Obama’s Bailout Bunch Brings Us More of the Same

[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.

[Shadowfax]

I am a fan of Obama but this list is troubling. That said, directors do not have general day-to-day management of financial functions of most corporations. SOX requires only that the CEO and CFO attest to the accuracy of public reporting. That said, directors do have a duty to be awake, vigilant and informed of the affairs of the corporation they are supervising. However, there are probably as many infractions as there are directors out there that most directors were unaware of–they rely on corporate officers and outside experts to alert them to problems. It’s not like these directors have their calculators out during the financial presentations at the board meetings…

I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed.

[Shadowfax]

I am a fan of Obama but this list is troubling. That said, directors do not have general day-to-day management of financial functions of most corporations. SOX requires only that the CEO and CFO attest to the accuracy of public reporting. That said, directors do have a duty to be awake, vigilant and informed of the affairs of the corporation they are supervising. However, there are probably as many infractions as there are directors out there that most directors were unaware of–they rely on corporate officers and outside experts to alert them to problems. It’s not like these directors have their calculators out during the financial presentations at the board meetings…

I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed.

[Shadowfax]

I am a fan of Obama but this list is troubling. That said, directors do not have general day-to-day management of financial functions of most corporations. SOX requires only that the CEO and CFO attest to the accuracy of public reporting. That said, directors do have a duty to be awake, vigilant and informed of the affairs of the corporation they are supervising. However, there are probably as many infractions as there are directors out there that most directors were unaware of–they rely on corporate officers and outside experts to alert them to problems. It’s not like these directors have their calculators out during the financial presentations at the board meetings…

I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed.

[Shadowfax]

I am a fan of Obama but this list is troubling. That said, directors do not have general day-to-day management of financial functions of most corporations. SOX requires only that the CEO and CFO attest to the accuracy of public reporting. That said, directors do have a duty to be awake, vigilant and informed of the affairs of the corporation they are supervising. However, there are probably as many infractions as there are directors out there that most directors were unaware of–they rely on corporate officers and outside experts to alert them to problems. It’s not like these directors have their calculators out during the financial presentations at the board meetings…

I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed.

[Shadowfax]

I am a fan of Obama but this list is troubling. That said, directors do not have general day-to-day management of financial functions of most corporations. SOX requires only that the CEO and CFO attest to the accuracy of public reporting. That said, directors do have a duty to be awake, vigilant and informed of the affairs of the corporation they are supervising. However, there are probably as many infractions as there are directors out there that most directors were unaware of–they rely on corporate officers and outside experts to alert them to problems. It’s not like these directors have their calculators out during the financial presentations at the board meetings…

I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed.

[meadandale]

[quote=Shadowfax]
I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed. [/quote]

I thought this was funny. Mark Cuban is pissed that BO doesn’t have any enterpreneur’s on his economic advisory committee. BO ignoring small businesses? This is a shock?

PE Obama’s 1st Big Mistake

[meadandale]

[quote=Shadowfax]
I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed. [/quote]

I thought this was funny. Mark Cuban is pissed that BO doesn’t have any enterpreneur’s on his economic advisory committee. BO ignoring small businesses? This is a shock?

PE Obama’s 1st Big Mistake

[meadandale]

[quote=Shadowfax]
I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed. [/quote]

I thought this was funny. Mark Cuban is pissed that BO doesn’t have any enterpreneur’s on his economic advisory committee. BO ignoring small businesses? This is a shock?

PE Obama’s 1st Big Mistake

[meadandale]

[quote=Shadowfax]
I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed. [/quote]

I thought this was funny. Mark Cuban is pissed that BO doesn’t have any enterpreneur’s on his economic advisory committee. BO ignoring small businesses? This is a shock?

PE Obama’s 1st Big Mistake

[meadandale]

[quote=Shadowfax]
I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed. [/quote]

I thought this was funny. Mark Cuban is pissed that BO doesn’t have any enterpreneur’s on his economic advisory committee. BO ignoring small businesses? This is a shock?

PE Obama’s 1st Big Mistake

[partypup]

[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.

You mentioned Clinton earlier and that’s interesting. Interesting, because for an unabashed policy wonk, Clinton came up with very little in terms of new policy during his tenure. He was someone inarguably prepared to be President, from his Rhodes scholarship to his work as governor of Arkansas, but he produced little in terms of substantive policy. There might be some parallels here worth considering.[/quote]

Allan: This is the question that I keep posing to Obama supporters, and they (without exception) have real difficulty answering it. It seems we are at the point now where intelligence alone is relied upon to guide us through this crisis. Dubya has left this country so starved for a leader who can string two sentences together with proper grammar that we really aren’t demanding anything more than intelligence from the POTUS.

