decisions made by ordinary Americans to open credit cards and take on mortgages."

He returned to this theme to proclaim that the crisis was a "failure of responsibility that led homebuyers and derivative traders alike to take reckless risks they couldn’t afford. It was a collective failure of responsibility in Washington, on Wall Street and across America…"

Obama linked his demand for "collective responsibility" with a pledge to impose austerity measures on the American people. He promised his well-heeled audience that he would put the country "on a secure fiscal footing" by "cutting programs that don’t work." He reiterated that his plan to slash health care for the working class, in the name of "reform," would "not add a dime to the deficit."

Obama characterized his regulatory proposals as "the most ambitious overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression." This is a fraud. He is proposing nothing approaching the structural reforms enacted under Franklin D. Roosevelt. On the contrary, he is opposing the restoration of any of the key elements of New Deal banking reforms that have been dismantled over the past three decades. This includes the Glass-Steagall ban on investment banking by commercial banks.

Instead, he is proposing a hodge-podge of minor measures which will do nothing to rein in the speculative activities of the banks and hedge funds. His Consumer Financial Protection Agency would merely establish a new agency to oversee consumer credit without giving it any powers beyond those presently spread out among a number of different regulators. In any event, this proposal is a dead letter because it is fiercely opposed by the banks.

His proposal to regulate the vast, unregulated derivatives market—a key component of the so-called "shadow banking system"—has so many loopholes that even the New York Times complained in an editorial Monday that it is toothless.

The main features of his proposal would give the Federal Reserve greater power to oversee the financial markets and establish a new mechanism for bailing out failing financial institutions, including non-bank firms. The underlying premise is that no serious restrictions can be placed on the banks, so new rules must be put in place to deal with the next crisis.

Any regulatory "reform" that might emerge from Congress will be drafted by Wall Street lobbyists working behind the scenes with politicians bought and paid for with campaign contributions and other bribes. The Center for Responsive Politics recently reported that the financial industry, along with the insurance and real estate sectors, has already given more than $50 million in campaign contributions so far this year. The financial industry has spent more than $222 million lobbying Washington, where it deploys more than 2,300 lobbyists.

In the end, Obama was reduced to pleading with Wall Street to take its "obligation" to the country to heart and "embrace serious financial reform, not fight it."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep20 ... -s15.shtml
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ninakat » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:41 pm

User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

shocked I tell ya

Postby trashman » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:19 pm

of a kind. No cameras allowed in sight of the hand job?
now being banned in 5,4,3,2...
trashman
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:23 pm




I was just about to post that here and am glad to see that you did.

Yes, that's one of the most sickening things I've ever seen.

The betrayal, the con job, right out there in the open, for all to see.

It's "Nyah nyah nyah" time again, as it always is with the Bushes. "Fuck you America!" right in our faces.

Thanks, Obama, for being a part of the Great Family of Evil.

You fucking Uncle Tom, you.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby Jeff » Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:37 pm

From Obama's speech:


...there's no place for partisanship when a great American city is underwater; that the R or D next to your name is irrelevant when nations in crisis need the world's help; that certain moments call on us to stop the back and forth, and the bickering, to forget the old rivalries, and embrace a common purpose that is bigger than our differences.

And while -- while you might not always know it from watching the cable news shows, or listening to folks on the radio, I think it's clear that we stand at one of those moments. We're seeing turmoil in our economy that's left many people wondering whether their kids will have the same opportunities that they had to pursue their dreams. We face threats to our health, our climate, and of course our security, that have left many of our young people wondering what kind of future they'll be leaving for their own kids.

And if anyone here thinks that our government has all the solutions, President Bush and I will be the first to tell you that you'll be sorely disappointed.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:07 am




the R or D next to your name is irrelevant



That may be the only true thing that motherfucker has ever said.

BTW here's the photo, since the link to cryptogon isn't working for some reason:


Image
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby ninakat » Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:08 am

Obama wrote:And if anyone here thinks that our government has all the solutions, President Bush and I will be the first to tell you that you'll be sorely disappointed.


Image
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ninakat » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:36 am

Speaking of government having solutions:

"Despite Obama Rhetoric, Bush-Era Cage and Torture Tactics Live On"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqg4PSgtooU
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:18 pm

Guess what that fucker did now?

October 31, 2009
Obama Lifts a Ban on Entry Into U.S. by H.I.V.-Positive People
By JULIA PRESTON

President Obama on Friday announced the end of a 22-year ban on travel to the United States by people who had tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS, fulfilling a promise he made to gay advocates and acting to eliminate a restriction he said was “rooted in fear rather than fact.”

At a White House ceremony, Mr. Obama announced that a rule canceling the ban would be published on Monday and would take effect after a routine 60-day waiting period. The president had promised to end the ban before the end of the year.

“If we want to be a global leader in combating H.I.V./AIDS, we need to act like it,” Mr. Obama said. “Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease, yet we’ve treated a visitor living with it as a threat.”

The United States is one of only about a dozen countries that bar people who have H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

President George W. Bush started the process last year when he signed legislation, passed by Congress in July 2008, that repealed the statute on which the ban was based. But the ban remained in effect.

It was enacted in 1987 at a time of widespread fear that H.I.V. could be transmitted by physical or respiratory contact. The ban was further strengthened by Congress in 1993 as an amendment offered by Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina.

Because of the restriction, no major international conference on the AIDS epidemic has been held in the United States since 1990. Public health officials here have long said there was no scientific or medical basis for the ban.

