Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: If Obama only had a backbone in 2009 OWS would not exist

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 10:39 a.m. EST by johnny (28)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The way he handled Wall Street or the way Wall Street easily handled him... I guess you can't change the past.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by guru401 (228) 8 years ago

Well, Obama and his campaign staff are trying to take ownership over OWS.

His Chief of Staff is a former JP Morgan executive, his former lead economic advisor (Larry Summers) was a big proponent of repealing Glass-Steagall, and his Jobs Council features the CEO of General Electric, and executives from Citigroup, UBS, and a big private equity firm.

Plus, Obama refuses to prosecute any of them because in his own words, what they did "wasn't illegal."

Anyone who thinks Obama isn't in the bag for Wall Street is delusional.

[-] 3 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 8 years ago

It's too late anyway. It doesn't even matter whether or not Obama really meant well. They can argue all they want that you have to compromise, that you have to take the corporate money, that you have to cut deals with the lobbies and the banks and all the rot to get into a position to effect change. In the current situation it's an excuse and it's bullshit.

Obama could have taken a stand. He could have clearly called out the corruption of the system. He could have refused the dirty money. The people would have followed him. But he didn't and now the people are on the streets and it's too late to lead them. A leader doesn't start to lead after the people have started marching. He doesn't wait for the people to call out the problems, he calls them out first and trusts the people wil support him.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

I like the fact that 99% of the people feel welcomed under the OWS.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

The laws were written to protect and benefit the people who deserve to be indicted. However, the SEC is working on being creative and using "negligence" as a standard to go after them. I'm staying tuned.

[-] 0 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 8 years ago

This discussion about o(b/s)ama's backbone is beside the point and nothing more than petty deflection from reality. Obama is third generation CIA, just like Bush, and never had any intention of working for the benefit of the American people.

I'm sorry, but his supporters got conned. Same as bush.

[-] 0 points by LazerusShade (76) 8 years ago

Honestly i don't think he is in the bag as you put it. I think he is a smart man who did exactly what i would have done just a few short months ago. He went to the "experts" to figure out how to perform certain aspects of his job only to find out that in doing so he was getting involved in something much much larger than himself with no way out. The political arena is horrible in this regard you pick an ally based on what they can offer you. Having Larry Summers on your side at first probably appeared to be a good move. Unfortunately after just a few short months you could tell something had changed. Obama started to go grey and age very fast his usual personality had started to change. I think he ran into that same wall street bear trap that past presidents have. Some walk into it know what it means and embrace it others get tossed in.

[-] 1 points by guru401 (228) 8 years ago

You are really reaching, Lazerus. You're even talking about Obama's hair color and somehow attributing that to some sort of internal struggle he was having.

Obama failed the people because he refused to stand up to the special interests, his economic policies have only benefited the banks, and now the people are finally fed up.

[-] 2 points by LazerusShade (76) 8 years ago

Hey internal struggle is right its ages you fast to have a puppeteers arm up your ass to the shoulder is all i am saying. Bush was an ass and i have no doubt he was giving good head under every bank managers desk....i just don't get the same thing from Obama is all i was saying. Just my impression that he would have done the right thing if it were possible. Not inherently evil, but someone who is being used.

[-] 1 points by guru401 (228) 8 years ago

You can take a horse to water...

[-] 2 points by TedRall (52) from New York, NY 8 years ago

It wasn't a lack of backbone.

Obama ran as a center-right Democrat. People chose to ignore the content of his speeches in favor of the admittedly delightful style he used to deliver them.

Now we know what he and the two-party duopoly are all about, and we should get rid of them.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

nah, he's spineless.

[-] 2 points by synonymous (161) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Obama sold us out...he's in bed w the corporations too... Example: Why do we need to get our healthcare from private sector that takes 24% administration fees when Medicaid Takes 3% Administration fees...just sayin'... I'm not voting for him again...

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

24% would be a bargain its probably double that.

