Obama’s Bailout Bunch Brings Us More of the Same

[TheBreeze]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: But you didn’t answer the question. Yes, he is extremely intelligent and his responses clearly support that. However, what about his appointments? You know as well as I that actions speak louder than words, and now we’re confronted with appointments that would seem to indicate a “business as usual” posture.

What about that? As I said earlier, I’m curious to hear what you think. Which means, don’t continue posting snippets of the interview, but weigh in yourself as to what you think his appointments represent in terms of “change” versus the status quo ante.
[/quote]

I don’t know enough about his appointments to have an opinion of them. Plus, I actually am only aware of one appointment Obama has made: Rahm Emanuel? Supposedly the guy is a pit bull. I have no problem with that. Politics isn’t Camp Snoopy.

In any event, I likely would know very little about his other appointments even if I knew who they were. I’d prefer to wait and see what Obama actually does rather than speculate about what his appointments might mean.

As for Bill, I’d take him over Chimpy any day.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The link above opens the Bloomberg article (by Jonathan Weil) about Obama’s appointments and includes bio/historical info about each.

It’s quite educational and provides links and background on each. I’d suggest reading it and I’d be curious as to your response following.

You are offering up an interview in clear support of Obama’s positions on energy, Detroit/Big 3 and foreign policy, but admit ignorance as to the people he is placing in charge of these various mandates.

Read the article. Then opine. As I said, I would be curious as to what you think after seeing the juxtaposition of his interview responses and the appointments made.

As for taking Bill over Bush, that’s another non-answer. What about Clinton’s lack of new policy, especially given his wonkiness? He was sold to us as “new” in many of the same ways that Obama was. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The link above opens the Bloomberg article (by Jonathan Weil) about Obama’s appointments and includes bio/historical info about each.

It’s quite educational and provides links and background on each. I’d suggest reading it and I’d be curious as to your response following.

You are offering up an interview in clear support of Obama’s positions on energy, Detroit/Big 3 and foreign policy, but admit ignorance as to the people he is placing in charge of these various mandates.

Read the article. Then opine. As I said, I would be curious as to what you think after seeing the juxtaposition of his interview responses and the appointments made.

As for taking Bill over Bush, that’s another non-answer. What about Clinton’s lack of new policy, especially given his wonkiness? He was sold to us as “new” in many of the same ways that Obama was. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The link above opens the Bloomberg article (by Jonathan Weil) about Obama’s appointments and includes bio/historical info about each.

It’s quite educational and provides links and background on each. I’d suggest reading it and I’d be curious as to your response following.

You are offering up an interview in clear support of Obama’s positions on energy, Detroit/Big 3 and foreign policy, but admit ignorance as to the people he is placing in charge of these various mandates.

Read the article. Then opine. As I said, I would be curious as to what you think after seeing the juxtaposition of his interview responses and the appointments made.

As for taking Bill over Bush, that’s another non-answer. What about Clinton’s lack of new policy, especially given his wonkiness? He was sold to us as “new” in many of the same ways that Obama was. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The link above opens the Bloomberg article (by Jonathan Weil) about Obama’s appointments and includes bio/historical info about each.

It’s quite educational and provides links and background on each. I’d suggest reading it and I’d be curious as to your response following.

You are offering up an interview in clear support of Obama’s positions on energy, Detroit/Big 3 and foreign policy, but admit ignorance as to the people he is placing in charge of these various mandates.

Read the article. Then opine. As I said, I would be curious as to what you think after seeing the juxtaposition of his interview responses and the appointments made.

As for taking Bill over Bush, that’s another non-answer. What about Clinton’s lack of new policy, especially given his wonkiness? He was sold to us as “new” in many of the same ways that Obama was. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breeze: The link above opens the Bloomberg article (by Jonathan Weil) about Obama’s appointments and includes bio/historical info about each.

It’s quite educational and provides links and background on each. I’d suggest reading it and I’d be curious as to your response following.

You are offering up an interview in clear support of Obama’s positions on energy, Detroit/Big 3 and foreign policy, but admit ignorance as to the people he is placing in charge of these various mandates.

Read the article. Then opine. As I said, I would be curious as to what you think after seeing the juxtaposition of his interview responses and the appointments made.

