|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Obama's cronyism exceeds even that of Bush's tenure
| Quote: |
BILL MOYERS: Lenny Breuer also forced the Swiss bank UBS, as you know, to pay a big fine in the LIBOR, the price fixing conspiracy. And that outraged you as well, didn't it?
MATT TAIBBI: This is the, I think the biggest financial scandal of all time. It was a price fixing scandal where, essentially, some of the world's biggest banks got together and they conspired illegally to artificially rig the global interest rates which are based upon this London inner bank offered rate, which is a rate that measures how much it costs for banks to lend money to each other.
This LIBOR rate affects the prices of hundreds of trillions of dollars of financial products. And it goes from everything from credit cards to mortgages to municipal bonds. Basically everything in the world the price is, you know, is somehow connected to LIBOR. And these guys were monkeying around with this for individual profit. And they got, again, a complete and total walk on this. There were no criminal charges, which is just unbelievable.
BILL MOYERS: Did you see the Frontline documentary �The Untouchables?�
MATT TAIBBI: I did.
BILL MOYERS: Then you're familiar with Lanny Breuer's testimony.
MARTIN SMITH in Frontline: The Untouchables: You made a reference to losing sleep at night worrying about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution. Is that really the job of a prosecutor to worry about anything other than simply pursuing justice?
LENNY BREUER in Frontline: The Untouchables: I think I am pursuing justice and I think the entire responsibility of the department is to pursue justice, but in any given case ... prosecutors around the country being responsible should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case there�s some huge economic effect. If it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly counter-parties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly, it�s a factor we need to know and understand.
MATT TAIBBI: Think about what he's saying. He's essentially saying that some individuals are so systemically important, that they can't be arrested and put in jail. Now, it's only a few steps forward to the corollary to that, which is if some people are too systemically important to arrest, other people may safely be arrested. So we're creating a class of people who are arrestable and another class of people who are not arrestable, which is crazy. It's a crazy thing for the assistant attorney general to say, to admit out loud that he's dividing Americans up into these two classes. There's no reason they couldn't have taken a number of individuals from some of these companies and put them on trial.
Historically, we've always done this. Even under the Bush administration, if you go back just ten years, you know, WorldCom, Enron, you know, Adelphia. We took the leading individuals of these companies and we put them on trial to make an example out of them. And this is exactly what we're not doing in this case. Those companies were systemically important then. I don't see why they can't do the same thing now. |
History will not be kind to Obama's plutocracy. He has cast aside the rule of law, all in exchange for a mere zombie recovery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not Obama's plutocracy; it's the plutocracy's Obama. He didn't create them; he is their creature, as they financed his election.
It has been said that U.S. presidents have very little room to manoeuvre when it comes to radical change - excepting the radically reactionary changes favoured by large parts of the plutonomy, such as financial deregulation. FDR appealed to the popular movements of his day to "make me" push through reform, because he couldn't do it without pressure from below.
I wonder if there will be enough of a popular movement to allow a change of course by the time the next financial crisis hits? Perhaps it will be a bit like Hitler after Munich: the mask is off now, people see what the game is, and see that giving him what he wants only encourages him to take more. The plutonomy have been getting everything they want so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
It's not Obama's plutocracy; it's the plutocracy's Obama. He didn't create them; he is their creature, as they financed his election.
It has been said that U.S. presidents have very little room to manoeuvre when it comes to radical change - |
That doesn't fit this Presidency. I totally reject this idea that Presidents are ultimately beholden to the opinions of cabinet members or the interests of their campaign financiers. If the President wanted to prosecute the banks, a 15-minute meeting with Atty. Gen. Eric Holder would correct it. Likewise, Obama's great trust of Timothy Geithner allowed Geithner the expansive latitude he needed to make TBTF banks even bigger.
| Quote: |
FINALLY, there�s the matter of Treasury�s response to the weightiest issue of all: banks that are too large to succeed.
Back in 2010, Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, and Mr. Kaufman were co-sponsors of the Safe Banking Act, which proposed placing tough limits on banks� size. If it had passed, it would have imposed a strict 10 percent cap on any bank holding company�s share of United States deposits and set a 6 percent limit on leverage.
The act was a way to begin reining in the huge institutions that had caused so much trouble in the credit debacle. It could also have protected taxpayers from having to make future rescues.
A good thing for Main Street, in other words.
But it was not to be. Among the bill�s most aggressive opponents was, yes, the Treasury.
�We were disappointed,� Mr. Brown said in an interview on Thursday. �Not only did Treasury oppose it, but they proudly opposed it. If the Treasury had spoken out for it we could have gotten very close to winning.� |
Comparisons to FDR are totally unfair to FDR. FDR took power years after the 1929 crash, and he immediately supported the Republican-instituted Pecora Commission to look into the causes of the crash.
