As we bid a hearty Farewell to America's First Catastrophic President, a truism rises to the fore demanding our attention: One shouldn't reward one's opposition with one's unconditional support as it tends to blowback in one's face.
This aphorism isn't just intended for Obama. It is also intended for the national membership of We, the People who voted him into office.
I didn't vote for Obama for president because, while still a senator, he voted for several things that I was against which he previously claimed to oppose. Such contrary activity makes it hard for me to trust the man. I now find myself being joined in questioning Obama and his motives by many who originally enthusiastically supported Obama's campaign, especially those who are now discovering via his recent actions that maybe Barack wasn't quite the man he claimed he was during the primary.
One such is David Sirota, who in a column published in the Denver Post on January 16, 2009, notes that Obama's veto threat concerning any bill banning the release of the balance of the TARP funds is "old-school paybacks from a politician who raised more Wall Street dough than any other..." Sirota concludes that "This bizarre dynamic is anything but the 'pragmatism' Obama rhetorically fetished — and the anti-bailout majority knows it."
The anti-bailout majority is at least finally gaining the attention of the media. Just this last week, Service Employees International Union members attempted to deliver a "stop payment check" as a protest against any further bank bailouts to Bank of America executives meeting in Boston while simultaneously staging B of A bailout protests in other cities — Charlotte, New York, and Los Angeles. Their cease-and-desist demand insists that Bank of America "use its taxpayer-funded windfall to support a real economic recovery and provide health care for its 247,000 workers - or give the money back.
Such financial assistance is clearly necessary for many fellow citizens, as the foreclosure rates are fast returning to their pre-election numbers. Many of these defaulting mortgages were intended to receive TARP pass-through assistance from the likes of B of A, whose recent acquisition of Countrywide made them responsible for easing the pecuniary pain caused by that former mortgage lender.
But let's stay in reality here. The sort of people who running the banks are far more concerned about their personal convenience and fortunes than they are the economic welfare of their employees — much less that of their customers — and they will pay handsomely to purchase the preference of prostituting political professionals to protect their plush plutocratic privileges. This action is well greased with the donation of huge public sums created out of thin air by "our" representatives, who now appear to be expecting a cut of the action as a servicing fee.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Realist, you've achieved a new milestone in length in this latest compilation of misdirected rage and irrational ranting.
I'm not going to go through this tome of delusion line by line, just point out a few of the more obvious fallacies.
Ah, the Republican bashing. It goes on and on. Yet Republicans are the only ones who are calling this ridiculous new round of bailouts into question and the only ones who opposed the previous bailout. Hell, they're the only ones who have made any effort to hold the people who got us in this mess accountable. As usual your prejudices are causing you to single out the wrong people as villains.
Then there's your fantasy of a plutocratic conspiracy. It's pure hogwash. Everyone wants to make money and as much as they can. 300 families hardly control all the nation's wealth, and even with what control they do have they are not in a position to change the structure of the economy and shut down the unions. Most of them wouldn't want to do such things even if they thought of them. Changes in the distribution of wealth have been produced by the globalization of the economy, and rises in CEO salary have zero effect on the salary of the average worker.
Seriously, do you think it makes one bit of difference to the guy working an assembly line for $45k a year that his boss makes 500 times what he does instead of 50 times? There's no relationship there at all. You could take the CEO's whole salary away and all it would buy the worker is an extra sandwich for his lunch at the end of the year. Why do you insist on writing about things you clearly don't understand at all?
And then there's the issue of offshoring to avoid taxes. I thought for a brief second that you were going to say something intelligent, but that was unrealistic. The reason corporations look for ways to hide profits overseas is our ridiulously high corporate tax rate. If we cut our corporate taxes they would not need to look for ways to get money out of the country, which would give our economy a real boost.
BTW, your socialist union friends misinformed you and as usual you are eager to swallow any lie that fits your preconceptions. Bank of America employees do, in fact, have health insurance. Last year they expanded their coverage with Aetna Health to cover 165,000 employees with increased benefits, including paying into health savings accounts on their behalf to help cover deductibles and copays.
And while we're talking BofA, it's odd you single them out, since their part in the bailout is one of the least outrageous. They only took money to help them take over the disaster at Countrywide so that that whole mess didn't get dumped on "We the People". Their willingness to do that probably ultimately SAVED us a great deal of money and prevented a great many foreclosures.
Then there's your crazy inbred Roosevelt at Sarah Lawrence. What a genius. More bailouts. More FDR like extension of economic disaster by printing and wasting money. He's crazy, but you seem to agree with him despite apparently opposing the bailout elsewhere in the article. Make up your mind. Which do we want, more bailouts or fewer? Me, I'm going with putting an end to it now.
Dave
2 - Roger Nowosielski
"Everyone wants to make money and as much as they can."
I DON'T!
3 - Roger Nowosielski
"Seriously, do you think it makes one bit of difference to the guy working an assembly line for $45k a year that his boss makes 500 times what he does instead of 50 times?"
Yeah! It's a matter of morale, could lead to loss of productivity, even sabotage.
4 - Roger Nowosielski
"They [BofA]only took money to help them take over the disaster at Countrywide so that that whole mess didn't get dumped on "We the People".
That's a new one! They did it for us.
5 - Brunelleschi
Dave-
Do you really think that if corp tax rates were "reasonable" that all the money hidden in offshore bank accounts would come back and the money hiders would say "OK that's fair, I will pay that..."
The chances of that happening are about as likely as Bush taking a third term tomorrow...
Try and stop making excuses for the mess.
6 - Brunelleschi
Realist-
Lots of good points.
Did you really expect anything different out of Obama, really?
I didn't. I'm very happy about his win and like to see the energy he is bringing to American politics. But, don't think for a minute he will be anything different than the nation's top democrat.
He got where he is through a party and that's reality.
The left will be disappointed when there is no real revolution (just new imagery). The right is pissed off already but we expected that.
Tomorrow the party starts, and I'm looking forward to it with small expectations.
7 - Hope and Change?
Heres some good news for all of the environmentalists and members of "Al Gores Cult"
The carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration could exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. According to the Institute for Liberty, it would take the average U.S. household nearly 60,000 years of naughty ecological behavior to produce a carbon footprint equal to the largest self-congratulatory event in the history of humankind."
Yes....thats more like it! This is the Hope and er...um...duh...you know we have been waiting for!!...Based upon these facts..was George W. a more eco-friendly President than Obama?
8 - Andy Marsh
"Naughty ecological behavior"...
What's that, running the vibrator on high for to long?
9 - Dave Nalle
Not to worry, H&C. Pretty soon they're going to be taxing us for breathing out CO2, so everything will be okay.
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
Yeah! It's a matter of morale, could lead to loss of productivity, even sabotage.
Roger, that's a crock. Most workers have no idea what their CEO earns and they might even be proud that he's well compensated. It's a sign he's valuable and doing a good job for the company.
Do you really think that if corp tax rates were "reasonable" that all the money hidden in offshore bank accounts would come back and the money hiders would say "OK that's fair, I will pay that..."
The chances of that happening are about as likely as Bush taking a third term tomorrow...
Bruni, that is exactly what they would do. There are no countries which can support their businesses which have 0 corporate tax. All we have to do is become one of the lowest taxed ones and we become the tax haven rather than the place to avoid. In fact, with our advantages of resources and manpower and education we wouldn't even have to be the lowest. We basically just have to be lower than Ireland and they'll flock to us.
Dave
11 - Hope and Change?
Dave...think of all the jobs that will be created when the Obama administration implements the Flatulence Tax. There will be thousands of Federal, state and local Flatulence Inspectors needed...sniffing out opportunities to tax small businesses and private citizens!
So thousands of laid off finanical services, pharmaceutical and real estate professional will be retrained to work in the Government Flatulence regualtory service....
Hope and...er....you know...is only a fart away!!
12 - Dan(Miller)
Let's all root and toot for the new President and His Congress!
Dan(Miller)
13 - Hope and Change?
Breaking News...
Biden Named to Head Obamas Flatulence Initiative....
At a press confernce Joe Biden announced that he would be heading up the most important initiative of the Obama administration, The Department of Homeland Flatulence. "I have more experience than anyone in the US of spewing and sniffing my own flatulence as well as the flatulence of my fellow Democrats for over 30 years" he stated.
His first order will be to outlaw "Beano" stating that it "will hinder our recovery"
Hope and change is in the air!!!
14 - Hope and Change?
More hope and change on the way!!!
FROM ABC News....
The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .
The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services
Gee...think how many jobs could have been created ---- over 5,000 jobs or we could have funded the full 4 year college tuition for over 8,000 poor kids ....
