Why is a Democratic administration doing this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29mon2.html?_r=2&ref=opinion



Just why has it become the job of the administration and of Democrats to come to the aid of Corporate greed when those corporate interests go after American citizens? Morality aside, just why does the administration think these actions will convince the public to vote for them next time?

Of course, Obama can do right by this. He has, at least on one occasion, listened to his new advisor, Warren, and overruled such outrage. Let's hope she gets his ear again.

So you have to establish that this was at the request of or supported by the administration.

What do you think "quasi" means. Argue all you want, but if Obama doesn't go after this, it will be hung on him.

HELLO

What is so is that if he doesn't try to stop it, it will be his policy in the public's eye.

I'm going to try not to "divine" the secret motives and inner thoughts of politicians. I can't "know" that Obama is a willing and eager tool of the corporatists. I can decide whether to support of condemn real world actions. I would condemn his inaction on this proposal. I don't really give a rat's butt if he is a wonderful man who is caught out over his head or he is an evil plant by the neocons. I don't like what he is doing and not doing. That is more important than what he is thinking or not thinking. His personal nature is not the issue. If those who disagree with him do so because they think he is the devil, they make personality more important than principle just like the people who think he is a god.

So my statement stands. If he doesn't go after this publicly, it doesn't matter if it is his idea or not - it will be his policy in every way that counts.

the way that things are working out for his Wall Street buddies.

Geithner is cut from the same cloth as Bernanke. So even if someone thinks that there is NOTHING that the poor helpless President can do about Bernanke, one only has to look at the fact that Geithner's main office is down the hall from the President inside the White House to see the real story.

We have had three Presidents take action against the foreign controlled central bank system that poses as our "Federal bank." Those three Presidents are Jackson., Lincoln and also Kennedy. Kennedy was killed seven months after his Executive Order (Still on the books) that would have put the banks back in line with the needs of the people of the USA.

Yes, Kennedy's Action against the Federal Reserve is still on the books.

If Obama wanted the Federal Reserve to go away, all he has to do is dust off that Executive Order.

we would hang it on him. The public is going to hang it on Obama. The clue is in the "quasi" part of your protestation of its independence. I still want to see Obama go after this. It could do nothing but help his image.

unless we could establish that the administration proposed or supported the fed action. The fed really is independent. Administrations get to appoint members and that is it. That does not mean that there is no coordination or interaction on policy - there is - but you have to establish that this happened here before you can justify blaming this on the Obama administration.

it will be on him no matter how many excuses or how valid. I know action is not his long suit, but that is what is needed here.

So what's your point?

I stated my point clearly.

Obama needs to address this. The public will associate it with him. If you disagree, tell me which of those things (the points I clearly stated) are not right.

It isn't. Or at least you have not established that it is. The fed is "doing this". The administration might go along with what the fed is proposing to do, or it might object to what the fed is proposing to do, or it might be in cahoots and eagerly support what the fed is proposing to do, but the decision is up to a quasi-independent agency, the fed, that is not controlled by the administration.

You really need to read beyond the headline. If you only respond to headlines, you are not really participating.

This is the fed that this administration appointed. But the main point is that the administration needs to react to this proposal or the "plan" will be tied to Obama. Like it or not, that is the way it is. If Obama is the "realist progressive" and so pragmatic, he will know that this will be "his" plan if he doesn't attack it. As far as it passing, if it gets to the congress that gets seated next year, I think it will sail through in 30 minutes.

uh no it isn't. Ben Bernanke was appointed in 2006 by the Bush administration.

Golly. What part of the perception of politics is so complicated. Make all the excuses you want. Pick nits until your fingers drop off. If Obama doesn't attack this plan, it will be his plan.

Of course the serfs can always voice their displeasure by voting in the bankster's home team, the Republicans.

Why did a Democratic administration allow the gangster banksters to steal MORE taxpayer money?!

Why did a Democratic administration give the medical insurance industry a mandate to make everyone buy their crap health insurance?!

Why is a Democratic administration allowing the Cat Food Commission to destroy Social Security with the goal to eventually give taxpayer money to Wall Street?!

Why is a Democratic administration allowing Endless Wars while allowing the rich to keep their tax cuts while cutting federal workers pay?

This and so many questions that no one wants to answer truthfully.