[-] 2 points by grepcat (121) 8 years ago

I hate the excuse lodged by members of the party that democrats are "spineless", "weak", etc... Just own up to the fact that they don't give a shit about you and that they ARE as bad as republicans--who cares. They eat together, play together, intermarry, and then jump up on stage and put on a big act for everybody. Once you let this idea sink in you will feel empowered--they are draining the life out of you like a second rate protestant cult. Quit deflecting the truth.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

How do you get the People back into the halls of power then?

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 8 years ago

They never were in the halls of power, this is a Republic--the least crappy form of government. The constitution was formed to benefit and protect people who had massive amounts of wealth. The Bill of Rights is the People's Constitution. Unfortunately, mayhem (threat of violence) is the only way people have ever gotten a fair shake. The civil rights movement is a clean example--this "leaderless" crap will not fly in any event. It is most likely propaganda to prevent hardening of the movement, or outright incompetence. You decide.

I love republican government with a little stage acting we call "democracy", but it is not working as of the last generation.

[-] 2 points by reddy2 (256) 8 years ago

It was too late by 2009.

Obama had already received the most Wall St donations in history for his 2008 campaign.

Bought and paid for before he started the job.

So all the hope and change was just false advertising.

But he is a good actor, he reads scripts really well.

[-] 3 points by enough (587) 8 years ago

No question about it. Obama is an empty suit who over-promised and under-delivered. But he believes that he can keep swinging the watch in front of the gullible masses to get re-elected. Now he trying to co-opt the energy of the OWS movement and ride it to get four more years.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

If what you say is right. Isn't it sad?

[-] 2 points by docelyn123 (2) from Bayonne, NJ 8 years ago

so that's why he kept the wall street bailouts, tax breaks for the wealthy, deregulation for Wall Street, foreign wars, ...

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 8 years ago

Yeah Obama was like having a flaccid on spring break.

[-] 1 points by nodedog (16) from Santa Fe, NM 8 years ago

To me #ows would have happened with or without Obama. Our goverment has been hijacked by this Global Corporate/Banking system. I am not talking about conspiracy either. No president really has much control anymore.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

I think if Obama had not let the banks and the people that ran them of the hook in 2009, he would have had the power to do what ever he wanted.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 8 years ago

First of all, I would agree Obama is dumb at many important things.

Do I want Obama re-elected and GOP having majority of Senate and Congress ? No. I would rather see a moderate GOP president who can actually get some bill passed. Let him cause more pain to the economy so that some revolution happens to improve this failed democracy of ours to work better for 99%.

No pain, no gain !

This democracy of ours is more than 200 yrs old for Christ sake ! It's no longer appropriate for modern economy today.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

I think that we will have another 2008-2009 times 5 in the near future. Do we want a looser like Obama when that happens? But then again do we want a true nut job like Cane or Perri?

[-] 1 points by DirtyHippie (200) 8 years ago

When we talk about keeping special interests out of government, the problem is bigger than the influence that their money buys through campaign financiing and lobbying.

The government hiree people from the industry with the excuse thath they're the only ones who are "qualfied." In other words, nobody really understands the crime but the criminals and if they did understand it, they'd go work with the criminals because they'd make a lot more money there than they would with the government. The whole system is compromised through and through and needs to be completely flushed out.

[-] 1 points by bleedingsoul (134) from Youngstown, OH 8 years ago

I don't question him having a backbone. He just has a broken back from the mess left for him to clean up for the past 10 years! LOL!

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

Nope, in 2009 he had a opportunity to set the tone and the one he set is I will preserve the status qua and bail out the bankers. that was a decision he made as our leader cause he was afraid of going of script and leading.

[-] 1 points by jeyowell1 (57) 8 years ago

Absolutely right! No difference from Bush in this regard.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 8 years ago

Don't cry any crocodile tears over our latest leader / corporate croney / warmongerer.

You really think he was different? Did you really buy his lines about hope and change?

