home

Obama's Populist Message Against Wall Street

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:14:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Better late than never:

< Show Your Work | Dawdling >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Populist Message Against Wall Street | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Oh, give me a break... (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    More words that mean nothing; I no longer believe anything that comes out of this man's mouth.

    When he actually does something that is consistent with his lectures, let me know; until then, here's the transcript:

    "I am here today to...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  Make no mistake....Blah-di-blah.  It is long past time for...blah, blah, blah.  The notion that...blah, blah, blah.  As I said from the beginning...blah, blah, blah.  The American people deserve...blah, blah, blah.  And so, I am proposing that...blah, blah, blah"
    That's what I (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Emma on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    hear from my boss, a true blue Dem who first supported Hillary and after the Convention told me I HAD to vote for Obama in November.  Now she's saying the same thing:  "Not that you can believe anything he says anymore...."

    Parent
    And what does getting (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by robotalk on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:48:57 AM EST
    our money back mean?  That banks should only be regulated because we bailed them out and only to the extent they still owe us money?

    These guys nearly wrecked the country, nay world.  We want a lot more than our money back.  We want fundamental regulation and restructuring, if not lengthy prison sentences.

    Parent

    Charlie Brown's Teacher redux (none / 0) (#11)
    by hookfan on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:08:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Belief (none / 0) (#17)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:03:17 PM EST
    I spoke at some length with a good friend of mine last night about this topic--i.e., tuning out someone in whom you once believed. She said <referring to President Obama>: I can't stand to watch the tilt of his head...I can't stand to hear his voice at the end of sentences.  Well, OTOH, "to each his own." What surprises me about my friend is she used to say almost the same thing about Bush...and about his father...and about Reagan. "Belief" is a powerful word. For me, I tend to say that "belief" is called for in church. But, about a politician? My friend Susan is in political-downer mode now. She needs to vent. We all do at some point. Then, we either go off in another "belief" direction or, I suppose, we adjust our expectations and cull out what we can live without and re-focus on bottom-line actions/resulting legislation important to us. (I consider my candidate at least "ok" if he/she passes my 50% mark.)We all have different temperaments--even if we share the same goals.

    Parent
    I don't "believe in" politicians, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    the way some people believe in a higher power; that's not the kind of belief I think most people - including your friend - are talking about.

    When I say that I don't believe a word that comes out of Obama's mouth, what I am saying is that when contrasted with his actions, his words are empty; he has a track record that makes it hard to "believe" that when he says he is going to do "X," he can be trusted and counted on to (1) do it and, (2) fight to make it happen.

    I also cannot stand to listen to the man speak, and I think that comes from understanding that he doesn't mean what he says, and it will be only a matter of days before it will be leaked that (1) he's actually working on something at cross-purposes to what he said and (2) he really doesn't care all that much if there is legislation/regulation that supports what he said.

    When someone has repeatedly and without shame lied to me, it gets to the point where I would prefer that that person just STFU, and stop treating me as though I am stupid enough to keep being fooled.

    Parent

    My friend (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    Actually, my friend Susan used some of the language to explain her feelings that you have expressed.  I take your point. Tho, as I said to Susan: The President still gets the benefit-of-the-doubt on certain matters from me. The long wait through the Bush years and the very long wait through Reagan and BushI make me willing to refrain from drawing a final conclusion in the first year. My most pressing concern here centers on how he ACTS in the coming year regarding banks, "Wall Street." Faced with what he was faced with on being sworn in, the several lists of accomplishments/legislation in that time period show more than adequate activism in my estimation. From my standpoint: (1) A major strategic mistake was made in over-reaching to the Repubs on health care this summer and allowing August to set the eventual misinformation tone and (2) A series of steps reining in the Wall Street money-grubbers must follow and be highly publicized if he is to regain his position as changing the financial business-as-usual reality and if he is to escape the burgeoning voter wrath that could tear us all apart. I agree that the prelude of the first year must now give way to real results on Main Street.

    Parent
    You've just written exactly how I feel about (none / 0) (#22)
    by suzieg on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:10:04 PM EST
    his message - all pretty talk, no actions!

    Parent
    I second (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    Anne. Maybe if he had actually DONE SOMETHING people might believe him but he has continually said one thing and done another.

    oh puuuleze (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    Dodd is talking weakening/removal of the Consumer Protection Agency in the fin reg bill, Geithner and Obama deliberately decided not to do principal writedowns on housing which is about to collapse yet again..

    the real money is already out the door and this bank tax is a pittance

    the attempt to derail , real populist anger at a WH that coddles Credit Suisse while leaving the middle class high and dry by pitting us against Teh Evil bankers will..not...work.

    we all know who is to blame for bankers getting away with whatever they can, the WH

    The transparency part (none / 0) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    of his promises has some important elements of the bailout sealed until Nov of 2018.

