angelatc
10-28-2012, 01:10 AM
This is a really good read. It was hard to pick just one point to quote;
(http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/)http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/
Many will claim that Obama was stymied by a Republican Congress. But the primary policy framework Obama put in place – the bailouts, took place during the transition and the immediate months after the election, when Obama had enormous leverage over the Bush administration and then a dominant Democratic Party in Congress. In fact, during the transition itself, Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered a deal to Barney Frank, to force banks to write down mortgages and stem foreclosures if Barney would speed up the release of TARP money. Paulson demanded, as a condition of the deal, that Obama sign off on it. Barney said fine, but to his surprise, the incoming president vetoed the deal.
Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis. And with Neil Barofsky’s book ”Bailout,” we see why. Tim Geithner said, in private meetings, that the foreclosure mitigation programs were not meant to mitigate foreclosures, but to spread out pain for the banks, the famous “foam the runway” comment. This central lie is key to the entire Obama economic strategy. It is not that Obama was stymied by Congress, or was up against a system, or faced a massive crisis, which led to the shape of the economy we see today. Rather, Obama had a handshake deal to help the middle class offered to him by Paulson, and Obama said no. He was not constrained by anything but his own policy instincts. And the reflation of corporate profits and financial assets and death of the middle class were the predictable results.
And perhaps the worst part? The comments, which quickly devolved into accusing Ralph Nader of "having Iraqi blood on his hands" for daring to run against Gore/Lieberman. (Yes, *that* Lieberman. You may remember Clinton/Gore were the people bombing the Middle East when Bush ran on a non-interventionist platform.) These idiots can't get over the fact that Gore lost, and even worse - can't seem to fathom that it was likely that a President Gore would have also started the same damned war.
(http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/)http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/
Many will claim that Obama was stymied by a Republican Congress. But the primary policy framework Obama put in place – the bailouts, took place during the transition and the immediate months after the election, when Obama had enormous leverage over the Bush administration and then a dominant Democratic Party in Congress. In fact, during the transition itself, Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered a deal to Barney Frank, to force banks to write down mortgages and stem foreclosures if Barney would speed up the release of TARP money. Paulson demanded, as a condition of the deal, that Obama sign off on it. Barney said fine, but to his surprise, the incoming president vetoed the deal.
Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis. And with Neil Barofsky’s book ”Bailout,” we see why. Tim Geithner said, in private meetings, that the foreclosure mitigation programs were not meant to mitigate foreclosures, but to spread out pain for the banks, the famous “foam the runway” comment. This central lie is key to the entire Obama economic strategy. It is not that Obama was stymied by Congress, or was up against a system, or faced a massive crisis, which led to the shape of the economy we see today. Rather, Obama had a handshake deal to help the middle class offered to him by Paulson, and Obama said no. He was not constrained by anything but his own policy instincts. And the reflation of corporate profits and financial assets and death of the middle class were the predictable results.
And perhaps the worst part? The comments, which quickly devolved into accusing Ralph Nader of "having Iraqi blood on his hands" for daring to run against Gore/Lieberman. (Yes, *that* Lieberman. You may remember Clinton/Gore were the people bombing the Middle East when Bush ran on a non-interventionist platform.) These idiots can't get over the fact that Gore lost, and even worse - can't seem to fathom that it was likely that a President Gore would have also started the same damned war.