[-] 1 points by odiug (93) 8 years ago

this is a nice analysis which i'd like to bring to your attention! Part 1

Why the Tea Party Failed to Produce a Credible Candidate

By Conor Friedersdorf

The movement got drunk on bombast, and now its favored 2012 contenders have fallen by the wayside, leaving Mitt Romney as a likely nominee

Writing on his eponymous website, David Frum reacted to Tuesday's GOP debate and Mitt Romney's front-runner status by asking, "Who produces the first big analysis: Why the Tea Party could not produce a credible presidential candidate?" I'll bite. Every political movement is a marriage of beliefs and rhetoric, combining convictions about where the country should be going and judgments about the best way to get there. Potential supporters assess the whole package.

The tea party's beliefs and convictions about where the country should be going, or the best version of them, are popular enough to produce a viable candidate, especially in a GOP primary. He or she would insist that the federal government spends too much, that bureaucrats shouldn't pick winners and losers in the economy, and that federalizing the health care system is unlikely to reduce overall costs.

A viable tea party agenda would also appeal to the libertarian wing of the party, which is suspicious of interventionism, ever-expanding military spending, and the criminalization of everything from marijuana to not having health insurance. And it would pointedly highlight the damage done by Democratic Party donors, especially Wall-Street beneficiaries of government largess, public employee unions, and trial lawyers, all of whom use their clout to capture taxpayer money.

So how to produce a candidate? A savvy tea party would assess politicians with resumes sufficient to become president, court and flatter known quantities like Mitch Daniels, who would fundraise well be acceptable to other constituencies in the Republican Party, and work to ensure that the longshots it elevated were principled guys like Gary Johnson, who've proven their ability to govern should they improbably catch fire in the course of campaigning around the nation.

But the actual tea party isn't savvy. It overestimates its clout within the GOP, fails to appreciate the many obstacles to winning a general election, let alone implementing its agenda, and is therefore careless and immature in choosing its champions. It elevates polarizing figures of questionable competence like Sarah Palin because doing so is cathartic. It backed Michele Bachmann despite her thin resume, erratic behavior in interviews, and the fact that she cares most about advancing a socially conservative agenda, not a small-government agenda. Its erstwhile favorite, Rick Perry, doesn't even subscribe to what ought to be a core tea party tenet: that the government shouldn't subsidize particular firms, picking winners and losers. Perry is a right-wing corporatist. And Herman Cain, the front-runner of the week? He has zero governing experience, acknowledges that he knows next to nothing about foreign policy, flip flops on matters of tremendous consequence, and touts a flawed economic plan, 9-9-9, that could never pass.

to be continued ...

[-] 1 points by odiug (93) 8 years ago

Part 2

What do all these dubious champions have in common? Their red meat rhetoric and ability to antagonize liberals. What many tea partiers share is a belief that the best way to get where the country should be going is by being more ruthless than the Democrats; by fighting them zealously in the media, zinging them from the stump, and never, ever compromising with them in Congress or at the White House negotiating table. This is partly a reaction to George W. Bush's tenure, when tea partiers believe they were sold out by a big-spending, big-government RINO who kept compromising with Ted Kennedy. It is partly a reaction to the perception that they tried nominating media darling and "maverick" John McCain in 2008, and he lost. It is partly a reaction to the belief, stoked by talk radio, that every compromise with liberals is just one more ratchet in the direction of socialism, and that a confident, uncompromising conservative, in what they imagine to be the model of Ronald Reagan, is the solution to their woes.

Their approach has several flaws.

1) Bombast isn't a predictor of fealty to principle. It's just strategically uttered rhetoric, like everything else said by politicians, a profession where what is promised on the campaign trail always deviates from what is done in office. How odd that the most cynical voters are most taken by extravagant promises of loyalty.

2) When primary candidates compete to be the most bombastic and uncompromising in their rhetoric, the most successful quickly start to look unelectable, and the average Republican primary voter wants most of all to beat President Obama in 2012. Thus the winner of the "conservative primary" loses the Republican primary, in much the same way that Howard Dean lost to John Kerry during the 2004 cycle.

3) Some candidates who lack bombast, like Jon Huntsman or Daniels, would be more effective than any tea-party champion at advancing the movement's agenda, but they're overlooked because they fail to excite. It's absurd. Their records as successful governors are concrete demonstrations that they govern in a reliably conservative manner and can win converts. It is irrational to mistrust the rhetoric of politicians even while preferring someone like Cain, whose lack of experience forces supporters into the position of trusting his rhetoric without any basis for doing so save their gut feelings (which have done nothing but caused them to feel betrayed by pols in the past).