However, I think we can all agree that intelligence alone will not suffice in these circumstances. We see where intelligence has gotten us so far. Karl Rove: brilliant. Alan Greenspan: hailed as a genius (at his apex). Henry Paulson: widely-lauded as one of the brightest minds on Wall Street.

And yet, each of these men has managed to screw us every which way from Sunday.

What we desperately need now is someone of intelligence AND worthy intent. For it matters not if we are sold down the river by a brilliant mind. I look at Obama’s actions — not his words, mind you — and what I see troubles me.

We need a leader who is willing to erase the chalkboard, grab a new piece of chalk and start over. We need a leader who is willing to excise every trace of the cancer in this system, not just a few large tumors. Because unless the cancer is removed, the disease will continue to re-assert itself.

Many of the economic advisers that Obama has appointed are nothing less than cancer cells from a diseased system.

Breeze: please do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with those individuals cited in the article as Obama’s economic stewards during this crisis. It is not sufficient to say that you don’t have an opinion on the matter. You did enough research to determine that you enthusiastically support Obama. Now do enough research to ask the hard questions. Because you will be doing a disservice to both yourself and this country if you do not hold a man accountable for his actions and his decisions and simply give him a free pass because he’s “intelligent.”

And no, I am not waiting until Obama gets into the White House before I raise my criticisms, because his appointments are quite telling and are evidence of judgment (or lack thereof) and intent.

I looked the other way when Obama hauled Biden, the 35-year Congressional dinosaur, onto his team. I even held my tongue when I saw Obama raiding the Clinton personnel files to fill cabinet positions despite this promises to “turn the page”.

But this…this is really too egregious to ignore. This is nothing less than a slap in the face to all those who were truly expecting *change* at a time of crisis.

[partypup]

[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.

You mentioned Clinton earlier and that’s interesting. Interesting, because for an unabashed policy wonk, Clinton came up with very little in terms of new policy during his tenure. He was someone inarguably prepared to be President, from his Rhodes scholarship to his work as governor of Arkansas, but he produced little in terms of substantive policy. There might be some parallels here worth considering.[/quote]

Allan: This is the question that I keep posing to Obama supporters, and they (without exception) have real difficulty answering it. It seems we are at the point now where intelligence alone is relied upon to guide us through this crisis. Dubya has left this country so starved for a leader who can string two sentences together with proper grammar that we really aren’t demanding anything more than intelligence from the POTUS.

However, I think we can all agree that intelligence alone will not suffice in these circumstances. We see where intelligence has gotten us so far. Karl Rove: brilliant. Alan Greenspan: hailed as a genius (at his apex). Henry Paulson: widely-lauded as one of the brightest minds on Wall Street.

And yet, each of these men has managed to screw us every which way from Sunday.

What we desperately need now is someone of intelligence AND worthy intent. For it matters not if we are sold down the river by a brilliant mind. I look at Obama’s actions — not his words, mind you — and what I see troubles me.

We need a leader who is willing to erase the chalkboard, grab a new piece of chalk and start over. We need a leader who is willing to excise every trace of the cancer in this system, not just a few large tumors. Because unless the cancer is removed, the disease will continue to re-assert itself.

Many of the economic advisers that Obama has appointed are nothing less than cancer cells from a diseased system.

Breeze: please do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with those individuals cited in the article as Obama’s economic stewards during this crisis. It is not sufficient to say that you don’t have an opinion on the matter. You did enough research to determine that you enthusiastically support Obama. Now do enough research to ask the hard questions. Because you will be doing a disservice to both yourself and this country if you do not hold a man accountable for his actions and his decisions and simply give him a free pass because he’s “intelligent.”

And no, I am not waiting until Obama gets into the White House before I raise my criticisms, because his appointments are quite telling and are evidence of judgment (or lack thereof) and intent.

I looked the other way when Obama hauled Biden, the 35-year Congressional dinosaur, onto his team. I even held my tongue when I saw Obama raiding the Clinton personnel files to fill cabinet positions despite this promises to “turn the page”.

But this…this is really too egregious to ignore. This is nothing less than a slap in the face to all those who were truly expecting *change* at a time of crisis.

[partypup]

[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.

