Obama's Fatal Mistake?

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

8 posts / 0 new

For the life of me I can't understand why Obama didn't break the back of those criminal Wall Street banks when he had the chance. In one swoop he could reformed the casino economy and started these banks making productive investments, and he could have destroyed their corrupting political power. He's also refused to put any of these sociopathic perps in jail. In the process he gave the GOP what it desperately needed... the time to divert attention away from their morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophy which brought the nation to its knees.

Now the GOP has had 3 years to blame Obama for not fixing their mess fast enough, they've had the time to point the finger of blame elsewhere... like Jimmy Carter or racial minorities, and they have Romney... the epitome of corrupt, vulture capitalism as their standard bearer. To make matters worst, corporate dollars have been unleashed and the GOP running on a platform even more crazed than before. They just might pull it off.

What was Obama thinking?

Pierpont's picture
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm


I think it's about biting the hand that feeds you. Most high profile politicians have to walk on eggs when addressing the rich and powerful. Obama is no different. We may never see a President that is willing to gamble his re-election on bold idiology ever again. I don't understand it. Once you've been elected then you have it made for life anyway. Why not go balls to the walls with your beliefs and let the chips fall where they may. It's called backbone.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Unless you are afraid for your life. Think of the presidents throughout histroy that were assasinated—they all went "balls to the walls".

RFK was offed early, just to make sure he didn't even get back to the door of the White House—they knew whose policies he'd be bringing back.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

This is not a condemnation, it's an observation: Barack Obama was (and now even more so is) not the man for the job. He believed in a strategy of legitimate negotiation, and he feared that (especially as a black man) an aggressive style would be ineffective and dangerous. He brought a bouquet of roses to a knife fight. On top of that he is essentially a moderate - a believer in a system that he has proven to be irreparably broken, due to a fundamental systemic flaw.

In 1992 Money Magazine did an article about how a doctor ordered a hip replacement for a 98 year old woman in a vegetative coma due to Alzhimer's so that her system could survive the trauma of a double bypass because if he had not when she died a review board would have censured him for not doing "everything possible" to extend her life. This is a moderate assessment; I believe it is more accurate to assess President Obama's strategy as unintentional quislingism - by refusing to admit that he is facing a fascist insurrection he is effectively supporting it.

In fairness a better comparison is Neville Chamberlain. In 1938 Britain was unready and unwilling to confront Hitler. It is distinctly possible that if Chamberlain had done so he would have failed even more catastrophically than he ultimately did. President Obama in 2009 was in a very similar position and made the same mistake for the same reasons. I believe that history will be like me - it will view him in a worse light than he deserves.

doh1304's picture
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am

Maybe his bold idiology is on the side of the banksters. LOL Or, maybe it is about not biting the ass of the one who has you in his pocket. Your boy, Obama and his team aint that different from the opposing team, just hypocritical. One of his national co-chairman, Frederico Pena is a private equity manager like Romney was at Bain.


camaroman's picture
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

Maybe his bold idiology is on the side of the banksters.

Or he believed that a healthy Wall Street... no matter how dangerous and unproductive, was needed for the recovery. I've long wondered whether the Feds almost free money policy was a gift to these banks to nurse them back to health.

Pierpont's picture
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Follow the money.

Scappoose's picture
Mar. 30, 2012 7:49 am

This from Shah Galani:

So far, U.S. Federal Reserve policy has done nothing to help the economy. To the contrary, it's actually been quite destructive.

Yet Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his cohorts will likely expand upon their ineffective policies next week by announcing a new "Operation Twist."

That begs the question: Why?

If ultra-low rates and quantitative easing haven't put a dent in unemployment or spurred economic growth, then why expand on those programs?

The answer: Because the Fed doesn't work for the American public - it works for Wall Street .

That's right. It's not the economy the Fed has on life support - it's the banks.

America's banks are facing huge litigation costs. Worse, they've grown entirely dependent on the Fed's easy-money policy.

So the Fed is going to bail them out - again.

And we're going to be the ones who pay for it.


camaroman's picture
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Trump Is Going Back On His NAFTA Promise

Donald Trump won't be pulling the US out of NAFTA - at least not immediately.

But he's still permanently changed the debate about trade in America.

Donald Trump said yesterday that after speaking with the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada, he's decided not to immediately pull the US out of NAFTA.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system