Why couldn't the tea party produce a viable candidate? Its partisans put fiery rhetoric ahead of substance, judged GOP politicians based on the extravagance of their promises more than what they'd actually accomplished, failed to demand of its champions some baseline level of competence, and insisted on pols who deliberately piss off outsiders rather than Reaganesque communicators intent on converting them. Tea partiers got drunk off the pleasure of hearing their prejudices echoed. They're now waking up to face their hangover. And his name is Mitt Romney.

Copyright © 2011 by The Atlantic Monthly Group

[-] 1 points by odiug (93) 8 years ago

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."

A quote which is attributed in variation to Mark Twain, Kurt Tucholsky or Winston Churchill.

In spite of this i'll predict the reelection of Obama!

and he will have to thank exactly those people who want to get rid of him the most!

He will be reelected by default of a better alternative!

And the reason for the lack of a better alternative is the tea party it self!

Better, the gap between the republican establishment and the tea party base!

And for this we have to thank Bush/Cheny! :-D

But keep in mind : "Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge. "

--Lao Tzu ;-)

[-] 1 points by odiug (93) 8 years ago

Well ... he got elected as a bipartisan! "lets sit together and talk it over" kind of approach to politics!

Which is nice ... but dose not work if you can't agree on the problems!

If government is for some people the problem than it dose not make sense for them to talk to the government.

[-] 1 points by antipolitics (127) 8 years ago

man imagine how many people are in Politics... and how much corporate influence is in those Politicians... it takes more then one person to defeat this... perhaps what he did wrong was not talk frank with America, and tell it that the Government is broken, that Corporate Greed is a barrier to change... because he needed our help to change something that's so f*

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

He had our help we was put into office and what did he do. I'll tell you what he didn't do, lead. No one was begging him to compromise with the banks and give them sweet deals.. Yet he did.. that a fundamental flaw... put in the same position he will do it again. So, the question should be who is next?

[-] 0 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake

[-] 2 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

This isn't about a party this is about the man. He failed to lead, as an elected leader that what you are there to do.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

are you just ignoring all the shit that republicans threw his way their so dumb that they have herman cain leading. and these are people that obama had to deal with

[-] 2 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

When he came into office he had the power of the people behind him. All that republican stuff is BS. He blew it.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

you are not ows

[-] 2 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

your just making excuses for Obama, instead of holding his feet to the fire and making hi accountable to us. and don't tell me what I am or am not.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

Just look at the results.

Bush, wars, bad economy, violation of civil rights Obama, wars, bad economy, violation of civil rights.

Oh sure they each talk a different game but when it comes down to actions they do the dirty deals same as each other.

You're extremely naive to think that one party is better because they say nicer words to you.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

ows will never support republican views the same people who have herman cain leading in polls the tea party

[-] 2 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

Who cares if Herman Cain is on top of the polls? He will do the same thing Obama did that Bush did that Clinton did that Bush did...

So where is the change? You don't like Cain - I get that - neither do I. However is you not liking Cain going to change things? Is you not looking everywhere you can for a pro peace anti-corporatist candidate going to give you more choice or less?

The parties ARE the same. They elected officials want the same thing - more power, more money - that they can distribute in a circle to their friends to keep themselves in power.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

ows will never support republican views if we have name one

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

The Tea Party doesn't control the Republicans and Cain is an example of the media feeding to voters whom they should want. If the talking heads repeat "this man makes sense" and "this man is a frontrunner" enough idiots will buy into it to make it so. Happens on both sides of the aisle - last election the media covered Obama like crazy and that made his polls rise.

No difference - once the media learns how to manipulate the opinions of 50% or more people the rest are doomed.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

but these are the primaries these are all republican voters

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

Yes it is true. The Republican base does not support corporate bailouts.

OWS has not officially offered any demands so to say that there are main demands that OWS stands for at this point is simply categorically untrue.

