Oh Goody- Obama attempts to appoint another Goldman Sachs exec who worked with Phil Gramm

[Fireweed247]

I reported back in February on the case of Gary Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs employee and derivatives cheerleader who President Obama nominated to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Gensler’s nomination sailed through the Senate Agricultural Committee but Senator Bernie Sanders has placed a hold on the nomination (as has a second senator who is as yet unnamed). A statement from Sanders’s office said:

While Mr. Gensler is clearly an intelligent and knowledgeable person, I cannot support his nomination. Mr. Gensler worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of A.I.G. and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history. He supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which allowed banks like Citigroup to become “too big to fail.” He worked to deregulate electronic energy trading, which led to the downfall of Enron and the spike in energy prices. At this moment in our history, we need an independent leader who will help create a new culture in the financial marketplace and move us away from the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior which has caused so much harm to our economy.
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004606

:grr:

[BlueJac]

1. Come on, he is a good old boy....

He knows this business inside out, and how it works. Who else would you pick?

[JackRiddler]

4. Is this a joke?

I mean, intended as such?

Next: Al Capone to Head IRS.

[FLAprogressive]

8. I hope so....sadly the True Believers will make excuses for anything.

[galileoreloaded]

60. Hah, Al Capone is funny. Hell, him and Geithner have a lot in common. Tax evasion..n/t

[HowHasItComeToThis]

5. NO MORE OF THIS SLIME, PLEASE

[nichomachus]

18. Yes, President Obama -- no more of this slime

[lsewpershad]

110. Come on Mr. President

you mean you can't find any good clean American from the 300,000,000 among us.

[Baby Snooks]

72. How about Bernie Madoff?

If you're going to let the crooks run everything why not let Bernie Madoff run it? He was managing to pay investors as much as $10 billion a year so while he admitted running a Ponzi scheme, he obviously made some wise investments along the way or he would have run out of money a long time ago. More to the story than we will ever know.

But at least he didn't bankrupt his business the way everyone else did. He just obviously made some bad investments, couldn't raise more capital, and just ran out of money. Like the rest of us.

I'd rather have Bernie Madoff than the crooks Obama has put in place to run everything. More than likely they will everything into the ground.

[EFerrari]

2. OOPs.

[Octafish]

116. It takes a thief...

...to catch a thief.

[terisan]

3. Thanks for continuing to sound the alarms. nt

[county worker]

6. With all the people deciding what Obama should do, including the morning talking heads and all,

why did we bother to elect him? I mean did we elect a puppet who's stings we are controlling or did we elect a President who has a brain and the ability to think for himself?

Everyday now the rant is Obama isn't doing the right thing. Do you really expect him to take a poll day in and day out to see what to do today?

I would think we would want to look for the results of his actions rather than decide what they will be before they happen.

I can just see him in the oval office turning on Morning Joe to check out the opinions of the talking heads. "Oh my God! Mika thinks I did the wrong thing last night! I better have the press secretary give a couple of Mea Culpas today."

[EFerrari]

7. You're right. It would have been more efficient if he'd just gone to work for Goldman Sachs. n/t

[JackRiddler]

9. Damn Democracy!

[glitch]

10. Not for Goldman Sachs.

Nothing beats the efficiency of Geithner's plan re filling Goldman Sachs' accounts.

[county worker]

14. He could have been a Wall Street lawyer. So now he's president.

People are talking like he made a conscience decision to enrich himself and Wall Street insiders by running for President. That sure would be a big gamble to make since his chances of being elected were not good when he decided to become a public servant.

[EFerrari]

22. He was Wall Street's candidate. Wall Street made an easy bet

because there was no way McMore would be elected.

[county worker]

26. You're saying that Wall Street knew that they could get their way no matter who won.

So why be on anyone's side. I don't think Obama has in his mind to benefit Wall Street and stick it too all the rest of us.

I don't think Obama lied to all of us for the past two years.

We are so damned sure the deck is stacked against us. I hear the Blue Dogs will kill Obama's plans then I hear that Obama doesn't have any plan to benefit us anyway. So why the worry?

Why not go back to the place you were in for the last 8 years. Surely you had no hope then.

[EFerrari]

27. Yes, I am saying that. That's what American presidents do.

And you have no idea where I have "been" for the last eight years.

[county worker]

30. Well I'm going on what I have seen at DU and most of us didn't have hope until

Hilary and Obama ran for President. I seems some of us lost that since.

[EFerrari]

35. The primaries and the election campaign were fun and inspiring but they aren't real life.

They are a media event where a few media outlets make a lot of money every four years.

The American president always has to deal with Wall Street. That also happens every four years. The only difference this time is that Bush screwed everything up so badly that the robbery is actually visible to the public where most of the time, it isn't.

Obama needs to do something about his economic team. They are part of the vulture class. There is no denying that. Whatever one's illusions or hopes about this presidency -- and I fully expect it will be among the best in my lifetime -- he can't keep allowing Wall Street to show the American people how badly we are being ripped off WHILE we lose our jobs, our homes and our health.