Oh well. Feel free to dismiss genuine anger over this administration's largely pro-corporate, anti-progressive stance all you like; I suppose it feels good now, but in the long run all it does is just fuel more divisiveness. Seriously, though - it might do you well to actually listen to these types of complaints once in a while.

I mean, the question only arises after evaluating current events objectively: why IS a Democratic administration behaving in an anti-Democratic manner?

As are the common buzzwords used to death and have no impact anymore.

IT would be great to actually engage in a dialogue with a Democrat who generally approves of the Administration so far. I'd like to find out why their perception of the Obama Administration clashes so garishly with what seems to be the opinions of so many others on here - but few seem to actually want to listen, preferring instead to blithely dismiss the greivances of a great many folks on DU with a cursory one-liner or references to previous skirmishes in which I was never involved.

It seems to me that - again, I don't think this is only me speaking - that the administration seems to be promoting policies and actions that run counter to Democratic (or, if you prefer, liberal) principles. I think even the staunchest Obama supporter here would have to agree that there seems to be much anti-Obama administration sentiment on the rise on Democratic and liberal message boards, in the media, and among ordinary people...my question is why these same Obama administration supporters choose to ignore and dismiss such growing sentiment rather than actually listen to the substance of it; don't you think that you may happen to find why public opinion, by and large, nd not just on DU, is turning against the president and his administration? Or do you really think it's productive to simply continue to dismiss and mock it all? Don't you find ANYTHING troubling in this administration's performance so far? Or do you just think we're all jerks and cranks?

My mind is open - I'm willing to entertain opinions that are still pro-Obama administration, despite mounting evidence that something seems to be terribly wrong in that administration and needs to be addressed. I'd like to think that there are others on the other side of this divide who are willing to do the same, but by and large it doesn't seem to be that way.

ON EDIT: Also, if the problem, in you eyes, is that my perception of the Obama administration is simply misguided or flawed, doesn't it trouble you in the least that that same perception is shared by so many others in your party? It would seem to me, if I was in your position, to be a situation that might warrant some self-examination, and perhaps some investigation as to whether so many complaints of those on the left have any substance.

The far left supports nothing that has been done. Let's call it what it is since you have decided you know what my perceptions are already. And by the way, I've been a liberal all my life, voting in 1968 for the first time. So can the liberal principles bit, I hate snark.

On some left sites there is a great deal of anti-Obama sentiment. Most lean socialist and green. That is pretty much the way it is. They choose to demand, to demean, and to advocate for what can be described as close to anarchy. Democrats don't ignore and dismiss it, it's there on the boards 24/7. Why they think they will turn the Democratic Party into their ideal is something I can't answer. Or maybe they just use the words to hide what they really want, knowing that people do not want a socialist country.

I think the far left needs to examine their own situation and decide who they are. Are they Democrats? Or are they other?

You asked.

I appreciate that you responded with courtesy. I wasn't trying to tell you what you perceived, by the way.

However, as far addressing the Green/socialist thing: I do think that it would still behoove the mainstream Democratic party to at least listen to people who are Greens and socialists in order to build some sort of coalition - even introducing ideas (living wage, greater environmental protection, etc.) into mainstream Democratic discourse without ridicule. That's just my opinion. It would help heal some of the division within the party; plus which, not every idea that comes from the left is some crackpot pie-in-the-sky pipe dream - some of these ideas would seem to have great appeal among a wide swath of voters (again, living wage legislation, for instance).

Right now, the American left has no representation in government, yet there are millions and millions of us. I think that's a serious problem. The idea that pure socialism would result from introducing some leftist ideas into the mix, I think, is highly unlikely. I know, as for myself, I do not wish for pure socialism - I merely want a sustainable, highly regulated capitalist democracy that provides a safety net for the working poor and protection for the environment.

Anyhow, thank you for answering. Have a good night.

It may surprise you, but most of us want just what you described....living wages, a clean environment, equality for all. These are things I've advocated for all my voting life, they are the things the Democratic Party is built on. These are also things that Barack Obama strives for. Believe it.

Good night.

One I don't agree with, but at least more than snark.

No one ever said the apologists don't want those things. The complaints that should be listened to are the ones that disagree with whether those are the goals of this administration. Despite your assuredness and our skepticism, we cannot know what is in the hearts and minds of men (Only the Shadow Knows), but we can look at the actions and inactions and come up with a complaint about the effectiveness of this administration to bring about those goals you say we share. Our goals go beyond just winning and election or the celebration of a personality. We had higher expectations of this president.

Besides the issue of accomplishment (please no monster list of mini-deeds) there is the problem os perception. The point I was making is that if the president doesn't address this travesty, he will become even more mixed in the minds of voters with support of the rich and corporate.

If you want dialog, that will be necessary because like I said, I hate snark. But I'm willing to talk.

Perception is a problem, on that I can agree. This president isn't one to go around slapping himself on the back, but he may need to do that more often. Expectation is ok as long as it's based on reality. Expecting Barack Obama to be some hard nosed left winger ain't gonna happen because that's not what he is. Make fun of me if you want, but I've studied this persons politics for several years and he is a liberal. He is also pragmatic to a fault. He will go the extra mile to get legislation passed...he's no quitter. This is where the liberals and the far left start the divide, in my opinion. Left will go along with a 90% win and far left will slam it and demand 110%. If you look at the actions, the goals are there. Meeting the goals isn't happening as fast as most would like, but incrementally they are being met.

Barack Obama believes in people and in equality (no, not same sex marriage..yet) and in choice and in climate change and the other things that Democrats stand for. He has said these things, not just on the campaign trail. I'm picky about the people I support for president...still have my McGovern bumper sticker. I don't celebrate personality, I find the person who can do the job.

What the far left doesn't like is the change we voted for. Yes, he reaches out to the repubs and gets slapped back time and time again. This is seeking the change in the Washington mindset of them and us. Has it happened? Not yet, but the seed is planted. Will he stop, probably not. Does that make him weak? No, just the opposite. If you'll remember he ripped the right a new one when they let him take questions from them at their little retreat. He didn't run and he didn't hide and told them what he wanted, not what they wanted to hear. Things like that are overlooked.

The President is one man. He is expected to be president, congress and the court and to do it with an attitude of piss on you. That is unrealistic. Let's not forget the party of no, the bastard McConnell who's only goal is to make Obama a one term president, the asshole Joe Wilson yelling out 'you lie', Alito acting like a nut at the SOTU. It's also up to the snivelers in congress to get the word out on what has been done, to stand up and be counted. So far we can pretty much count the one man...alone.

I know I rambled on, but this is important. It's the future of our country and our party. We do have a lot of common beliefs, along with many that are miles apart. It's to the good of all that we learn to give and take....they call it compromise.

Thanks for caring enough to listen.

From you post, I take it that you believe the president has done all he can to advance a liberal agenda. I don't agree. As far as my being a wild-eyed idealist, I don't expect miracles. I do expect more progress than we have had. I also think that he made a strategic error in courting republican support. He will never get that on any liberal or even quasi-liberal legislation. I think he should have known that. He will get support on gutting unions and privatizing schools, but that was their agenda first. But his courting for two years cost us any real progress we would make. We won't get half what we did get now that congress has gone feral. That is the whole problem with incrementalism. We never had 8 years to eke forward.

I'm glad you have a president that you seem to put so much store in. I have found him wanting. Then there is the perception thing. Actually, when the election comes, perception will be what counts. I maintain that the perception of Obama during the last election was that he was going to do make a big difference. Now you and I can argue whether what has happened counts as big difference, but, pragmatist that you are, you will have to see that he isn't currently seen by the base as an effective architect of change. And, pragmatist that you are, you will know that he will have to address that issue and just telling people that they are better off than they think isn't how to do it.

(I not only have my McGovern t-shirt, I have one of the very short-lived "McGovern-Eagleton" t-shirts. My favorite in the collection though is an Ann Richards for Governor (Texas) t-shirt with her image done in psychedelic colors four times like the Warhol Marilyn Monroe painting.)

I do think he has made progress, some big stuff. I don't think anyone expected the absolute refusal of the repubs to do anything constructive. This is a first in congress, blatantly saying no to all legislation. I figure this next SOTU one of the lowlifes will just blurt out the N word and be done with it. That is the looming shadow in the room. That isn't playing the race card, it's cold hard reality.

Jobs are where we need to be, without them there will be no better off. Again the rightwing is playing games and will stop anything proposed. Harry Reid better be ready with every dirty trick in the book to get around them.

About the base. I am the base and you are the base and there are millions like us...left and far left. We have got to find a path that we can move on together. Can it be done? Depends on how bad we want it.

The Eagleton shirt....I think Thomas Eagleton was treated like crap. The old buggaboo about mental illness reached out and choked the life out of that ticket. It was horrid and I've never forgotten how he was beaten up by the opposition.

Peace.

At least a little.

Many expected the republicans to refuse. Many said they would. Before Obama had even warmed the Oval Office chair, some were saying they wanted him to fail. Even if it wasn't expected, I think he took a long time getting it. It seemed he had to be slapped a dozen time before he felt it. There was some good rhetoric during the recent campaigns but then all the old concilliatory language right after. I've seen posts where people say he only said that because he will have to work with congress some way. If being nice and taking their shit didn't work when we had a solid majority, why would he think it will work now?

You are exactly right about jobs. He needs to get jobs for people in ways that won't require courting Snowe or any other republican that will risk Boener's ire if they do the right thing. The republicans know that if they can make people miserable enough, they will win in 2012. At the very least, I would like to see the president on television (where most voters get their info) being short and clear about the bills the republicans are fighting or pushing. And with attitude please. Then he needs to veto any crap they pass with explanations (agains clear and short rather than long and detached) about why he is doing so.

I think it was the Eagleton affair that fist showed me how vile the republicans can be.

Sarah Palin. If the Democratic administration keeps doing the work for the Republicans we will never need to elect a republican!
Seeeee, we are being saved from the likes of Sarah Palin. Would you rather have Sarah???

It all makes perfect sense now! :sarcasm:

and on most, both.

America has a political system with two right wings. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

On the other hand ...poor and or out of work people don't contribute to political campaigns ...er at least not on the scale that corporations do.

that piece is practically content free. A 3 year right of rescission? In the Truth and Lending Act? That exists? Who is proposing what change? And why would that change not have to go through Congress?

By the time Congress passes something like this, and it is signed, it will be well beyond the three year period when most of these loans originated anyway.

What is the rule about retroactive laws anyway?

Let's excuse away any part of giving more power to the banks and less to the citizenry. That will really help.

It just would have made a much bigger difference if it had been proposed a year ago. I am assuming they are not going to try to make this retroactive. Not sure that is possible.

The article is really lacking in details. Most home loans are well past the three year period by now, and the 60s law would not apply to them anyway.

people will still be buying houses three years from now. If this proposal reaches the congress that will be seated next year, it will pass in 30 minutes. Whether it is now or not isn't the question. The travesty is that another citizen protection from corporate greed will go away.

Why confuse the issue. You can read what is proposed and who is proposing. Can you not put your questions in a form that makes your intent clear? Is it the language of the piece you don't understand or the definition of words?

they better follow the example of Europeans and TAKE TO THE FRIGGING STREETS!

Not that I am expecting that by the way.

The Federal Reserve is doing this, not the Obama Administration.

When exactly did President Obama overrule the Fed on the advice of Elizabeth Warren?

The point is that Obama must make a public statement about attempts to erode consumer protection from banking interests. Do you believe he should remain quiet on this? Do you think the Fed's proposal is a good one? Those are areas of discussion. Just trying to avoid any possibility that the president might be wrong isn't helpful.

As for this being done by the Fed and not the administration. There are currently 6 members of the board of governors. Obama recently appointed three and reappointed the chairman. That would sort of make it his. The point of the article and of my OP is that if Obama doesn't do something to squash this, it will be seen as his idea. We can never know if it is or not, but if he sits on his hands, that would appear to be tacit approval. Please don't be so naive as to believe that the president is helpless about everything in Washington. Things are done behind the scenes all the time.

An example would be the way Elizabeth Warren worked behind the scenes and built a case against the recent attempt to ease foreclosures: http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/81-81/4055-elizabeth-warren-convinced-obama-to-veto-foreclosure-bill. This was not her department. She had no power over the agencies trying to do this, but she worked the halls and phones and did a service to consumers. I didn't say she had caused an overrule of the Fed. I referenced her efforts in the case mentioned here.