President Obama has had the popular support to accomplish a significant number of his objectives, including:
* historic health care reform
* repeal of DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military
* GM/UAW bailouts
* $800 billion stimulus
* etc
Obama has given the banks every preference because either he himself prefers it that way or he's comfortable deferring such decisions to a bank-friendly, revolving-door cabinet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I suspect the guy who taught "race and the law" at Chicago doesn't have the slightest interest or understanding of how the financial system works. He defers to the cockroaches at the Fed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
* historic health care reform
* repeal of DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military
* GM/UAW bailouts
* $800 billion stimulus
* etc
Obama has given the banks every preference because either he himself prefers it that way or he's comfortable deferring such decisions to a bank-friendly, revolving-door cabinet. |
I'm not going to argue here. But I would suggest that you 'follow the money' to see who benefits most from these "accomplishments". Who benefitted most from the bailouts? Which CORPORATIONS received the $800 billion Obama handed out?
And I'm glad you recognized the obvious conflicts of interest in Obama's cabinet and administration. The question is, why are you accepting of them? Do you just really, really trust Obama as a person? And if so, is that because he shares some of your political beliefs, or because you actually know his true character? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
* historic health care reform
* repeal of DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military
* GM/UAW bailouts
* $800 billion stimulus
* etc
Obama has given the banks every preference because either he himself prefers it that way or he's comfortable deferring such decisions to a bank-friendly, revolving-door cabinet. |
I'm not going to argue here. But I would suggest that you 'follow the money' to see who benefits most from these "accomplishments". Who benefitted most from the bailouts? Which CORPORATIONS received the $800 billion Obama handed out?
And I'm glad you recognized the obvious conflicts of interest in Obama's cabinet and administration. The question is, why are you accepting of them? Do you just really, really trust Obama as a person? And if so, is that because he shares some of your political beliefs, or because you actually know his true character? |
You ask why I am accepting the conflicts of interests in Obama's administration? Are you addressing me, here? The poster who started this thread entitled 'Barack Obama: Crony Capitalist?'
No, I do not accept them. I do not trust Obama as a person, or, more importantly, as a politician/President. I do not know his true character. I think he's demonstrated a lack of convictions and while he keeps his foreign policy on a tight reign his domestic policies are corporatist, chaotic, and will lead to lasting and long-term damage to the Republic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I totally reject this idea that Presidents are ultimately beholden to the opinions of cabinet members or the interests of their campaign financiers.
...
You ask why I am accepting the conflicts of interests in Obama's administration? Are you addressing me, here? The poster who started this thread entitled 'Barack Obama: Crony Capitalist?' |
Your last post about Obama seemed eerily positive on the face of it. My mistake.
Anyway, I wonder why you believe that this is a condition brought upon by Obama, rather than a systemic issue. I get the impression that the same would be happening under almost any Republican President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I totally reject this idea that Presidents are ultimately beholden to the opinions of cabinet members or the interests of their campaign financiers.
...
You ask why I am accepting the conflicts of interests in Obama's administration? Are you addressing me, here? The poster who started this thread entitled 'Barack Obama: Crony Capitalist?' |
Your last post about Obama seemed eerily positive on the face of it. My mistake.
Anyway, I wonder why you believe that this is a condition brought upon by Obama, rather than a systemic issue. I get the impression that the same would be happening under almost any Republican President. |
Titus helpfully untangles the conundrum which you have presented to me:
| Titus wrote: |
| I suspect the guy who taught "race and the law" at Chicago doesn't have the slightest interest or understanding of how the financial system works. He defers to the cockroaches at the Fed. |
Obama's in a rarified Presidential bubble, successfully thinking outside the box provided by his advisers on Libya, and adroitly managing international sores such as Iran and Israel. The systemic rot within the Republic doesn't interest him, because he's an international high-minded individual, and he's already made legislative history with Obamacare, and he's about to oversee the greatest overhaul of our immigration policy since JFK.
There are systemic issues, and Obama cannot address them because he's too busy playing the Great Man. And he's done an admirable job on playing the role in the fields in which he's comfortable.
Unfortunately, being the Great Man and being a Great President are two different enterprises. Our economy is not far from becoming a full-blown oligarchy, and Obama's administration is still rife with crony capitalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I totally reject this idea that Presidents are ultimately beholden to the opinions of cabinet members or the interests of their campaign financiers.
...
You ask why I am accepting the conflicts of interests in Obama's administration? Are you addressing me, here? The poster who started this thread entitled 'Barack Obama: Crony Capitalist?' |
Your last post about Obama seemed eerily positive on the face of it. My mistake.
Anyway, I wonder why you believe that this is a condition brought upon by Obama, rather than a systemic issue. I get the impression that the same would be happening under almost any Republican President. |
Titus helpfully untangles the conundrum which you have presented to me:
| Titus wrote: |
| I suspect the guy who taught "race and the law" at Chicago doesn't have the slightest interest or understanding of how the financial system works. He defers to the cockroaches at the Fed. |
Obama's in a rarified Presidential bubble, successfully thinking outside the box provided by his advisers on Libya, and adroitly managing international sores such as Iran and Israel. The systemic rot within the Republic doesn't interest him, because he's an international high-minded individual, and he's already made legislative history with Obamacare, and he's about to oversee the greatest overhaul of our immigration policy since JFK.