    Parent
    Umm, yeah. I bet Obama will start going after (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    Wall Street right after he passes that Canadian drug importation bill that he supported, then he was against, then he supported again...

    Just turn the weekly address over (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    to Stephen Colbert. He explains it a lot better and speaks to the outrage a lot more effectively

    If this is populism ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    the term no longer has any meaning.

    It just sounded like a weak defense of the mistakes he's already made.

    "I'm ready to marginally annoy a few bankers for a minute or two" is hardly a populist rallying cry.

    I honestly want to get behind something Obama says on the economy.  But he makes it very hard.

    Hopefully, his argument in the SOTU will be more compelling.

    He needs to talk about comprehensive reform of the financial system.  And jobs, jobs, jobs!

    I'm in favor of (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by mentaldebris on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    repealing DADT, er, changing DADT, er, I don't have any plans for doing anything about DADT...yet (or when hell freezes over).

    I'm in favor of the cramdown. I'm not going to fight for it or anything, I'm just in favor of it.

    I'm in favor of the public option, er, the public option is just a sliver, er, the public option is not needed, er, I never said I was in favor of the public option.

    Obama seems to be "in favor" of an awful lot of things that he's is content to let wither away through inaction. Maybe he should stop all the favoring and start fighting. "I'm going to fight for, throw everything I have into, do everything in my power..." are the words of a leader.  "I'm in favor of" are the words of a weak appeaser with no convictions.

    If I never hear him use the insipid phrase "I'm in favor of" again, it will be too soon. Leaders fight, they don't favor. Imagine Kennedy saying, "I'm in favor of putting Americans on the moon". Or Martin Luther King saying, "I'm in favor of having a dream."

    Until then it's just words: typical President Obama sound and fury to pump up the dwindling numbers of the still hopeful, but ultimately signifying absolutely nothing. We've seen this populist act from him before. He'll either back off in a few days or decide just mouthing the fiery rhetoric is enough.

    Obama's always been a capitulator (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    Anybody who watched Obama's nuclear spill mandatory notification legislation, which he bragged about authoring, degenerate into a mere suggestion that nuke plants notify, knew the truth about him before the election.  That said, I'm not sure Clinton would have fared any better against the entrenched human filth who pervade and pervert Congress.

    Parent
    Roger Hodge in this month's Harper's (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    describes Obama's "process" very well:

    "He dilly-dallies, draws out both friends and opponents, dangles promises in front of everyone, gives a dramatic speech, and then pulls back to gauge the reaction."

    This is how someone who has no commitment to anything larger than his own political survival acts. It worked for him during easier times, but it is a disasterous way to act now, when there are so many large and serious problems that need immediate, smart and principled attention.

    He's a good reason to look elsewhere (none / 0) (#12)
    by Yes2Truth on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:24:39 PM EST

    in upcoming elections.  The WHO were wrong.  Again.

    He's also a very good reason (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    for everyone to look at ALL their politicians carefully before casting their vote for the lesser of two lousy choices.

    Yet, I predict we will see this repeat itself many times over this year as we all head for the polls for the bulk of congress.


    Parent

    I think you are correct on all counts (none / 0) (#14)
    by Yes2Truth on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:37:40 PM EST

    "The public always prefers nonsense to sense."
    H.L. Mencken

    Parent
    I think it could be dangerous to be too (none / 0) (#20)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    patient with Obama and the Democrats. We need a genuinely passionate and energized Left to challenge them to do better -- because there is too much real anger and suffering abroad in the land. If this administration can't respond, as FDR did, to tame and harness that discontent, we could end up in "It Can't Happen Here" territory.

    My only consolation is I can't imagine our Republicans making very efficient fascists.

    Yeah, yeah (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    We've heard it all before.

    As first reported by Politico's Eamon Javers, and confirmed by ABC News with industry sources, some bankers gave explanations for the industry's high salaries, such as "competing for talent on an international market."

    But, President Obama cut them off.

    "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks," the president told them.

    He's hurting in the polls, so he says something like this that will get a little play.  He gets to look like he's being tough and fighting for the little guy for a few days, and his poll numbers go up a few points.  He'll mention it again in the SOTU, and then a week later, it'll be forgotten again. You know this was all done with a wink and a nod to the bankers.

    Yawn.  Let me know when he says something credible, if he ever does.

    Obama's Populist Message Against Wall Street | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment