Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama Operatives Intervene to Kill Glass-Steagall Amendment

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 13, 2012, 11:09 p.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Political thugs from the Obama campaign and DNC intervened to force the withdrawal of a Glass-Steagall amendment to the Democratic Party Platform at the final Platform Committee meeting in Detroit Saturday. As of 5 PM Friday, an amendment had been filed, calling for the Party Platform to include an endorsement of HR 1489, reinstating Glass-Steagall. At 7 AM Saturday morning, after an all-night arm-twisting of the delegate who introduced the amendment, it was withdrawn. However, several other delegates had attempted to introduce the identical resolution and were told that it was unnecessary because the amendment was already filed before the deadline.

In calls to many of the 187 members of the Platform Committee prior to the Detroit meeting, LPAC organizers got overwhelming support for Glass-Steagall, even among some delegates who were anti-LaRouche. Fifteen co-sponsors are required to get a full debate and vote on the amendment, and there were at least 28 commitments in advance of the Detroit meeting, with a strong likelihood that the amendment would have gotten a majority vote and been incorporated officially into the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.

The line that was used in arm-twisting the delegates was that "nothing could be put on Obama's plate that might lead to him losing the election." This is, of course, insane, because as LaRouche emphasized Saturday morning after being briefed on the overnight developments in Detroit, we are out to save the Democratic Party and the nation by the only actual election-winning policy available—Glass-Steagall. LaRouche later declared, in discussions with colleagues, that the idea of killing the Glass-Steagall amendment was clear evidence that Obama is a loser.

The entire Platform Committee session was run as a typical Obama thug operation. It was not only the Glass-Steagall amendment that was killed. All the proposed amendments that were not directly offered by the DNC lackies were killed. Whereas the sponsor of the Glass-Steagall amendment was subjected to immense pressure to withdraw the amendment before the Saturday session began, others were pressured more gently to drop their amendments, and were cheered as they stood up to formally withdraw them during the working meeting. In the end, there was no discussion or debate on any policy issues, and Cory Booker, the Mayor of Newark, NJ, who chaired the session, ended with ten minutes of mindless chanting.

According to LPAC organizers who were on the scene throughout the day (a public observers section was permitted inside the meeting hall, and CSPAN actually broadcasted the events), delegates walked out of the meeting early in the afternoon, somewhat shell-shocked over the fact that no discussion had been permitted. Many were totally baffled that the Glass-Steagall amendment had not even been read from the floor before being withdrawn, expressing their continued support for the need to include Glass-Steagall in the Democratic Party platform. Several labor union leaders on the Platform Committee bitterly complained that they should have gone to the rally in Philadelphia instead. Other delegates indicated that they were probably going to skip the Convention in Charlotte in early September, if this meeting was any indication of how things were going to be run.

The net effect was anything but "party unity behind Obama." A majority of the members of the Platform Committee were clearly in favor of the Glass-Steagall amendment, judging from call-ups we did before the Detroit session and discussions we had during and after the meeting ended.

As LaRouche noted after receiving the early reports from Detroit, Obama the loser has intervened heavily to sabotage his own campaign. "It's a race to the bottom between Obama and Romney, and that race is too close to call."

46 Comments

46 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4466) 2 years ago

Dictatorship

[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 2 years ago

Plutocracy.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I don't think congress is dealing with glas stegil either

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Considering it was repealed with bipartisan support sadly I am not surprised by this.

Fuck the duopoly

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

That's what I always say.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (169) 2 years ago

This is anarchy.

The political controversy today is over the economy, healthcare, taxes, jobs and national debt. The national debt is center stage because Republicans want to cut spending to balance the budget and spare future generation’s unsustainable taxation.

The new Republican Romney and Ryan duo have not yet mentioned anything about what they will do about fraud, deregulation, incompetence and corruption that has affected financial sector for over 40 years. They are blaming Obama for the unethical behavior at banks that led to the financial crisis under Bush and is continuing. Why aren't there audits of every bank and agency in the federal, state, county and municipal government? Is the government too small?

The Congress approved Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, Medicare Drug Acts without raising taxes. This launched the United States on a spending spree that will be billed later. Wall St had provided credit for US expenditures, but Congress should have locked the doors to the Wall St casino when $2.3 trillion disappeared from the Pentagon in one year, 2001.