There are systemic issues, and Obama cannot address them because he's too busy playing the Great Man. And he's done an admirable job on playing the role in the fields in which he's comfortable.
Unfortunately, being the Great Man and being a Great President are two different enterprises. Our economy is not far from becoming a full-blown oligarchy, and Obama's administration is still rife with crony capitalism. |
Yep, I think you and Titus summed it up well.
I also think Obama has an inflated view of himself in regards to his ability to lead and make policy.
I wouldn't say Obama is in a rarefied bubble though. Bush was certainly in one as well. I think the difference between the two, however, was Bush didn't realize it until his 2nd term and took steps to correct it. Obama is aware of it, but doesn't think it is an issue (or perhaps is even a strength). Perhaps that's why you described it as a rareified bubble... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a little creeped out: George Will and I agree on something. He thinks the big banks should be broken up.
George Will the populist?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No. He's part of the Propaganda Community. The Republicans need to be re-branded, as the lie that was their old brand has been exposed. They never had any intention of doing anything their base thought they were voting for. Now they need a pivot and some are pushing Hispano-Libertarianism + unending wars and Will is part of the team pushing Hispano-Populism + unending wars.
The reality is that the Republicans will keep on doing what they've been doing, no matter what the Party brochures say the agenda is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:12 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
HOLY HEEBY JEEBIES!
The entire US Government is corrupt!
The entire US Government is corrupt?
Has anyone on this thread found something new?
Kuros has: fling poo at Obama
And then he does with a new thread: called FLING POO AT OBAMA
And Kuros, you're all over the dial now. Are you flinging poo at Obama because he supports unions or not?
Flinging poo at Obama over unions while you don't support them anyway calls a great many things into question
Stop the poop and field someone if you're so pooped out:
Herr Rand?
OR
Fix something
Unfreeze the house
End the electoral college
Don't poop on other options that are not librepublican |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:31 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
HOLY HEEBY JEEBIES!
The entire US Government is corrupt!
The entire US Government is corrupt?
Has anyone on this thread found something new?
Kuros has: fling poo at Obama
And then he does with a new thread: called FLING POO AT OBAMA
And Kuros, you're all over the dial now. Are you flinging poo at Obama because he supports unions or not?
Flinging poo at Obama over unions while you don't support them anyway calls a great many things into question
Stop the poop and field someone if you're so pooped out:
Herr Rand?
OR
Fix something
Unfreeze the house
End the electoral college
Don't poop on other options that are not librepublican |
Soju is paint thinner dude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
And Kuros, you're all over the dial now. Are you flinging poo at Obama because he supports unions or not?
Flinging poo at Obama over unions while you don't support them anyway calls a great many things into question. |
A $26 billion bailout, a 3,000% profit for a private equity firm, and that firm cuts 25,000 unionized jobs at Delphi. Winning! (the future)
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
HOLY HEEBY JEEBIES!
The entire US Government is corrupt!
The entire US Government is corrupt?
Has anyone on this thread found something new?
Kuros has: fling poo at Obama |
If I had the chance, I would actually, literally fling poo at Timothy Geithner.
Obama has had the chance to recognize his colossal mistakes and reverse his pro-bank policies, but he doesn't care. That's why Jack Lew now takes Timothy Geithner's place at Treasury.
| Quote: |
Lew, who has publicly said that he has scant expertise in financial markets, spent two years at the bank [Citigroup] during Wall Street's meltdown, earning a combined $2.65 million in 2007 and 2008, according to a transcript of his confirmation hearing in 2009 for a State Department post.
Hired with a recommendation from then-Citi executive and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Lew became chief operating officer of Citigroup's global wealth management division in July 2006. He later became COO for Citi Alternative Investments, a largely administrative role that was apart from investment decisions that hurt the bank.
Republican Senator Charles Grassley said he will ask Lew about a $940,000 bonus he was given just before the bank received a taxpayer-funded bailout. The bonus came as Lew was getting ready to serve as a State Department deputy for the Obama administration.
"The Treasury secretary can't owe anyone on Wall Street any favors," Grassley, a member of the Finance Committee, said in an emailed statement. "He has to be independent from special interests and put taxpayers first."
Lew's record at Citigroup came up during his confirmation hearing for the State Department position, but it failed to prove a stumbling block. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:06 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A $26 billion bailout, a 3,000% profit for a private equity firm, and that firm cuts 25,000 unionized jobs at Delphi. Winning! (the future) |
That's preposterously unfair to lay on Obama. The unionized were protected.
Not having a horse in the game, of course, gives you a wide range to assail.
| Quote: |
| Soju is paint thinner dude. |
And social credit is dumber than a bag of hammers. Read the critiques before you drink the Kool-Ade.
**Ohh, and before you blather on about its benefits (a la the free trade bots around here who see no problem with collusion), try to seriously address the problems.
Then, understand nobody (in either party) is going to cut inflation loose the same way we're not going to just deregulate everything and trust 900-lb gorillas to behave in a gentlemanly fashion.
Then, go find a political party who is going to embrace inflationary suicide to get votes.
Then, go have some soju.
(I personally think the top note is airplane glue) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
