Is Obama tough enough?

[August1991]

A few days ago, before Obama went to Europe, US bankers met Obama in the White House. Here's what Obama said to them:

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

Link

The mere fact that this quote is on the Internet implies to me that Obama is not tough enough.

[xul]

The mere fact that this quote is on the Internet implies to me that Obama is not tough enough.

But what do you suppose Obama could do on these CEOs without touching the ground of the "system"? He can not throw them into Guantanamo Bay prison and let CIA kick their asses.

[eyeball]

A few days ago, before Obama went to Europe, US bankers met Obama in the White House. Here's what Obama said to them:Link

The mere fact that this quote is on the Internet implies to me that Obama is not tough enough.

Tough on who? Were you expecting him to tell the taxpayers to suck it up, or that millionairs are hard to come by, or offer the CEO's more money?

What were you looking for?

[August1991]

Tough on who? Were you expecting him to tell the taxpayers to suck it up, or that millionairs are hard to come by, or offer the CEO's more money?

What were you looking for?

A US President must be indifferent, inside the bubble. Before becoming PM, Trudeau asked himself whether he was tough enough. (Trudeau had no qualms about the FLQ crisis.)

So, I wonder whether Obama is tough enough?

[bush_cheney2004]

...So, I wonder whether Obama is tough enough?

President Obama has a distinct advantage since Jimmy Carter disease has already been discovered and we know the symptoms very well.

[KrustyKidd]

BC

President Obama has a distinct advantage since Jimmy Carter disease has already been discovered and we know the symptoms very well.

And, he uses a disease itself to endorse his presidency. Very strange to hold office of a union that is wrong but now on it's way to change itself. How does one balance this - be strong without teeth yet condemn those who did have teeth?

Edited April 9, 2009 by KrustyKidd

[tango]

Maybe it's simply a question of deploying one's teeth in the appropriate direction!

[Pliny]

The mere fact that this quote is on the Internet implies to me that Obama is not tough enough.

Obama is responsible for nothing so he needn't be tough. He stands not in front of but behind his Administration. He has aspired to being coach and the players will always be the reason he lost. Is there any other explanation for appointing failures to his administration, like Tim Geithnor, head of the treasury, who can't understand the tax code.

Obama will always appear the victim of not just Bush in the past, but his own inept Adminstration of the present.

I can hear it now. "The patient came to him too late and could not be saved."

Edited April 9, 2009 by Pliny

[xul]

Is there any other explanation for appointing failures to his administration, like Tim Geithnor, head of the treasury, who can't understand the tax code.

If he is serious on this part:

The president spoke of public outrage over the high-flying executive lifestyle. "The anger gentlemen, is real," Obama said. He urged pay reform and said rewards must be proportional, balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company.

maybe he just more interests in changing the code rather than playing under the code.

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

About this part, I think it's just a political tactic. I remember I once read a book with a chapter about the agrarian reform in Taiwan in 1950s when Kuo Min Tang government was defeated by Chinese communist in mainland. KMT knew that their failure in mainland was due to the landless poor peasants who were lured by the communists's promise of giving every peasant a piece of land, so they wanted to do some moderate agrarian reform in Taiwan to stabilize both economy and political situation, but the landlords there strongly argued against the governmental proposal. So General Chen Cheng, the vice president of KMT government then, said exactly the same words which Obama said to CEOs to those Taiwan landlords, sounds like "my government is the only thing between you and the communists's takeover..."

Edited April 10, 2009 by xul

[WIP]

A few days ago, before Obama went to Europe, US bankers met Obama in the White House. Here's what Obama said to them:Link

The mere fact that this quote is on the Internet implies to me that Obama is not tough enough.

The question I have on banking policy is whether the insiders' (Larry Summers, Tim Geitner) strategy for ending the recession by providing a temporary boost to bank balance sheets, is just a cynical delay tactic to put people back into a business as usual frame of mind, and avoid real banking reform, and REAL prosecution of the insiders who have gamed the system to make a few people filthy rich at the expense of the majority of investors who suffered a loss of the value of their investments.

[Pliny]

I think that if he wanted real change he would have let the banks fail - THAT would have been change. Instead he wants to continue on the same old course of raping the economy. He wants the economy to be strong so there is something there for him to take. When everyone in America is a millionaire through his inflationary policies he will be able to tax everyone at the highest bracket. But people will still be poor. It's a monetary sleight of hand.

Americans, most likely, will be redefining themselves in the future. Think you'll like the new Americans?

[xul]

I think that if he wanted real change he would have let the banks fail - THAT would have been change.

If he let the banks fail, he would have probably got a change with the Russian style....