That Pentagon’s accounting failure is such a huge amount of money that it should have shut the government down immediately. How could our governments have been so easily distracted by jets flying into the WTC Twin Towers? Do you realize how much money $2.3 trillion is? If $700 billion TARP was needed to float the banking system in 2008. What would $2.3 trillion do if it is missing? Where could it have gone?

Let’s suppose the endemic government fraud, deregulation, incompetence and corruption are signals that anarchy has already taken over. That explains a lot. Except it is from the top down, not the bottom up. The 1% are among the anarchists and vice versa.

Max Keiser on Currency Wars Global Derivatives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSadYgsJ2rQ

Max Keiser on Too Big to Fail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiaax9GHFL0&list=PL57A38F2F2E292781&feature=view_all

Rumsfeld Announces $2.3 Trillion Missing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJOkdZTHP7Q

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

My prediction is that the corporatists will donate more to the party that's behind in the polls. Switching sides if necessary because they own both sides. They enjoy close races where people actually believe their vote is important, but they don't want to be seen as giving much more to either party.

To make certain that they don't have to give the impression that they favor one party much more than the other, the amounts donated will be at least similar.

There's other things they can do if one of the candidates appear to be getting too far ahead. If Obama is doing too well, gas prices will go up, etc.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I disagree with LaRouche about one thing. I don't believe Obama sabotaged his reelection at all. He just sold out to the banksters. No surprise there.

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

Then why have the banksters given so much more money to republicans? Why have they been screaming about repealing dodd frank? why have they been getting republicans to delay implementation of dodd frank? Why are they scared shitless that the dems and Pres Obama will enact more fin reform? Why?

[-] 3 points by NLake72 (510) 2 years ago

As I see it, Obama took their money in the last election, and he didn't attempt to prosecute anyone involved in the financial crash. That's called a payback. Then, as Obama's reward, the Wall Street guys decided to give their money to Romney this year, because they can get an even better deal from the republicans. So, what we have is a pretty clear example of how money influences the political process, and not for the benefit of anyone except those spending the big bucks. Of course, you also have the entire republican party memorizing their lines, and then filing in front of cameras telling bald-faced lies, taking the American people for idiots, and assuming we'll all forget next week. Which, a lot of people will. And, we can count on journalists never asking poignant and revealing questions such as "Mr. Larouche, we all know you're a lying scum sucking Nazi, so why would we believe what you have to say now?" Which, no journalist ever does, or maybe he just doesn't give interviews to the free press.

[-] -2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

He doesn't and he is not really relevant anyway. I would have liked to see Pres Obama Prosecute the banksters. Any cases brought were settled with ridiculously low fines. Of course this is the law that banksters convinced republicans to write and as always some dems to support. That is where we must focus our outrage at. We need new laws that allow real prosecution. I think Pres Obama could have done more, but I don't really know enough details about the weak laws against these white collar crimes. I do know that they are weak as a result of republican policies. In any event. knowing that the laws prevent real prosecution the focus was directed towards fin reform which the repubs watered down, delayed implementation, and promised to repeal. That is why the banksters support the Republicans, and not the democrats.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

MF Global. Explain that.

Take all your guessing and scared shitless bullshit somewhere else.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

Fuck you

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 2 years ago

Should have voted for Hillary Clinton when you had the chance.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Isn't that part of the problem? We never had the chance to vote for her.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 2 years ago

yes, that was part of the problem. A new paradigm opened in 2008 within the democrat party. Those who stood to gain financially with an Obama presidency decided to not wait to support whichever democrat won, and instead jumped the shark and manipulated who would be the democrat nominee.

By contrast, McCain had 1% popularity one year before the 2008 election, yet he was able to scuffle his way to become the republican nominee.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sometimes I wonder about Hilary though as well. She seems awfully complicit with Obama's doings lately. However, some suspect that she is under the threat of death to conform.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 2 years ago

Because of MSNBC and Huffington Post being completely in the tank for Obama, if Hillary Clinton went to back to the senate in 2008 she ran a huge risk of being portrayed as "Snowball" from the Animal Farm book.

Instead, she just got four amazing years of experience around the world. Unfortunately, Obama wants four more years as "banker in chief".

[-] 1 points by SenseDuJour (29) 2 years ago

Thanks arturo, for the update!

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Thanks for your appreciation.

[-] 0 points by Cocreator (306) 2 years ago

General Assembly, Citizens Audit Committee, Citizens Arrest Committee, Peoples Court, No Judge Judy, Seize the assets of all the traitors and bankers, give it to the people..