[KoKo]

58. He did the "bargain with the devil"....

Kissinger, Wall St., Emmanuel...Powers that Be. Bargain with Poppy is how I see it. Poppy who said "The Kid Fucked Up...we'll give you (Obama) some room and some legislation around the edges for those folks who support you because the kid fucked up so bad we have to worry about civil unrest (those Peasants and Pitchforks) and Baker and Kissinger, Heritage, Brookings, Hudson, AEI, AIPAC, Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberger's will make sure he does okay...long as he doesn't step too far outta' line."

[rcrush]

88. They say that stuff is crazy

But these days crazy makes more sense than reality does to me.

[CAcyclist]

109. I voted for Obama because I want a president who is responsive to the people

What do you think a democracy is?

I want people in office who will listen to my concerns, which is what Obama is doing. He wants us to tell him what we think.

Obama isn't perfect and he is going to make mistakes and we need to call him on those mistakes.

Would that Clinton would have listened to the prescient people who protested the repeal of the Glass-Steagall rule and the repeal on the ban on bucket shops that allowed these credit default swaps to be traded.

[leftchick]

34. now you are catching on

change? hope? YES WE CAN? those are words. His actions on the economy speak volumes. Have you by any chance read what Roubini, Krugman, Galbrieth and Stiglitz think about this? Apparently not.

[county worker]

41. How can you come to DU and not read what Krugman et. al. are saying.

I'm as much a political junkie as anyone here. What question would you put to Obama tonight? "Why haven't you done what Roubini, Krugman, Galbrieth and Stiglitz suggest you should be doing?"

I'd like that question to be asked and I'd like to hear the answer.

[leftchick]

46. ALL of them are recommending he stop the gravy train to crooks

Nationalize the banks and AIG, get rid of the crooks, RE REGULATE and re-instate the Glass-Stiegleman Act. There is no way any reporter, no newspaper writer, will ask that. There has been no one in congress asking that. They are all in this together to suck us dry. It could not be clearer and my family is paying for it. So do not lecture me.

[county worker]

48. I'm not lecturing you and I think I understand where you are coming from.

I'm lucky that I haven't lost more than I have. I'm not ready to think that things are going to be business as usual.

[SammyWinstonJack]

101. It is 'business as usual'. How can anyone think otherwise?

:shrug:

[sce56]

65. I think we should all reply back by demanding no more bailouts!

I think the President should stop the bailout and start the prosecutions for fraud and outright robbery of the people and the Treasury by the crooks on Wall Street and the Lobbyist-Lawmakers that allowed it to happen! Maybe what we need is an out right nationwide strike and the best time to do it would be April 15th since that is a day we all have to look out for! Anyone else agree with me?

[Leopolds Ghost]

79. Where'd you get that picture?

I want to use it for my sig!

[sce56]

136. A simple google search

crowd torches photo something like that just download it like I did!

[nankerphelge]

66. Glass-Steagall Act...

Go Sea Shepherd.

[leftchick]

87. thank you for the correction

I was a steamin mad when I posted so I did not pay too much attention to my post for accuracy.

[nankerphelge]

126. No worries...

My posts are train wreck of bad grammar and typos, so it was by no means a critique... I wouldn't have mentioned but for (1) I've been reading up on Glass-Steagall act a lot lately, so I saw it and (2) you had the Sea Shepherd flag, which is totally cool.

[Baby Snooks]

74. The Clintons will not allow that....

"...and re-instate the Glass-Stiegleman Act."

And embarass Bill Clinton? Not to mention poor Chelsea. How would she earn a living if the hedge funds were put out of business?

I walk by one of the "wall paintings" every day with the picture of Obama and the word HOPE and realize, sadly, that this country is hopeless at this point.

But never fear, Hillary will be here in 2012. Reminding us that if we had elected HER in 2008 things would have been different but she can still save us. And Rahm Emanuel will be right beside her along with Bill Clinton. Rahm Emanuel serves the Clintons. And the Clintons serve the Bushes. They are family after all.

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. That's what worries me n/t

[sendero]

95. Having decided that Obama..

... is a truly gifted man intellectually, I have come to the conclusion that he knows exactly what he is doing.

And that makes me pretty sad.

[leftchick]

96. me too

:(

[acmavm]

89. Haven't you heard? Roubini, Krugman, Galbrieth are bitter idiots who

are just bashing the adminstration for no good reason. They're unpatriotic because they won't get in line and follow along like good little robots. Why, in the face of the brain trusts we have running this bailout, these people are uncredentialed hacks who have never been right in their lives.

[acmavm]

85. Maybe he didn't LIE, he just didn't mean all those things he promised.

He was just fooling apparently.

[SammyWinstonJack]

100. .

:evilgrin:

[rollingrock]

11. Obama basically turned over the government to Wall Street

National elections in the US are basically a sham.

[EFerrari]

12. We think of presidents as leaders. Maybe it's more true that they've always been mediators. n/t

[KoKo]

59. One has to have been around a bit to see it, though.

It's hard to try to tell those who have so much hope...that it's what it is... Change is incremental. For some of us it seems it's always three steps backward for every step forward when we try to elect a President who will work "for the people" and not the "special interest and PTB."

It's hard to keep that balance not to discourage those who don't know...and we all keep trying to change what the compromises are...and the balance of power. As you know, EFerrari...:hug:

[EFerrari]

61. I'm afraid you're right. Change is incremental

And Obama has to contend with all the forces that all American presidents do. He will do well. But he will still be an American president.

