dagblog - Comments for "Is President Obama a Slave to Wall Street?"

(No subject)

Elusive Trope — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:33:01 +0000

In reply to Is President Obama a Slave to Wall Street?

Briefly, I'm not saying

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:55:45 +0000

Briefly, I'm not saying there's nothing we can do.

I say that creating a backup candidate each 8 years is difficult, and that it's hard to control a president via the legislature. (yes, presidents do initiate bills, even if they go through the Congressional system).

Primarying Obama still seems the best pressure we could have brought. As he has no problems raising money, and doesn't seem to have an ambitious program at this point, I don't see what else he'll respond to.

Exactly. Thank you.

Aunt Sam — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:39:22 +0000

In reply to It is theoretically true that

Exactly. Thank you.

It is theoretically true that

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:24:01 +0000

In reply to Is President Obama a Slave to Wall Street?

It is theoretically true that the collective "we" could replace politicians whom we don't like with ones we do like, but to say that that is proof that all individuals are therefore responsible for what the collective does is ridiculous. You continue to say "It is our fault", which has an element of truth, but then go further and say that the correction of that fault is "simple". "It is as simple as that". "All we have to do is...".

"The only remedy for this situation is education, and through education, enlightenment. ........Then, and only then, will we be able to defend our individual interests, and come together to defend the nation against the widespread and rampant corruption that’s currently dragging this country under the bus."

I suggest that educating a significant majority of the citizens of our country to the point that they would recognize and agree on sensible solutions to our many problems and who would then unite in voting for politicians who could be identified as ones who would institute those solutions is anything but "as simple as that". You are suggesting a simplistic answer to a very complicated and convoluted problem.

Thus, the problem in this country is not the amount of money flowing through the system, that’s only secondary; the primary problem is the apathy, selfishness, and ignorance of the people.

That state of affairs will not be simple to change. There is no correct way to end a sentence proscribing a solution which begins with "All we have to do is...".

What I dislike most about

Wattree — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:00:18 +0000

In reply to This may be the right

What I dislike most about whining is that it's less than constructive. We can make our displeasure know to politicians by simply saying that we disapprove of this or that policy. Thereafter, we can also flood them with letters. But then, we should follow up by voting legislators out of office who continue to ignore us. That way we send an unmistakable message to them that no one, or no amount of money, can save them from the people's wrath if they fail to dance to our music. It's as simple as that.

So I repeat, if government is out of control, it's our fault. There's no, "Yeah, buts . . . " about it.

Once again, I didn't say that

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:47:48 +0000

In reply to Okay, Genghis, Since

Once again, I didn't say that money's not going to a thing. I said that its effect is overstated.

But regardless, the Citizens United decision effectively legalized corruption. Even if politician wastes every cent he gets on useless ads and fancy haircuts--he still owes a something to the folks who gave him the money.

Peracles, you said: "Your

Wattree — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:42:49 +0000

In reply to Uh, where did I "scream"? And

Peracles, you said:

"Your contention here is that how we treat the legislature is how we control the President. But the President hung the legislature out to dry in the off-year elections, saddling them with a watered-down health care bill and leading them into tax extensions for the wealthy with no jobs bill during a recession. The Dems got slaughtered."

How did the president do that, when all bills originate in congress?

"Of course the Dems got slaughtered in 2004 when Rahm led them to acquiesce to war in Iraq (except for the Dems who ignored his advice). And the party machinery makes sure to fund Bluedogs and conservatively-tilted Democrats over any hippy types. So it's only the netroots organizing & fundraising that keeps the pressure on - otherwise it'd be Republican vs. Republican Lite rushing to invoke more tax & benefits cuts and deficit cop actions during our long economic pause."

According to Genghis, money matters very little, and tRah shouldn't be able to lead the legislature anywhere. That is exactly the point of my article - WE should control the legislature with our votes, but we're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

"On the other hand, it seems that you're against withholding support from the President at the voting booth, so where & how do you expect Dem representatives to hold his feet to the fire? I think we tried that with health care, with dismal results. Any Democrats who signaled voting against for liberal reasons were designated "purity" trolls perfect-is-enemy-of-the-good types, while any conservative-leaning Democrat or Republican was showered with concessions to lasso his or her vote."

I address this issue elsewhere in the thread. we can control the president by controlling his support in congress.

"Regarding having a young politician in the wings, good luck with that. We had a good one in Al Gore, and we threw him to the wolves and let Republicans & media lie him to death. In 2004, we had a halfway inspiring cast (well, Dean was inspiring, including inventing much of the modern grassroots movement, but we cut the rope for rather silly reasons - a scream? - and let the Republicans narrate the story) . In 2008, we had 1 relatively experienced candidate and a political newbie that we pushed over her instead. Oh, and then John Edwards who's self-destructed in numerous ways. If Obama weren't around this year, we'd be back to Hillary redux, and for 2016 we're at Hillary redux or maybe Al Franken or the doubtful Alan Grayson? Okay, perhaps we have a Democrat more conservative than Obama - should we run Geithner or Eric Holder?"

Peracles, you seem to be committed to the proposition that there's nothing that we can do to repair our political system, so we might as well give up. I don't subscribe to that position. If you had given up the first time you fell when you were learning to walk you would still be sitting in the same spot.

We can always come up with a reason why things can't change. That's why cynicism is never a constructive model for progress. I could have very easily set up in the hood and said, "I can never learn to write because the White man won't let me." But I fundamentally reject any proposition that suggests that ANYONE can prevent me from do ANYTHING. It's simply not a part of my nature.

For you, RM, just to show you

Wattree — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:47:01 +0000

In reply to Wattree, corporations are

For you, RM, just to show you how right you are:

FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

The article, “Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option?” posted Saturday, June 20, on The Wattree Chronicle contains information about Halliburton that is completely misleading and incorrect.

Halliburton is not a military contractor. Halliburton is one of the world’s largest providers of products and services to the energy industry, and serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir – from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field.

You will note that all of the government services and engineering and construction businesses have been and remain with KBR. To confirm, KBR and Halliburton are completely separate and independent of each other. Halliburton separated KBR from the company in April 2007 (http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2007/corpnws_040507a.html.

We respectfully request you make this correction immediately.
Kind regards,

Diana Gabriel
Senior Manager, Public Relations
Halliburton
diana.gabriel@halliburton.com
Office: 713.759.2608
Cell: [Redacted]
Fax: 281.575.5790

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-response-to-halliburton_25.html

Peter, I can't answer your

Wattree — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:44:02 +0000

In reply to Just to slide off topic and

Peter,

I can't answer your question with any certainty, but knowing how business generally functions, I'd say they're probably overcharging for the subcompact.

Okay, Genghis, Since

Wattree — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:32:11 +0000

In reply to Two reasons: 1. Because

Okay, Genghis,

Since according to you, money is no big deal in a campaign, we must assume that you have no problems with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, or the billions of dollars spent every year by lobbyist. After all, regardless to how much money they give to corrupt politicians, that money's not going to do a thing to help keep them in office.