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

How do you know this? Isn't Larouche a wacko? Aren't the dems light years better then republicans on fin reform? Didn't repubs water down the fin reform we did get. Aren't the dems ready to implement more while the repubs have promised to repeal the new fin reform?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Aren't all OWS supporters rapists and bums? No, its just what the mass media wants people to believe. Same with what they say about Larouche. He's opposed Wall Street for decades.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So he's not a wacko. great. How do you know about the Obama operatives?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Personally, I don't know. Larouche, however, is considered by some to have one of the best private intelligence operations in the world. After following his site for about 7 years now, I trust his information the most.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So you don't know. Your repeating that wackos propaganda. LMFAO

Thx for your honesty

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

So why don't you prove you're not the mainstream parrot you obviously are by providing some quotes from Larouche which clearly show that he is a wacko? Can't do it? Thanks for your honesty.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

No, he's just going to parrot what MSM has brainwashed him into believing about LaRouche. Personally, I don't care if LaRouche is a little off or not. A problem with the messenger isn't necessarily a problem with the message. Something the anti-LaRouche crowd seems to ignore.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

You know, if you talk to many people today who are scientists or engineers and they are in their 70s, they believe many of the same things as Larouche. Its just that our society has been taken so far off its traditional path, which may be what make's Larouche seem different.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

He got that label back in the 70's I think. I remember, vaguely, seeing LaRouche talking on TV (mid-70's) about our economy being a "Jewish-designed system of interest usury." I mentioned it to my dad, and his response is the same as these guys now: "Isn't he a nut-case?" I was young, and didn't know why my dad said that so I didn't know what to think. On his Wikipedia bio, it seems he may have has a couple off-the-wall ideas, but that's Wiki. Not always the most trusted site.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Its funny, I've discussed the issue of "Jewish-usury" with Jewish friends, and they never considered me to be an anti-semite. But if you mention it here, a lot of people will jump on you with that label.

I will admit there seem to be some problems in the Larouche organization, but there are in most organizations. For me, the important thing is the information they provide.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Exactly. It's the information, which he seems to have in abundance. And he knows politics as well as anyone out there. I think it's hilarious when he calls Obama "the puppet of his master, the Queen of England." Hilarious.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, most people think of the Queen as an irrelevant figurehead, and she is as far as being a monarch is concerned. But she is also the leader of an important faction of the global financial oligarchy that is heavily involved in economic crimes, drug trafficking and terrorism.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yep. The 'Crown' has, literally, an incomprehensible amount of wealth. It's staggering.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think it would be more difficult for them to make trouble with their property though, considering that it is not liquid.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Very true. They might sleep in a nicer bed, but that would be about it. Which is how it should be.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Much of that wealth is fake though, and would be eliminated if we pass Glass Steagall, such as money generated from financial crimes and money laundering.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yeah, I believe a lot of it is. But they have a shitload of real property, although most of it isn't too liquid, I guess. Real estate, fine art, precious jewels, metals, that sort of thing. Just the value of their real property is pretty staggering to me. At today's prices, of course.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Huh? I don't have any quotes. but he isn't really an important player in this effort to improve the lives of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Fine, that's an opinion, many people think otherwise.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

In China?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

All over the world, actually. But Larouche is well liked in China, though he was highly critical of China's early communist years. He's critical of globalization and the establishment of sweatshop industry in China, but favorable to the Sun Yat Sen approach of developing infrastructure, such as train routes to remote areas.

The development of infrastructure will lead to more high paid, high skill jobs in China, which is something that both Larouche and the Chinese government want.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sounds great

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Glad you think so, here's some more information on Sun Yat Sen's approach, and its implications for today, its a long article, but very informative:

China's American System Legacy: Sun Yat Sen http://larouchepac.com/node/12235

[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 2 years ago

Yes, Larouche is indeed king of the freaks.

And, so, the Wall Street guys decided to back Romney instead of Obama, because... I guess they really want more regulations?

I get the funny feeling that republican lies are spun to only confuse the ill-informed. Thus, their true constituency are the feeble minded, because... There's a lot more of those kinds of voters?

Food for thought. No soup for Larouche, he's at the top of the list if things go sour for the 1%.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

People who say such things about Larouche are generally just repeating what they've heard others say. Can't back it up with quotes from Larouche demonstrating his supposed insanity.