:hug:

[blindpig]

97. Real change in not incremental.

Real change comes in bursts, are you familiar with the evolutionary concept of 'punctuated equilibrium'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Funny how Marx and evolutionary theory dovetail on this.

http://www.marxist.com/science/marxismanddarwinism.html

[EFerrari]

118. Thanks for the link -- I've never heard of that idea.

Have to go read. :hi:

[Runcible Spoon]

149. WOW-

It's nice to see that analogy again! Punctuated equilibrium model came up in quite a bit of globalization theory too...

[Two Americas]

122. hardly ever

Historically, significant social change happens very quickly, or not at all.

[county worker]

13. Can you look into your cristal ball for me. I want to know a few things about my future too.

You haven't a clue what the future of this economy is going to be. I'd put my faith in Obama before I would put it you.

Of course I could change my mind. What's your plan for correcting the economy and what repercussions do you expect will happen to you if you are wrong?

You risk nothing do you?

[rollingrock]

17. I trust people like Krugman

far more than the pack of 'former' Wall Street lobbyists (after swearing to keep them out) Obama has decided to staff his economic team with. Like I said, elections are a sham. These Wall Street lobbyists are writing our economic policy as we speak, and that does not give me much hope that the economy is going to turn around anytime soon. As much as I'd like to be optimistic as you are, the realist in me tells me there isn't much concrete reason to.

[county worker]

21. How can you be a realist about something that hasn't happened yet?

My hope is that we will look back on these days and say that Obama was smarter than we gave him credit for.

I have hope now as I did before the election. Until I can see the effects of a decision I will not make up my mind what it will be.

If Krugman made all the decisions I don't know what kind of economy we would have. Maybe better maybe worse. We didn't elect Krugman. He has the luxury to sit on the side lines and shout at the players. He isn't in the game, Obama is.

If Obama is a turncoat as you say, he is working for himself and a few others. I really can't accept that assumption.

[rollingrock]

33. That's kind of like asking

'how can you be a realist about something that hasn't happened yet?' shortly after Bush was 'elected' in 2004. I think most of us could figure out what happens when you let the lobbyists and Wall Street crooks run your administration like Bush did. That is, the next 4 years is going to look a lot like the last 4 years, if not worse. In other words, utter disaster.

[county worker]

36. You really think that Wall Street is going to be the same in the coming years as it was in the past

four?

Just looking at the mess we are in seems to me to suggest there will be changes made. Not only people like me have lost in this economic collapse but also people more well off than me.

It can't be business as usual. We can't be doing the same thing and expecting different results.

I just don't have the ability to be so pessimistic about the future as some can. I even think some times that the misery of the last 8 years has become, some way, comfortable for some. Misery is all we've known for a long time and feeling good is just not a good fit yet.

[EFerrari]

44. Oh, baloney. Comfortable, my @ss. People being evicted and laid off are not comfortable.

This isn't about pessimism but about realism. We can't change anything if the same bad actors are burrowed even further into our government. Hence, the OP>

[D-Lee]

90. "Elections are a sham"? Think your position over ...

I'm with County Worker, whose comments make a lot of sense to me.

A couple of important thoughts to me are:

1. What are the chances the President is operating to favor a certain group and, if so, in what manner? Unlike Bush, he is not favoring long-standing, already rich, family associates.

2. If nominees are to be scrutinized, proceed with hearings so that their inclinations can be explored. A lot of these people are technocrats and a hearing can explore their ability to follow presidential priorities and choices.

3. If the Obama / Geithner policies were really so "pro-Wall Street" (whatever that means), Wall Streeters would be clamoring to join the administration, as done with Regan and the Bushes. Not happening now. This is a huge pointer that regulation will happen and change is coming.

4. Obama looks sincere to me.

[rhett o rick]

15. We elected him to REPRESENT us. And when he takes actions that we feel

don't meet that criteria, we will speak out. If you wanted a party that blindly follows their President, look across the aisle. The president is under a lot of pressure from the right and we need to speak out so he doesn't forget the principles he was elected on. And no he shouldn't listen to Killer Joe but to those that worked hard to elect him.

[county worker]

16. If I wanted a President that took the temperature of the electorate every day to figure out what to

do I would have voted for a wet noodle.

I'm sure that he will make better decisions on this economy than any of you and your gang will.

He has to lead not follow and he is doing that. I know you can't wait for results but try.

On edit, It pains me to think that you feel he has no internal guidance to his decision making but is swayed by what ever strong argument he might hear today.

The electorate can't solve our problems but Obama might. I'll put my money on him anytime over the fickle electorate.

[rhett o rick]

53. What? You don't believe in notifying your government representatives of how you feel about issues?

I do not have blind faith in any of our elected representatives. They are continually bombarded by lobbyists. I feel it my RESPONSIBILITY to keep an eye on them and let them know when I feel they might be straying from our principles. And yes we electorate may be fickle but this is a democratic republic where we supposedly have some say.

[Two Americas]

123. not a dictatorship

You have this backward. You say that we should wait passively to see what those in power do before we judge.

Representative democracy works in exactly the opposite way. We say and do things and then see how the elected representatives respond, we don't give them carte blanche - for 60 says or whatever - and then worry about how we should respond. They represent us, we don't represent them. They are responsive and subject to us, we are not responsive and subject to them.