Under the ban, United States health authorities have been required to list H.I.V. infection as a “communicable disease of public health significance.” Under immigration law, most foreigners with such a disease cannot travel to the United States. The ban covered both visiting tourists and foreigners seeking to live in this country.

Once the ban is lifted, foreigners applying to become residents in the United States will no longer be required to take a test for AIDS.

In practice, the ban particularly affected tourists and gay men. Waivers were available, but the procedure for tourists and other short-term visitors who were H.I.V. positive was so complicated that many concluded it was not worth it.

For foreigners hoping to immigrate, waivers were available for people who were in a heterosexual marriage, but not for gay couples. Gay advocates said the ban had led to painful separations in families with H.I.V.-positive members that came to live in this country, and had discouraged adoptions of children with the virus.

Gay advocates said the ban also discouraged travelers and some foreigners already living in the United States from seeking testing and medical care for H.I.V. infection.

“The connection between immigration and H.I.V. has frightened people away from testing and treatment,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, a group that advocates for gay people in immigration matters. She said lifting the ban would bring “a significant public health improvement.”

“Stigma and exclusion are not a sound basis for immigration policy,” Ms. Tiven said.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who led the effort to repeal the ban, said it had now “gone the way of the dinosaur.”

But, Mr. Kerry added, “it sure took too long to get here.”

International health officials said lifting the ban would end a much-criticized inconsistency in United States health policy, with Washington playing a leading role in AIDS prevention in Africa and other countries with severe epidemics, but preserving restrictions that in practice prevented international AIDS researchers and activists from gathering at conferences here.

In 1989, a Dutch AIDS educator, Hans Verhoef, was detained for several days in St. Paul when he tried to attend a conference. Since then, people involved with AIDS issues have not organized meetings here.

“We think this is going to give a very positive image of where the United States is going in terms of eliminating stigma and discrimination in relation to H.I.V.,” Dr. Socorro Gross, assistant director of the Pan American Health Organization, said Friday.
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:27 pm

lightningBugout wrote:Guess what that fucker did now?

October 31, 2009
Obama Lifts a Ban on Entry Into U.S. by H.I.V.-Positive People
By JULIA PRESTON

President Obama on Friday announced the end of a 22-year ban on travel to the United States by people who had tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS, fulfilling a promise he made to gay advocates and acting to eliminate a restriction he said was “rooted in fear rather than fact.”

At a White House ceremony, Mr. Obama announced that a rule canceling the ban would be published on Monday and would take effect after a routine 60-day waiting period. The president had promised to end the ban before the end of the year.

“If we want to be a global leader in combating H.I.V./AIDS, we need to act like it,” Mr. Obama said. “Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease, yet we’ve treated a visitor living with it as a threat.”

The United States is one of only about a dozen countries that bar people who have H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

President George W. Bush started the process last year when he signed legislation, passed by Congress in July 2008, that repealed the statute on which the ban was based. But the ban remained in effect.

It was enacted in 1987 at a time of widespread fear that H.I.V. could be transmitted by physical or respiratory contact. The ban was further strengthened by Congress in 1993 as an amendment offered by Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina.

Because of the restriction, no major international conference on the AIDS epidemic has been held in the United States since 1990. Public health officials here have long said there was no scientific or medical basis for the ban.

Under the ban, United States health authorities have been required to list H.I.V. infection as a “communicable disease of public health significance.” Under immigration law, most foreigners with such a disease cannot travel to the United States. The ban covered both visiting tourists and foreigners seeking to live in this country.

Once the ban is lifted, foreigners applying to become residents in the United States will no longer be required to take a test for AIDS.

In practice, the ban particularly affected tourists and gay men. Waivers were available, but the procedure for tourists and other short-term visitors who were H.I.V. positive was so complicated that many concluded it was not worth it.

For foreigners hoping to immigrate, waivers were available for people who were in a heterosexual marriage, but not for gay couples. Gay advocates said the ban had led to painful separations in families with H.I.V.-positive members that came to live in this country, and had discouraged adoptions of children with the virus.

Gay advocates said the ban also discouraged travelers and some foreigners already living in the United States from seeking testing and medical care for H.I.V. infection.

“The connection between immigration and H.I.V. has frightened people away from testing and treatment,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, a group that advocates for gay people in immigration matters. She said lifting the ban would bring “a significant public health improvement.”

“Stigma and exclusion are not a sound basis for immigration policy,” Ms. Tiven said.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who led the effort to repeal the ban, said it had now “gone the way of the dinosaur.”

But, Mr. Kerry added, “it sure took too long to get here.”

International health officials said lifting the ban would end a much-criticized inconsistency in United States health policy, with Washington playing a leading role in AIDS prevention in Africa and other countries with severe epidemics, but preserving restrictions that in practice prevented international AIDS researchers and activists from gathering at conferences here.

In 1989, a Dutch AIDS educator, Hans Verhoef, was detained for several days in St. Paul when he tried to attend a conference. Since then, people involved with AIDS issues have not organized meetings here.

“We think this is going to give a very positive image of where the United States is going in terms of eliminating stigma and discrimination in relation to H.I.V.,” Dr. Socorro Gross, assistant director of the Pan American Health Organization, said Friday.


Anything to keep the anti-war far left happy while he continues to send drones in to Pakistan and murder peasant farmers by the hundreds.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 160 guests