01-06-2012, 07:27 PM
|
#111
|
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?: Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status: Happy
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,234
Thanks: 9,840
Thanked 34,622 Times in 7,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474861
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Tick
I'm not sure what to say about Obama. I voted for him in 2008 and I'll probably vote for him in 2012. Economically speaking though he differs little. He has protected the financial sector and he has plenty of Wall St. people advising him.
He talks a good game but if you see the bills that have been passed into law during his administration, I think you will find he took care of who he needed to take care of to stay alive in politics in America.
|
I have mixed emotions about Obama as well. I think his heart is in the right place.
I suspect his campaign was financed by some pretty powerful people and those are the people affecting what he can and cannot do. My gut tells me Obama may have thought he would have more control/independence than he or maybe any other recent President has had.
Take a look at Obama's cabinet members/key government appointees and see how many of them were Goldman Sachs executives just before and during the banking meltdown and the bailout. Take a look at the sweet deal Goldman Sachs received in the bailout at the expense of other banks.
The major Wall Street firms contributed a little over 15 million to Obama's 2008 campaign. The bailout cost the taxpayers 700 BILLION. Thats a pretty hefty return on an investment eh? Wish my savings had that rate of return. 
Thinks thats bad? According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point in 2009 the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...-bailout/3309/
Just boggles my tired old brain.
|
|
|