The people run the government, the government does not run the people.


...

[Dogmudgeon]

19. The "funny" thing

These so-called "principled" critics believe two opposing ideas about employees -- and believe them strongly:

1) They were completely obedient to the previous boss.

2) They will act completely independent of the current boss.

Any way you cut it, this doesn't make sense, yet it is how nearly all political radicals, right and left alike, evaluate how people in politics act.

I have no problem with, for example, Timothy Geithner. It is Barack Obama who is issuing the orders; Geithner is the technician.

There are certainly circumstances in which the ideological purity of a candidate is important, but operatives who are not entrusted with autonomous decision making don't upset my ideological sensibilities. And MOST employees would fit into that group. If they go against the boss -- in this case, President Obama -- then they leave.

There are, of course, nuances. But not enough to provoke ranting. At least, they shouldn't provoke ranting.

--d!

[snot]

62. they were obedient to the old boss because

they and the old boss were in total agrt that the predator class should be allowed to operate unfettered and that this would somehow be best for everyone.

Their obedience to the old boss should NOT, under the circs., be considered to prove they'll completely reverse course now that they work for Obama

[Two Americas]

20. a representative democracy

The entire point of electing Democrats is in the hope that they might listen. This idea that having elected them we should then fall in line and be silent sabotages and undermines representative democracy.

We elect Democrats to advance the cause, we don't adjust the cause to that which might best help elect Democrats. Paradoxically, that second approach - restricting everything we think and do to a narrow and brittle simple-minded partisanship - makes it less likely that Democrats will be elected, not more likely.

Did the Abolitionists stop agitating merely because a Whig or a Republican was in office?

Did Labor organizers pack up and go home merely because FDR had been elected?

Should we not have marched for Civil Rights, or in opposition to the war because JFK and LBJ were in office?

You are promoting an absurd and destructive doctrine here. I am surprised that it is given any serious consideration by people here, and that it gets repeated over and over and over again.


...

[county worker]

28. What is getting to me is that you are so sure Obama is selling you out.

You don't even know what the outcome is and you are sure it will be bad for you. That means you have the knowledge to make the decisions that will get us out of this mess. I don't think you do. I don't think someone in Obama's place should act on what you feel he should do today. I think he should lead. He's doing that and I trust his judgment until I know I shouldn't.

I don't trust that you have the ability to make the decisions for him.

[Two Americas]

37. no I am not

I didn't say that I am "sure Obama is selling me out." For one thing, it has nothing to do with me.

I would say that all politicians are subject to intense pressure from the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country, and that no politician can do anything for the people without public support for moving to the Left, and that it is the critics and dissenters who are working to build such a mandate.

That is how politics has worked throughout history. No matter how brilliant and talented any particular politician may be, that still holds true.

"Lead" in a representative democracy means listen and respond, not demand silence and compliance and trust.




...

[girl gone mad]

54. I think the Geithner plan is ample evidence that Obama is selling us out. n/t

[Two Americas]

143. I changed my mind

I now do think that the administration is selling the people out on this, after having considered the arguments defending the administration. I suspect that those defending the administration on this know that this is true, as well, judging by their arguments. They merely wish that it were not true.

I don't care whether or not you "trust that I have the ability" to do anything - what does that have to do with anything? - and I am not trying to "make the decisions for him" - whatever either of those two ideas mean.


...

[leftchick]

23. dupe

"did we elect a President who has a brain and the ability to think for himself?"

we thought so, just like bush he has been hiring crooks. A HUGE disappointment to see him follow the same patterns as repukes to protect corporations before us.

[leftchick]

24. EXCELLENT QUESTION!!!

"did we elect a President who has a brain and the ability to think for himself?"

we thought so, just like bush he has been hiring crooks. A HUGE disappointment to see him follow the same patterns as repukes to protect corporations before us.

[NavyDavy]

32. your full of it....god! more and more everyday DU gets more like

freeperville.....or faux news!

[EFerrari]

38. When was the last time freakerville objected to Bush hiring crooks?

:wtf:

[leftchick]

42. I am fucking pissed off with his Disastrous Economy Plan

That is what Economist Galbraith says not me...

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/216311/Part-I-Geithner%27s-Plan-%22Extremely-Dangerous%22-Economist-Galbraith-Says?tickers=^gspc,^dji,c,bac,jpm,WFC?sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD

Perhaps you are a millionaire or close to it. I am not. My husband is a pink slip away from losing his job and health care, I am disabled and my Son is an insulin dependent diabetic. There is no way in hell we can afford monthly meds without insurance. I am scared to death! Full of it ? Yes I am full of RAGE that he has appointed the same fucking crooks that gave us this mess to fix it. He has not taken advice from one economist who has said how bad this plan is. It is a bailout for the greedy fucks. Not us.

[county worker]

47. Go to your county health clinic for the insulin. We are seeing more and more people everyday.

It use to be people that you would expect to see at a county clinic. Now I see people who are better dressed and they don't take public transportation. I know that we are seeing more of the middle class than ever before.

[leftchick]

51. perfect affirmation

that we have another gilded age with even more robber barons. That is their plan to riches, eliminate the middle class and suck the life out of working poor.

Sorry to be such a sad sack but things have not been this bad in a century.