But, after two years of observation, I think the system really needs some change or amendment. I dislike using the term of "fair" as politicians do, because there is really no fair things in the world. A CEO can get a salary one hundred times over his workers's under the system, not because he has the formidable ability a hundred times over his workers's, as "his kind" boasts, but because of his post is so important that any mistake and disloyalty of him will cost the business huge loss, so the investors and the owners have to pay him a good salary. I have no problem with such arrangement just as I have no problem with American pays Iraqi tribal insurgents to buy cooperation from them.

But what is the point that the system is designed that if some guys who have crippled the business they are responsible for, they can still keep their post and even still get bonus?

But anyway, if Obama really wants some change, he has no choice but has to stabilize economical situation first or he will be kicked off by his voters before he could have made any change. Ironically, the only way he could stabilize the economy is to cooperate with these bankers and the banking system which caused the instability of economy and which Obama means to change.

Instead he wants to continue on the same old course of raping the economy. He wants the economy to be strong so there is something there for him to take. When everyone in America is a millionaire through his inflationary policies he will be able to tax everyone at the highest bracket. But people will still be poor. It's a monetary sleight of hand.

The policy of stimulation just like using chemotherapy to treat cancers, it may has some positive effect in the short term but will harm the health in the long term run.

But since there is not alternative, most doctors and patients have to choose chemotherapy. And they do that not only for lengthen their life, but also for hoping one day some brilliant doctors and researchers might find a way to amend the therapy to cure their disease.

Americans, most likely, will be redefining themselves in the future. Think you'll like the new Americans?

Everything in our planet is always in change, so redefining ourselves sometimes to fit the changing world is not a bad thing, and in history American is a nation who has the courage to do something redefining themselves boldly to achieve success, such as, using our American amigo Bush_Cheney_2004's term, kicking their own king's ass . I think whether I or other people around the world or Americans themselves like the redefining depends on how Americans will redefine themselves this time.

Edited April 12, 2009 by xul

[WIP]

I think that if he wanted real change he would have let the banks fail - THAT would have been change. Instead he wants to continue on the same old course of raping the economy. He wants the economy to be strong so there is something there for him to take. When everyone in America is a millionaire through his inflationary policies he will be able to tax everyone at the highest bracket. But people will still be poor. It's a monetary sleight of hand.

Americans, most likely, will be redefining themselves in the future. Think you'll like the new Americans?

All of you guys who take sides in party politics like it's a hockey game or a football game, are missing the most important point here -- the policies on banking regulation and free trade have stayed the same through Reagan/Bush, Clinton and then Bush 2, and now Obama is following the same plan that Henry Paulsen started cooking up before George W left office.

There is an old saying that if you want to find out what's going on, you have to "follow the money;" and it's the guide to answering why Democrats and Republicans, and Conservatives and Liberals here, all seem to be marching in the same band. The money used to buy political influence in Washington is truly staggering! More than 5 billion spent by Wall Street firms in the last 10 years alone on lobbyists and campaign donations to both Republican and Democratic politicians. They like to cover all of the bases rather than be stuck without a man in Washington - http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/part2.pdf

The financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report issued today by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation.

http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/soldoutreport.htm

[kactus]

I think the title of this thread should read is Obama wise enough? I think he is considering the track record of the republicans. About time someone did something about the economy and puts the priorities in place. Time for a real change!!!

Edited April 12, 2009 by kactus

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the title of this thread should read is Obama wise enough? I think he is considering the track record of the republicans. About time someone did something about the economy and puts the priorities in place. Time for a real change!!!

Why? Do you think you deserve real change from the Americans? Based on what entitlement?

[kactus]

Why? Do you think you deserve real change from the Americans? Based on what entitlement?

Given the track records of Bush & Co? You're damn right it's about time for change. Not based on my entitlements. Americans owe it to themseleves! Better education and health system and better imagein the world.

[Pliny]

All of you guys who take sides in party politics like it's a hockey game or a football game, are missing the most important point here -- the policies on banking regulation and free trade have stayed the same through Reagan/Bush, Clinton and then Bush 2, and now Obama is following the same plan that Henry Paulsen started cooking up before George W left office.

There is an old saying that if you want to find out what's going on, you have to "follow the money;" and it's the guide to answering why Democrats and Republicans, and Conservatives and Liberals here, all seem to be marching in the same band. The money used to buy political influence in Washington is truly staggering! More than 5 billion spent by Wall Street firms in the last 10 years alone on lobbyists and campaign donations to both Republican and Democratic politicians. They like to cover all of the bases rather than be stuck without a man in Washington - http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/part2.pdf

The financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report issued today by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation.

http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/soldoutreport.htm

No argument with you there. The Republicans and the Democrats have both contributed to the problem.