You mentioned Clinton earlier and that’s interesting. Interesting, because for an unabashed policy wonk, Clinton came up with very little in terms of new policy during his tenure. He was someone inarguably prepared to be President, from his Rhodes scholarship to his work as governor of Arkansas, but he produced little in terms of substantive policy. There might be some parallels here worth considering.[/quote]

Allan: This is the question that I keep posing to Obama supporters, and they (without exception) have real difficulty answering it. It seems we are at the point now where intelligence alone is relied upon to guide us through this crisis. Dubya has left this country so starved for a leader who can string two sentences together with proper grammar that we really aren’t demanding anything more than intelligence from the POTUS.

However, I think we can all agree that intelligence alone will not suffice in these circumstances. We see where intelligence has gotten us so far. Karl Rove: brilliant. Alan Greenspan: hailed as a genius (at his apex). Henry Paulson: widely-lauded as one of the brightest minds on Wall Street.

And yet, each of these men has managed to screw us every which way from Sunday.

What we desperately need now is someone of intelligence AND worthy intent. For it matters not if we are sold down the river by a brilliant mind. I look at Obama’s actions — not his words, mind you — and what I see troubles me.

We need a leader who is willing to erase the chalkboard, grab a new piece of chalk and start over. We need a leader who is willing to excise every trace of the cancer in this system, not just a few large tumors. Because unless the cancer is removed, the disease will continue to re-assert itself.

Many of the economic advisers that Obama has appointed are nothing less than cancer cells from a diseased system.

Breeze: please do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with those individuals cited in the article as Obama’s economic stewards during this crisis. It is not sufficient to say that you don’t have an opinion on the matter. You did enough research to determine that you enthusiastically support Obama. Now do enough research to ask the hard questions. Because you will be doing a disservice to both yourself and this country if you do not hold a man accountable for his actions and his decisions and simply give him a free pass because he’s “intelligent.”

And no, I am not waiting until Obama gets into the White House before I raise my criticisms, because his appointments are quite telling and are evidence of judgment (or lack thereof) and intent.

I looked the other way when Obama hauled Biden, the 35-year Congressional dinosaur, onto his team. I even held my tongue when I saw Obama raiding the Clinton personnel files to fill cabinet positions despite this promises to “turn the page”.

But this…this is really too egregious to ignore. This is nothing less than a slap in the face to all those who were truly expecting *change* at a time of crisis.

[partypup]

[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.

You mentioned Clinton earlier and that’s interesting. Interesting, because for an unabashed policy wonk, Clinton came up with very little in terms of new policy during his tenure. He was someone inarguably prepared to be President, from his Rhodes scholarship to his work as governor of Arkansas, but he produced little in terms of substantive policy. There might be some parallels here worth considering.[/quote]

Allan: This is the question that I keep posing to Obama supporters, and they (without exception) have real difficulty answering it. It seems we are at the point now where intelligence alone is relied upon to guide us through this crisis. Dubya has left this country so starved for a leader who can string two sentences together with proper grammar that we really aren’t demanding anything more than intelligence from the POTUS.

However, I think we can all agree that intelligence alone will not suffice in these circumstances. We see where intelligence has gotten us so far. Karl Rove: brilliant. Alan Greenspan: hailed as a genius (at his apex). Henry Paulson: widely-lauded as one of the brightest minds on Wall Street.

And yet, each of these men has managed to screw us every which way from Sunday.

What we desperately need now is someone of intelligence AND worthy intent. For it matters not if we are sold down the river by a brilliant mind. I look at Obama’s actions — not his words, mind you — and what I see troubles me.

We need a leader who is willing to erase the chalkboard, grab a new piece of chalk and start over. We need a leader who is willing to excise every trace of the cancer in this system, not just a few large tumors. Because unless the cancer is removed, the disease will continue to re-assert itself.

Many of the economic advisers that Obama has appointed are nothing less than cancer cells from a diseased system.

Breeze: please do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with those individuals cited in the article as Obama’s economic stewards during this crisis. It is not sufficient to say that you don’t have an opinion on the matter. You did enough research to determine that you enthusiastically support Obama. Now do enough research to ask the hard questions. Because you will be doing a disservice to both yourself and this country if you do not hold a man accountable for his actions and his decisions and simply give him a free pass because he’s “intelligent.”

And no, I am not waiting until Obama gets into the White House before I raise my criticisms, because his appointments are quite telling and are evidence of judgment (or lack thereof) and intent.

I looked the other way when Obama hauled Biden, the 35-year Congressional dinosaur, onto his team. I even held my tongue when I saw Obama raiding the Clinton personnel files to fill cabinet positions despite this promises to “turn the page”.

But this…this is really too egregious to ignore. This is nothing less than a slap in the face to all those who were truly expecting *change* at a time of crisis.

[Author]

Posts