As for taking Bill over Bush, that’s another non-answer. What about Clinton’s lack of new policy, especially given his wonkiness? He was sold to us as “new” in many of the same ways that Obama was. Any thoughts there?

[Arraya]

I’ve just read a few things online. I know of the “coup” attempt and of his book, “War is a Racket”. I’m not so sure of the details of his exploits, just that he left the Military dissalusioned and feeling that he was just an arm of corporations and financial interests. I believe he put it a “gangster for capitalism”.

My thoughts are similar to Butlers. War or military intervention usually leads to some kind of profiteering, resource pillaging or regime change that is more “sympathetic” to US business interests. What really threw me with Butler was that this sort of thing went on that far back. I had always assumed it started after WWII because of huge amounts of money that built, as Eisenhower put it, the “Military-Industrial Complex”.

You should look into John Perkins, who wrote “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. He is the other side of the military equation. He would go into third world countries and try and bribe leaders. If he failed they would send in what he called the “Jackals” to assassinate them. If they failed then the military would eventually go in.

[Arraya]

I’ve just read a few things online. I know of the “coup” attempt and of his book, “War is a Racket”. I’m not so sure of the details of his exploits, just that he left the Military dissalusioned and feeling that he was just an arm of corporations and financial interests. I believe he put it a “gangster for capitalism”.

My thoughts are similar to Butlers. War or military intervention usually leads to some kind of profiteering, resource pillaging or regime change that is more “sympathetic” to US business interests. What really threw me with Butler was that this sort of thing went on that far back. I had always assumed it started after WWII because of huge amounts of money that built, as Eisenhower put it, the “Military-Industrial Complex”.

You should look into John Perkins, who wrote “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. He is the other side of the military equation. He would go into third world countries and try and bribe leaders. If he failed they would send in what he called the “Jackals” to assassinate them. If they failed then the military would eventually go in.

[Arraya]

I’ve just read a few things online. I know of the “coup” attempt and of his book, “War is a Racket”. I’m not so sure of the details of his exploits, just that he left the Military dissalusioned and feeling that he was just an arm of corporations and financial interests. I believe he put it a “gangster for capitalism”.

My thoughts are similar to Butlers. War or military intervention usually leads to some kind of profiteering, resource pillaging or regime change that is more “sympathetic” to US business interests. What really threw me with Butler was that this sort of thing went on that far back. I had always assumed it started after WWII because of huge amounts of money that built, as Eisenhower put it, the “Military-Industrial Complex”.

You should look into John Perkins, who wrote “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. He is the other side of the military equation. He would go into third world countries and try and bribe leaders. If he failed they would send in what he called the “Jackals” to assassinate them. If they failed then the military would eventually go in.

[Arraya]

I’ve just read a few things online. I know of the “coup” attempt and of his book, “War is a Racket”. I’m not so sure of the details of his exploits, just that he left the Military dissalusioned and feeling that he was just an arm of corporations and financial interests. I believe he put it a “gangster for capitalism”.

My thoughts are similar to Butlers. War or military intervention usually leads to some kind of profiteering, resource pillaging or regime change that is more “sympathetic” to US business interests. What really threw me with Butler was that this sort of thing went on that far back. I had always assumed it started after WWII because of huge amounts of money that built, as Eisenhower put it, the “Military-Industrial Complex”.

You should look into John Perkins, who wrote “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. He is the other side of the military equation. He would go into third world countries and try and bribe leaders. If he failed they would send in what he called the “Jackals” to assassinate them. If they failed then the military would eventually go in.

[Arraya]

I’ve just read a few things online. I know of the “coup” attempt and of his book, “War is a Racket”. I’m not so sure of the details of his exploits, just that he left the Military dissalusioned and feeling that he was just an arm of corporations and financial interests. I believe he put it a “gangster for capitalism”.

My thoughts are similar to Butlers. War or military intervention usually leads to some kind of profiteering, resource pillaging or regime change that is more “sympathetic” to US business interests. What really threw me with Butler was that this sort of thing went on that far back. I had always assumed it started after WWII because of huge amounts of money that built, as Eisenhower put it, the “Military-Industrial Complex”.

