Notes from Howard's Sabbatical from Working. The name comes from a 1998 lunch conversation. Someone asked if everything man knew was on the web. I answered "no" and off the top of my head said "Fidel Castro's favorite color". About every 6-12 months I've searched for this. It doesn't show up in the first 50 Google results (this blog is finally first for that search), AskJeeves says it's: red.
He's correct on all three, doesn't seem to want to tackle the the reason for the administration's disappearing act when it comes to truly challenging the power of Wall Street and the Big Banks.
Why is it that President Obama is typically able to provide a cogent, coherent and persuasive argument for the vast majority of the positions he or his administration takes, but completely unable to explain why this administration continues to be MIA when is comes to standing up for the people who voted him into office, by standing up to the big banks. Sure he made a couple of speeches asking Wall Street to behave.... like that's gonna work.
I'd really hate to think that he has been either bought, brainwashed or extorted by Wall Street, but I am left with nothing else in attempting to understand his complete lack of leadership on this issue.
By doing little or nothing, he is clearly supporting the status quo, which is exactly what the Banksters want.
It shouldn't be left to people like Elizabeth Warren, Simon Johnson, William Black, Sen Kaufman, and others to speak truth to power. This is why people who don't vote came out and voted for him.
As I said over one year ago, he had the opportunity to be a president in the mold of FDR, but he as declined, unlike FDR, to say to Wall Street Bankers, "I welcome your hatred".
My vote clearly doesn't mean as much as political contributions from corporations, which can move politicians to action less by direct contributions, than by threatening to provide endless funds to their opponents.
It should be fairly evident that It all comes back to money; and too much of it, concentrated in too few hands, is dangerous not only to our economy, but also to our democracy.
1 comment:
He's correct on all three, doesn't seem to want to tackle the the reason for the administration's disappearing act when it comes to truly challenging the power of Wall Street and the Big Banks.
Why is it that President Obama is typically able to provide a cogent, coherent and persuasive argument for the vast majority of the positions he or his administration takes, but completely unable to explain why this administration continues to be MIA when is comes to standing up for the people who voted him into office, by standing up to the big banks. Sure he made a couple of speeches asking Wall Street to behave.... like that's gonna work.
I'd really hate to think that he has been either bought, brainwashed or extorted by Wall Street, but I am left with nothing else in attempting to understand his complete lack of leadership on this issue.
By doing little or nothing, he is clearly supporting the status quo, which is exactly what the Banksters want.
It shouldn't be left to people like Elizabeth Warren, Simon Johnson, William Black, Sen Kaufman, and others to speak truth to power. This is why people who don't vote came out and voted for him.
As I said over one year ago, he had the opportunity to be a president in the mold of FDR, but he as declined, unlike FDR, to say to Wall Street Bankers, "I welcome your hatred".
My vote clearly doesn't mean as much as political contributions from corporations, which can move politicians to action less by direct contributions, than by threatening to provide endless funds to their opponents.
It should be fairly evident that It all comes back to money; and too much of it, concentrated in too few hands, is dangerous not only to our economy, but also to our democracy.
TT
Post a Comment