:(

[SammyWinstonJack]

102. Wow what a great solution.

:eyes: You don't get it!


And :wtf: does this mean?

It use to be people that you would expect to see at a county clinic.


That's just WRONG!

[county worker]

108. Too bad I don't have you to sensor everything I think so I don't get it wrong.

If you go to any county clinic you will see people who are poor. I'm saying that you now see not only people who are poor but people who use to be better off but now need help also.

If that offends your delicate sensitivities I suggest you go into a cave and hide from now on!

[Two Americas]

52. faux news?

Did they start advocating a left wing point of view?

[truedelphi]

71. I voted for Obama hoping he had the ability to think for himself

His choice of sticking with the same crew who got us into this mess, this demonstrates one of two things

1) he is a gullible person, OR
2) he has been promised soemthing to make these bad choices.

The dollar is being devalued already - oil prices are up 7%. Why? Because foreign governments and foreign analysts see this box of worms for what it is.

[rpannier]

75. Devalued by whom?

It's up against every major currency except the Yen.

[truedelphi]

77. Devaluation is not only relative to the moment to moment

Value of say, the American dollar to the Euro, but as to the choice that may get made soon in terms of nations dumping the dollar in favor of other currencies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5296476&mesg_id=5296476

Russia, China and the U.N. have had discussions along those lines.

[rpannier]

86. Thank you for the clarification

I was reading it from my perspective which is "Someone who lives overseas and sends money back to the US. So I monitor its activity around pay day."

You were referring to attitudes toward.

Thank you.

:toast: :hi: :thumbsup: :fistbump: :pals:

[leftchick]

99. "Cheerleading for someone because they're on "your team" is appropriate for a sporting event"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5326922

[digidigido]

114. You'd think people would love a long term view. DU is becoming like the MSM

trying to micromanage the guy who's saving your ass by controlling how he does it.
Back the Fuck Off People. Let Captain Kirk steer the fucking ship. You finally got
Captain Queeg off the helm, give the guy a chance.

[progressoid]

25. I think I'll send a thank-you to Bernie Sanders.

This isn't the change I volunteered my weekends for.

[Leopolds Ghost]

81. Funny how none of them had the balls to put a hold on any of these other irreversible schemes

Until Bernie did this.

FISA, TARP, etc. (now I'm hearing from frog-meet-pot "sunshine-liberals and summer patriots" that there's nothing really wrong with it; they don't mind being spied on, and think how much worse off we'd be without TARP! Housing prices would be worse off in the suburbs of DC where the policy in-crowd lives, for one thing.)

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. You gotta dance with who brung ya'. Goldman Sachs - $980,000 to Obama campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

University of California $1,385,675
Goldman Sachs $980,945
Microsoft Corp $806,299
Harvard University $793,460
Google Inc $790,564
Citigroup Inc $657,268
JPMorgan Chase & Co $650,758
Stanford University $580,904
Sidley Austin LLP $574,938
Time Warner $547,951
National Amusements Inc $541,251
WilmerHale $524,292
UBS AG $522,019
IBM Corp $518,557
Skadden, Arps et al $510,274
Columbia University $503,566
Morgan Stanley $490,873
US Government $479,956
General Electric $479,454
Latham & Watkins $467,311

[Babel_17]

56. It's all politicians who are getting more money

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F07++&goButt2.x=7&goButt2.y=6&goButt2=Submit

Look at that jump.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. That's complete bullshit

The Obama Campaign raised over $700 million. The contributions you put in bold total to about $3.3 million. Do you really expect me to believe that Obama is appointing people to crucial positions as payback to an industry that financed approximately half of a percentage of his campaign?

$3.3 million can buy you a Senator easily. It won't even come close to buying you a President, especially not one who shatters record fundraising records mostly due to small contributions from ordinary citizens.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. Your explanation for his appointing corporate stooges is?

Geithner, Sommers, Rubin, et al?

[Hippo_Tron]

127. Because he likely doesn't consider them to be corporate stooges

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

128. Obliviousness to the obvious is no excuse.

I'll stick to my assessment.

[blindpig]

120. It's kind of like stocks

There are thousands of small shareholders but the big fish who hold major chunks call the shots not giving a damn about the small fish.

[Hippo_Tron]

124. .5% of the shares doesn't give you the power to do much of anything in a corporation

[Marie26]

141. More like venture capitalism

The initial "venture capitalists" look for a good project to sink their money into. (i.e. Apple) Once the project is actually launched, the company can sell the product to millions of consumers. But the original venture capitalists are the ones who made the product happen & are the ones who will reap the profits.

[Two Americas]

121. lol

I love this - putting price tags on various offices, while denying that the politicians might be for sale or that this could be influencing public policy.

Maybe the financial industry bought themselves a few congress critters, and that indirectly puts pressure on the administration.

Didn't the whole "small contributions from ordinary citizens" myth get debunked?

....

[Hippo_Tron]

125. No, Obama raised a staggering amount of money in small contributions

Probably not as much as the campaign would want you to believe, but more than ever before.

And I never denied that politicians aren't for sale. They are in fact quite for sale, depending on what you want to buy. Even Obama likely has his price but given the fact that he raised $700 million and will likely raise more next time, his price is far far higher than $3.3 million.

The decisions that Obama makes with regards to the financial crisis will determine the fate of his presidency, his re-election, and his legacy. What you are asserting is that he is making those crucial decisions based on the orders of people who funded a fraction of a percentage of his campaign. Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing. Nor would anybody in the right mind make crucial Treasury appointments based on the bad advice from Senators who have been bought by the financial industry.

[Two Americas]

131. that is the a story line

Yes, that is a way to believe that in a system awash in cash and corrupted beyond recognition, that none of the rules apply in this one case.

Many of critics being ruthlessly attacked here donated money. Why are they to be asked to be quiet?

I am not asserting any such thing as "he is making those crucial decisions based on the orders of people who funded a fraction of a percentage of his campaign."


...

[Hippo_Tron]

132. The rules apply perfectly

Obama is bailing out the financial industry to avert great depression two. His critics on the left hate this proposal because they want to see Goldmann Sachs punished rather than rewarded. Meanwhile Obama and his supporters don't give a shit what happens to Goldmann Sachs so long as we avert great depression two.

I have no problem with people criticizing Obama from the left. I have a problem with people calling Obama supporters fools because they don't automatically assume he's bought and paid for by Wall Street when he does something that happens to help Wall Street. The line of reasoning above I think shows fairly well that Obama is not bought and paid for by Wall Street. Argue all you want that his plan is a bad idea and that there are ways out of this crisis that don't simultaneously reward the bad guys. But I think it's ridiculous to assume he's rewarding the bad guys because they contributed to his campaign.

[Two Americas]

133. geez

I am not "calling Obama supporters fools because they don't automatically assume he's bought and paid for by Wall Street when he does something that happens to help Wall Street."

Some Obama "supporters" - self-styled - accuse critics of "tearing down Obama" and having secret nefarious agendas and of being in league with the Republicans. THAT is the problem.

...

[Hippo_Tron]

134. I'm not accusing you, I'm saying that others do

The OP's flow chart and the post I responded to assumed that Obama's Treasury Department was bought and paid for by Goldmann Sachs and the rest of the financial industry. I feel that I did a good job of pointing out that even if you assume Obama is the type of person that would sell the Treasury Department to the financial industry if they bid high enough, no person in their right mind would sell it for a mere $3.3 million.

And I'm not accusing people of having a nefarious agenda or being in league with Republicans.

[Two Americas]

135. it is legitimate

It is completely legitimate to look at the ways that industry has infiltrated government. The OP does that with all politicians. It can't be helped if that spoils a certain picture that some want to cherish about certain politicians.

[Hippo_Tron]

138. And I argue to the contrary

I have no cherished view of Obama or any other politician. As far as I'm concerned they are all rational self-interested people. And I'm arguing that no sane rational self-interested President would sell off top Treasury Department jobs for a measly sum of $3.3 million. The actions of the Treasury Department will likely make or break his re-election. That is worth exponentially more than $3.3 million.

If you want to refute my logic then please go ahead. If you want to provide an alternative theory about how the financial industry has infiltrated government, then I am certainly willing to listen. But I think the most reasonable theory is that Obama believes that Geithner and Summers are the best people for the job. Now if that makes his critics on the left believe that perhaps Obama isn't the best person for his job, then I understand that completely.

[Two Americas]

139. right

But no one is claiming that "a sane rational self-interested President would sell off top Treasury Department jobs for a measly sum of $3.3 million."

How can I refute your debunking of an argument no one made? I agree with you - had anyone made the argument you are fighting against.

I agree that the actions of the Treasury Department will likely make or break the administration.


...

[Hippo_Tron]

140. The poster I responded to implied that arguemnt

The poster posted a list of Obama's campaign contributions and bolded the ones from the financial industry in response to a thread complaining about a top Treasury official being appointed who worked for Goldmann Sachs.

The implication is that Goldmann Sachs gives money to Obama, Obama appoints their guys to the Treasury Department.

[Two Americas]

142. ok

You persuaded me to change my mind. I now think that there is probably a connection between the donations and the access to the administration that the people who made the donations have, and that this is an influence on policy. You forced me to think it through a little more.

Your small donations and 3% arguments, when I gave those some thought, clearly support the opposite position from the one you claim that they do.

Yes, the implication is that Goldmann Sachs gives money to Obama, Obama appoints their guys to the Treasury Department. The facts imply that. What the connection is precisely we can't know, but it would be naive to an extreme degree to claim that there is no possible connection.

It is, at the very least, an appearance of a conflict of interest, as well a potential political liability. No sense in trying to wish that away.

The person you responded to was making a point - about the general problem of the politicians being beholden to and dependent upon donations from big money players. Can there be any doubt about that? And are you not asking for an exemption for one particular politician, and basing that on your "it was only 3%" argument and "small donations" argument?

Why would "only 3%" mean anything, so long that represented ANY pressure at all, and if there were no counter-balancing pressure? We can't know that the other 97% of the financing overcomes that 3%. I would say that it does not. And it matters not if small donations from every day people were a significant amount if it does not represent a coherent voice or any pressure on the administration. A politician could find 97% of their financing in a bag by the side of the road, and it would have about as much political impact. The net result of so many everyday people donating money could well be that it therefore became less expensive for the industry groups to gain influence.

Would anyone deny that they do in fact have influence?



...

[Hippo_Tron]

144. You incorrectly assume no counter-balancing pressure

I've stated repeatedly that the counter-balancing pressure is that Treasury's action's will determine Obama's re-election. Obama isn't going to appoint people who are going to act in the interest of Goldmann Sachs instead of in the interest of the American people. That would be a sure-fire way to lose re-election because the American people are the ones going to the polls in 2012, not Goldmann Sachs and the American people will vote for their own best interests (presumably). In other words, appointing people who will screw the country for the benefit of Goldmann Sachs will cost Obama far more than $3.3 million in job approval numbers.

I don't doubt that the financial industry's .5% has bought them something. I'm sure a few sit-downs or phone calls with the President, perhaps. But it hasn't bought them the Treasury Department.

[Two Americas]

146. not really

If Obama is surrounded by "third way" Dems, seeking a restoration of the Clinton years, they could well be misjudging this. Worrying about being re-elected usually drives politicians into cautious positions and to move the the right. n this case, I think that instinct - and certainly there are a lot of people around the president with that instinct - could well backfire because of the extraordinary nature of the crisis.

You are promoting the opposite position to the one you intend to promote here!

If the American people voted for their own best interests over corporations, the right wingers would nave never gained power, so that is a very weak argument.

..

[Karmadillo]

39. If only the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress, this sort of thing

wouldn't be happening.

[EFerrari]

40. To be fair, DC is a legacy sewer right now. To be honest,

don't wade in the sewer and tell me it's champagne.

[Marie26]

43. The neoliberal Manchurian candidate. nt

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fireweed247]

49. also on Democracy Now today

"Sen. Sanders Attempts to Block Obama Nominee

In news from Capitol Hill, independent Senator Bernie Sanders is attempting to block President Obama’s nominee to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs employee. Sanders said Gensler had worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of AIG and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in US history. He also worked to deregulate electronic energy trading, which led to the downfall of Enron. Sanders said, “We need an independent leader who will help create a new culture in the financial marketplace and move us away from the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior which has caused so much harm to our economy.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/24/headlines

[tnlefty]

55. Thanks for that link!

I missed this on Democracy Now.

[Fireweed247]

50. Olbermann Explains the “Enron Loophole”

http://blueherald.com/2008/06/olbermann-explains-the-enron-loophole/

[Fireweed247]

57. kick

:kick:

[snot]

63. Just want to say, all the people I know who are the MOST knowledgeable

about all the details re- the people Obama's appointed, who predicted what when, and the actual mechanics of the economic crisis (as opposed to the corp. media myths), and who seem to me also to have the most coherent and convincing understanding of what needs to be done in order to get out of the crisis -- they're all pretty unhappy with Obama's choices. I mean, we're all giving him some benefit of the doubt -- that maybe he's made a strategic calculation that he needs to use people who have ties to factions on the right, etc. etc.

But would it hurt so much to have ONE person on his staff who actually PREDICTED this mess, and who actually HAS some understanding of how to bring us out of it without saddling the bottom 90% of the population with the worst of the costs?

[truedelphi]

76. Or the other thing is - would it have hurt Obama all that much to

Have spent just one after noon with people critical of Geithner, Bernanke, and Summers?

Why did he have to assemble his game plan from just one tiny group of people, people who have insider ties to AIG. And who will not be affected in the least if this thing hurts the taxpayer and Main Street more than the latter has already been hurt?

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. The whole POINT is to keep the rich guys whole, keep them on top, bring their value to where it was

In 1996-2006.

Edit: You can't do that unless the lost cash comes from someone else.

[Hippo_Tron]

130. I would rather return to 1996-2006 than to 1929

[Two Americas]

151. false choice

It is 1929, and 1996-2006 is what got us where we are.

[Hippo_Tron]

129. His staff mostly hasn't been appointed yet

Geithner is alone at Treasury. And I would argue that anybody who claims to have a convincing understanding of what needs to be done is overconfident. This is unprecedented and in reality nobody has a clue what needs to be done. The only thing you can do is try something and then try something else if that doesn't work.

Here's where I think Obama and his critics are on a fundamentally different path. You mention trying to find a way out of this mess that doesn't end up saddling the bottom 90% of the population with most of the costs. I would argue with that figure given the fact that ultimately much of this will be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy. But regardless, this plan does indeed reward the bad guys and leave them well intact. There is no question about that.

What Obama thinks and I agree with him is, "who cares if we reward the bad guys?" As long as we avert great depression two it's a win. Meanwhile if we fail to avert great depression two in the process of trying to not reward the bad guys, then we're all fucked.
The critics seem far more focused on making sure the bad guys aren't rewarded than on averting great depression two. Personally I'm far more worried about great depression two and thus I put my trust in Obama for the time being.

There's plenty of time for punishing the bad guys with new regulations AFTER the crisis is averted.

[arthritisR_US]

64. His picks for the Treasury so far are akin to the foxes guarding the hen house. n/t

[MNBrewer]

67. Oh thank goodness

I'm tired of this "mental recession" that Phil talked about during the election.

Now if only my home would "mentally" be valued at what I owe on it.....

[mckara]

68. WTF?

We're handing over the reins of the economy to the same bastards who wrecked the economy.

We must object to this nomination LOUDLY!!!!!!