You should look into John Perkins, who wrote “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. He is the other side of the military equation. He would go into third world countries and try and bribe leaders. If he failed they would send in what he called the “Jackals” to assassinate them. If they failed then the military would eventually go in.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Depending on your perspective (and how you read history), you could argue that the US has always been about the almighty dollar (as were the Romand and the British).

The original draft of the Constitution contained the phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property”, which was subsequently changed. You look at the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark expedition, Manifest Destiny and Gunboat Diplomacy, and it’s increasingly hard to argue that the US hasn’t been a going concern from the jump.

I did read Perkins and that tied into what I had already seen during my time down there. US corporations (and British, Dutch, French and German as well) exert a huge amount of influence in that part of the world, along with the other parts of the world that are rich in natural resources. The military becomes, in essence, the policing force behind the corporate extraction of resources.

Check out Walter Lefeber’s “Inevitable Revolutions: The US in Central America” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393309649). Talk about eye opening. The section regarding the US “support” of the Guatemalan coup of 1954 will drop your jaw.

I read a revisionist history of the Spanish-American War of 1898 that argued it was solely for control of the resources of the Caribbean Basin and the US recognized that Spanish influence was on the wane and we wanted to pre-empt any new comers and thus the war.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Depending on your perspective (and how you read history), you could argue that the US has always been about the almighty dollar (as were the Romand and the British).

The original draft of the Constitution contained the phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property”, which was subsequently changed. You look at the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark expedition, Manifest Destiny and Gunboat Diplomacy, and it’s increasingly hard to argue that the US hasn’t been a going concern from the jump.

I did read Perkins and that tied into what I had already seen during my time down there. US corporations (and British, Dutch, French and German as well) exert a huge amount of influence in that part of the world, along with the other parts of the world that are rich in natural resources. The military becomes, in essence, the policing force behind the corporate extraction of resources.

Check out Walter Lefeber’s “Inevitable Revolutions: The US in Central America” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393309649). Talk about eye opening. The section regarding the US “support” of the Guatemalan coup of 1954 will drop your jaw.

I read a revisionist history of the Spanish-American War of 1898 that argued it was solely for control of the resources of the Caribbean Basin and the US recognized that Spanish influence was on the wane and we wanted to pre-empt any new comers and thus the war.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Depending on your perspective (and how you read history), you could argue that the US has always been about the almighty dollar (as were the Romand and the British).

The original draft of the Constitution contained the phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property”, which was subsequently changed. You look at the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark expedition, Manifest Destiny and Gunboat Diplomacy, and it’s increasingly hard to argue that the US hasn’t been a going concern from the jump.

I did read Perkins and that tied into what I had already seen during my time down there. US corporations (and British, Dutch, French and German as well) exert a huge amount of influence in that part of the world, along with the other parts of the world that are rich in natural resources. The military becomes, in essence, the policing force behind the corporate extraction of resources.

Check out Walter Lefeber’s “Inevitable Revolutions: The US in Central America” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393309649). Talk about eye opening. The section regarding the US “support” of the Guatemalan coup of 1954 will drop your jaw.

I read a revisionist history of the Spanish-American War of 1898 that argued it was solely for control of the resources of the Caribbean Basin and the US recognized that Spanish influence was on the wane and we wanted to pre-empt any new comers and thus the war.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Depending on your perspective (and how you read history), you could argue that the US has always been about the almighty dollar (as were the Romand and the British).

The original draft of the Constitution contained the phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property”, which was subsequently changed. You look at the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark expedition, Manifest Destiny and Gunboat Diplomacy, and it’s increasingly hard to argue that the US hasn’t been a going concern from the jump.

I did read Perkins and that tied into what I had already seen during my time down there. US corporations (and British, Dutch, French and German as well) exert a huge amount of influence in that part of the world, along with the other parts of the world that are rich in natural resources. The military becomes, in essence, the policing force behind the corporate extraction of resources.

Check out Walter Lefeber’s “Inevitable Revolutions: The US in Central America” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393309649). Talk about eye opening. The section regarding the US “support” of the Guatemalan coup of 1954 will drop your jaw.

I read a revisionist history of the Spanish-American War of 1898 that argued it was solely for control of the resources of the Caribbean Basin and the US recognized that Spanish influence was on the wane and we wanted to pre-empt any new comers and thus the war.

[Author]

Posts