Based on the NY Times Bush only spent $45 Million....Yes.... as Rome...um...er...you know...burns Obama fiddles...change we can count on!
15 - Cindy D
But somehow, I suspect that this isn't the last issue which isn't going to go the way We, the People think it should.
" 'I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,' he responded, but 'we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.'
I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years " and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t " this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power."
16 - Brunelleschi
H and C
blah blah blah.
And how many people could have been fed, jobs created, if they took the $700B bailout and dropped $20 bills on cities instead?
Relax and enjoy America's new superstar president.
17 - Hope and Change?
CindyD...agreed we need to investiage all of the shennanigans that went on over the past 8 years...we need to investigate
1. Chris Dodd for his play to play politics and connection to the the mortgage meltdown
2. Barney Frank for causing the mortgage melt down.
Or else we will never hold these bastards accountable!!!
Here comes the er...you know
18 - Hope and Change?
I never supported the bail out...its a waste of money and will only delay the recovery....
But have no fear...starting tomorrow when "HE" ascends to his righful throne, the wailing and nashing of teeth will end...
Hope and er...duh...you know
19 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave (#10),
"Most workers have no idea what their CEO earns and they might even be proud that he's well compensated. It's a sign he's valuable and doing a good job for the company."
I'll deal only with this now. Look, I don't believe much in class struggle and all that Marxist nonsense; it doesn't apply to America, but give me a break. That is, to put it mildly, to put a helluva gloss on human nature. And especially today, with all the bailouts in place and public outrage about no disclosure requirements (thus far) as to how that money is spend, the compensations that are being paid to CEOs and upper management with the bailout money?
I'm sorry, but I can't accept your proposition.
Roger
20 - Tommy Mack
Dear Sir or Madame,
RE: “The sort of people who running the banks are far more concerned about their personal convenience and fortunes than they are the economic welfare of their employees " much less that of their customers " and they will pay handsomely to purchase the preference of prostituting political professionals to protect their plush plutocratic privileges.”
It is the alliteration in the close of that 52 word sentence that lost me. Grandiose, argumentative, unsupported, and contentious, it is Palinesque. Had you written “. . . they will handsomely pay. . .” the devise would have produced more pop than pap.
As to the “sort of people who running” bit, the rewrite’s where it’s at.
Tommy
21 - Cindy D
Good thing that Marxist (or any similar) nonsense won't rely on any one but "lazy bums" and workers.
22 - Brunelleschi
#10 Dave-
In a perfect, ideal world, your "supply and demand theory" of where corps prefer to pay taxes may have merit. Money would move where it's taxed the least.
But we don't live in an ideal, perfect world, so wake up already. We live in a world of superrich Madoffs that will hide anything any way they can, and a perfect tax system won't turn them into angels.
23 - Cindy D
Re #10
Dave,
Most workers have no idea what their CEO earns and they might even be proud that he's well compensated.
Most workers I know hate their bosses and feel underpaid. That goes for my cousin, who is very much like you in his ideas. When the CEO cut his 100K salary for awhile (yet didn't lower his [the CEO's] own) he thought it was so unfair and complained endlessly. Yet, it didn't change his ideas a bit.
This reminds me of the two people I laid off--when I took over the company to save it--who would listen to Rush Limbaugh endlessly (what torture that was). They both were ruthless to "imagined welfare recipients", who were stealing all their tax money. I laid them off because their jobs were the least needed. (I bore the constant Rush L. and tolerated pictures of shoe fetishes over desks because I don't believe in controlling people.) I thought everyone would be working triple time to make up for them.
I found out that not only did they complain and foist any work (new or needed) off on the already burdened, they really didn't have any full-time jobs. One had a job that could be done in two weeks worth of time/year. The other's job was irregular packaging, easily split between all 4 of us. (Two workers, my husband and me).
The laziest and most judgmental, the least cooperative, the ones willing to overburden a few were the staunch critics of "lazy people" "robbing" "our great system". They were among the highest paid at the company.
I hope they have gotten a good dose of medicine in the 3 years they've been gone. They were the most constitutionally corrupt people I've met.
Anyway, you're wrong. Working people do not cheer their bosses on. Not the least paid or the best paid, regardless of their political leanings.
24 - Cindy D
Tommy,
Alliteration is lovely. If you pretend you can't understand it you're either lying or brainwashed by the grammar police.
25 - Tommy Mack
Cindy,
Actually I was attempting to improve it, but I could be kidding.