The Republicans, the party of small government, fail to live up to that reputation growing whatever interests they have. And of course Democrats are about big government and do try to live up to their reputation. People need to be more leery of the Democrats. The problem with both parties is they harbor socialist concepts. Socialism, with all it's rhetoric about equality, is all about favoring one group over another and government becomes the agency that determines who shall receive benefit while the masses clamor at the trough. Lobbying is all about who shall receive benefit from government.

[bush_cheney2004]

Given the track records of Bush & Co? You're damn right it's about time for change. Not based on my entitlements. Americans owe it to themseleves! Better education and health system and better imagein the world.

Better than what...the Americans have a very good education system....and the best post secondary system in the world...attracts many foreign nationals.

As for health care, it certainly deserves better than what Canada has in a single payer system.

But I'm glad we agree that you are entitled to nothing in the way of change.

[tango]

Better than what...the Americans have a very good education system....and the best post secondary system in the world...attracts many foreign nationals.

As for health care, it certainly deserves better than what Canada has in a single payer system.

But I'm glad we agree that you are entitled to nothing in the way of change.

Our single payer system provides better service for a lot less money than your multiple administration system. Economies of size, you know.

I realize you can't change it because of the insurance lobby, but collectively it's costing you more for less.

[WIP]

No argument with you there. The Republicans and the Democrats have both contributed to the problem.

The Republicans, the party of small government, fail to live up to that reputation growing whatever interests they have. And of course Democrats are about big government and do try to live up to their reputation. People need to be more leery of the Democrats. The problem with both parties is they harbor socialist concepts. Socialism, with all it's rhetoric about equality, is all about favoring one group over another and government becomes the agency that determines who shall receive benefit while the masses clamor at the trough. Lobbying is all about who shall receive benefit from government.

Complaining about socialism doesn't deal with the problem here. The standard conservative mantras: "government that governs best, governs least," and "government doesn't solve problems, government is the problem," ring pretty hollow in the light of what's happened over the last 20 years.

The Republicans and a smaller number of Democrats, followed the advice of their Wall Street paymasters and tore down the wall separating commercial banking and investment banking, and other regulations that were brought in during the Great Depression to save the banking industry. Wall Street wanted government out of the way, and they payed out a good chunk of money to pay politicians to look the other way and provide no oversight. The final result is that the mess was created by a lack of government, not too much government. It was the government's failure and inability to monitor Wall Street that allowed the system to spiral out of control.

[kactus]

Better than what...the Americans have a very good education system....and the best post secondary system in the world...attracts many foreign nationals.

As for health care, it certainly deserves better than what Canada has in a single payer system.

But I'm glad we agree that you are entitled to nothing in the way of change.

The amount of money people will have to pay if they are not insured is rediculously astronomical in the US unless you have a proper insurance scheme. And then comes the level of service which is debatable.

Change yes! But not in the way it has been handled in the past. Especially when it concerns the foreign policy.

[bush_cheney2004]

The amount of money people will have to pay if they are not insured is rediculously astronomical in the US unless you have a proper insurance scheme. And then comes the level of service which is debatable.

This horse has already been beaten to death on this forum.....and I am not trying to change Canada's CHA or health care delivery system.....please don't worry about ours. The level of service is excellent.....so much so...that Canadians of means think nothing of skipping queues in Canada for treatment in America.

Change yes! But not in the way it has been handled in the past. Especially when it concerns the foreign policy.

America's foreign policy is hers to determine. I can imagine the howls of protest would I insist on expectations of change from Canada.

Edited April 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

As for Obama being tough..that's a joke - it is the committee of old goats that runs the show that are tough. As for killing pirates - those round faced Somolian primatives - to pop a few 18 year old hicks in the head with a high powered rifle at a distance is not a show of toughness...by the way have you noticed that Obama stutters when he is without a script?

[bush_cheney2004]

As for Obama being tough..that's a joke - it is the committee of old goats that runs the show that are tough. As for killing pirates - those round faced Somolian primatives - to pop a few 18 year old hicks in the head with a high powered rifle at a distance is not a show of toughness...

Nevertheless...it feels like old times.....remember roaming the high seas in 1801 just to kill some pirates matey....hardy har har!

[Oleg Bach]

Nevertheless...it feels like old times.....remember roaming the high seas in 1801 just to kill some pirates matey....hardy har har!

Yah I remember - but if you were cool you could get a licence from the King and be a privateer - a legit pirate...maybe someone should grant these guys a permit to plunder - maybe old Dick Cheney can get them jobs at Haliburton? - and BC - I told you - no time traveling - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's all fun and games till someone loses an eye.. Seeing you have some Slavonic blood I bet you are good with a sword...I know I am - Did I tell you that my dad was one of the last to be trained to wield a sword on horseback? He showed me the moves...did have a real nice imperial russian sabre..gave it away - big mistake..