[Butch350]

69. I for one don't care - but it is a nice looking flow chart.

[alarimer]

70. I've had enough of this shit.

Obama's true colors are not with the people but with these corporate assholes who have caused this meltdown. They all need to go. I am sorry I voted for him.

[lonestarnot]

78. Fucking A. Mr. President not another one!

:puke:

[amandabeech]

83. Where's Volcker in all of this?

He's supposed to chair Obama's economic advisory committee, and I recall him as being very outspoken.

He hasn't said a word.

He's someone to watch for.

[pam4water]

84. Well al I can say is WTF

[SlingBlade]

91. WTF ! How Long Before We’ll See Bush Endorsements

Here on D.U, How fucking soon you forget !:puke:

Take it to Freeper Town People.

[Jakes Progress]

111. You've obviously never been to freeperville

They do exactly what you want us to do. Even though they were unhappy with things bush did, they continued the cheerleading. They attacked anyone who pointed out that the war might be wrong. They denounced anyone who suggested that tax breaks for the wealthy might be wrong as liberal commies.

Here we have our band of freeperites. They attack those who disagree. The denounce those who point at the missing clothing as freepers.

It's a case of the freepers calling the liberals red.

[Dinger]

92. Geez, What's Going On Here?

Looks obvious to me.

[uberllama42]

93. Don't forget John Corzine

Former Goldman CEO, former New Jersey Senator, and current governor. He was an adviser to Obama during the transition and was on the short list to be Treasury Secretary.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

94. Have you heard

that Michael Taylor, Monsanto shill extraordinaire, is to be appointed to head up the new food safety group?

Uh, change?

K&R

[acmavm]

98. Well, Vilsack is already in so why not? The plan is to apparently

bring in all the lobbyists, corporatists, and Wall Street thugs that the administration can hold.

[Fireweed247]

105. I just read that...

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[SlowDownFast]

106. Good lord.

My head is spinning.

WTF.

[peacetalksforall]

103. I'm freaked out at the fighting and the truth each side voices. We want Pres Obama to be

our hero and it appears he is shaking hands with the creatures who bring death, endings, and poverty.

It's one thing to bring in the burglar or hacker extraordinaire who has been caught to now become the honest guy and tell us how it's done and how to fix it, it's another to have freedom for more crime continuity and I really can't get my gut to tell me which it is.

All I can say is that spirits and hopes were lifted by most people all over the earth when people thought he got honestly elected. It's the end of hope if he facilitates and enables more of the same.

There are real people who have a plan for us - we are to be serfs or slaves. That is the true war.

Who is winning presently? I don't think we know.

He wasn't voted in because he is Superman, but he wasn't voted in to enable more of the most horrendous thefts of mankind, including theft of our votes and our kids. Nor the people and country considered to be the Cradle of Civilization or any of the other countries we've invaded and massacred on behalf of corporations who these financial murderers and thieves rule for.

[SlowDownFast]

107. He is in over his head. n/t

[Fireweed247]

104. How interesting...

"But what reason other than evasion could there be for Goldman Sachs Group to set up three subsidiaries in Bermuda, five in Mauritius, and 15 in the Cayman Islands?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5326950

[debbierlus]

112. Obama works for Wall St, not the American people

People let him get away with murder because they do not YET understand this reality.

Oh, boy. Wait until they do.

[redqueen]

113. Obama? Try every US president, and Congress too.

I'm stunned that so many people are apparently just now learning this reality.

More amused that some seem to have expected Obama to come in like some kind of superhero and cure what amounts to massive, late-stage, metastasized cancer practically overnight.

[dflprincess]

137. This is the quote Russ Baker chose to open "Family of Secrets"

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever sine the days of Andrew Jackson." - Franklin Roosevelt to Colonel Edward House, October 21, 1933.

I had to stop reading at that point so I could add more tinfoil to my hat.

I too am surprised that anyone believes the MSM would have given Obama so much coverage during the primaries if their (and our) masters hadn't known he would protect the status quo.

[florida08]

115. the majority here has it right

This is not what I voted for and apparently the American public is not happy with this trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street either.
When Congressman Sherman pressed Geithner for names of tarp recipients who will be getting million dollar salaries and bonuses Geithner was not forthcoming. Seems to me doing the same thing over and over with the same people expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Transparency was promised.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/geithner-grilled-on-bonuses/3277221523/?icid=VIDLRVNWS07

[Beavker]

117. I'm not a big fan of that appointment either, However

I am going to try to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's just going to be harder if he has to watchdog these guys more than ever because they have the past that they do. You can hire an Ex-Hacker as a computer security tech, and he may know the computer systems and how to stop other 'hackers' best. But...you would have to spend a lot of time watching this guy out of the corner of your eye because you could never truly trust him 100%. Short Leash.

[notadmblnd]

145. Who is feeding Obama these names?

Time after time, his picks are the same insiders who have worked so hard to destroy this country economically.

[defendandprotect]

147. Because of their successful financial advice/agendas . . . !!! MORE! MORE!

[Marie26]

148. Is it time to bring up "Shock Doctrine"?

How isn't Obama following the pattern that Klein outlined in her book?

[Runcible Spoon]

150. DISGUSTING.

Makes me :puke: to see it laid out that simply and starkly.