Also the Tea Party does not define any and all Republicans nor the Republican party - that would be a logical fallacy of composition.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

Yes they are the primaries but that doesn't stop any sufficiently large number of people from being lead around by the opinions they are exposed to. How many in the GOP field have we seen so far that the media presented as "the best guy" and see them surge ahead in polls - Romney, Bachmann, Perry, now Cain...its the flavor of the month. The only two who poll constant support are Romney at around 22% and Paul at around 15%.

Cain is a moron just like the other shooting stars and the last only as long as they are left unexamined. The more examination they get the more the interest dies.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

im sorry like it or not tea party controls republican party just look at herman cain no one likes him even some republicans but the tea party. look at the polls hes leading the presidential election for you to say they are not the republican party is a lie

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

"ows will never support republican views if we have name one"

"No corporate bailouts" is and was a big Republican theme. I think we can agree with them on that one.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

thats not true tax rich end wars and the main demand get money out of politics that ows stands for and if you say corporate bailouts that sounds like the debt crisis where the tea party said let the goverment default that we still got downgraded for when John Bohner got 94% of what they wanted.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

Really? I am in OWS and I've voted for republicans. You cannot make a statement like that regarding a group supposedly representing 99% of Americans when around half of them vote Republican.

You can examine facts such as the consequences of your actions (such as voting) or you can live with your head in the clouds pretending that pretty words somehow make the same horrible actions better - I guess if it makes you feel better at night knowing you support a party that supports endless wars, violations of civil rights, and corporate bailouts.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

I think I need a new word for the corporate wholly owned Republicans (and of course a number of Dems) so I can talk to my conservative friends without lumping them in with the far right and the 1% power mongers.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

the same republicans who have put herman cain at the top of the polls

[-] 0 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

thats so true but obama is not a heartless republican he honestly thought he could bring both sides together

[-] 2 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

maybe a person that thinks that a snake and a rabbit could be friends is fundamentally flawed.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

his slogan was change hes black and white and was elected overwhelmingly out of nowhere.Why wouldnt he try to work with republicans and know we see their true valor when from day one their goal was to sabotage the economy or birth certificate hes a muslim anti american.

[-] -2 points by OccupyTheCapitol (-15) 8 years ago

Give Obama another chance! 2012. Yes we can

[-] 0 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

even if I give him a chance he doesn't stand a chance in the election. So the question is who will be elected after a Perri or a Romney will they be weakling like Obama?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

They are strong for the 1%. They've already declared it, by pledging to protect the top from a more progressive income tax.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

I think because Obama blew his 2009 opportunity to shows that he has balls, he left the door open for republicans to take over. I don't think that Obama will be able to fix that mistake. Look at 2010.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

The Financial Consumer Protection Agency took some guts, and it wouldn't have gotten founded without him. Now, of course, congress is trying to gut it, but there's hope yet.

I personally think he's got an impossible job, and that he didn't do a good job of PR in his first couple of years. But he did work on some important things and accomplished a fair amount. Progress is often achieved through a long, tough slog, and I think a lot of folks didn't realize that.

This movement gives me hope.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

He got some things done. that true. I don't think its a PR issue, he should have capitalized much more on the opportunity that the financial crisis offered. He could have changed the whole system and put more power back in the hands of the consumers. The Financial Consumer Protection Agency is nice, but I doubt that it will have a bite once the corporate people take part in its implementation. Dismantling these huge banks, bringing back usury laws putting a legal wall between investment banks and commercial banks that would be long lasting stuff, an Agency that will not get funded and will be lead by some looser down the road, that's just a pretty agency.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

We disagree on how much power a president has in our system, which has many checks and balances. He got check-mated on a lot.

Frank of the Dodd-Frank bill was wishing the other night that OWS had been around a year ago when so few were speaking out to balance the corporate lobbyists. He would have loved to have had the help then. And Obama can only sign what congress sends him.

[-] 1 points by johnny (28) 8 years ago

nope your making excuses for a flawed personality. if he acted like a leader in 2009 he would have had political capital to do what needs to get done. He did not.