Obama has been nothing more than a servant of corporate interests as well. Before you post a wall-o-text explaining why Obama sucks less please answer this one simple question:
Why has Obama's DOJ not brought prosecution against the untold counts of fraud that have cost individuals, local governments, state governments, Federal governments, etc... trillions of dollars? Why have they been allowed to keep illegally gotten gains doing nothing more than enticing them to do it again?
Too bad you don't seem to understand why 'is less bad than' matter.
On your question, I suspect the worst - that it's rank politics and fundraising.
On a related note, like so many presidents before, evidence is showing up that Obama's green funding programs have a suspicious correlation to going to donors.
Unfortunately, these discussions turn away from the relevant topic of who is less bad, as people just throw out attacks at the other side as 'proof' they're right.
Most people agree that housing has not hit bottom and anyone with common sense knew that the .gov was artificially propping housing prices up. Why do you suppose Obama enticed so many middle class people to make a potentially disastrous financial decision by purchasing a home with his home buyers credit? I wonder who that helped more, the people who have a very good chance of seeing their property value drop far lower than the credit or the banks? How about cash for clunkers, very few people actually saved money due to it and poor people actually suffered due to higher used car pricing. Who did that help? Selling us out to big Pharma like his predecessor did, who did that help?
What a lot of spin. It's not much of a 'disastrous' decision for people to buy a home they can afford and stay in, even if prices drop. There are benefits to home ownership.
I'm not talking about what happened under Bush with the Wall Street schemes to create large numbers of crap mortgages they could use to scam with.
IMO, cash for clunkers was a good program when you weigh the benefits and costs - which you don't do.
He may have compromised badly with big pharma - but that's not enough for you, you have to wrong claim he did so just as badly s Republicans under Bush. Wrong.
There's a reason why REPUBLICANS' #1 donor industry was big pharms - not Democrats.
That's your pathetic response to a radical increase in the selling of the government by Republicans. Why am I talking to you? What a waste of my and anyone else's time.
Has Obama removed the lobbyists from Washington?
Far from it. But Democrats did pass some new restrictions that were a step in the right direction.
Like so many things, when did the worst trend largely start? Under Reagan - when he took office there were fewer than a thousand lobbyists, not 36,000.
Since when have facts not mattered?
You see a man acting violently towards a woman, about to punch her, and you race to protect her. As you get closer, a camera comes into view and the director yells CUT!
You defend yourself, saying you did not know it was a movie and had good reason to suspect it was violence you were trying to help with.
The director yells at you, since when does the FACT that it wasn't actual violence not matter?
The people had good reason to be suspicious of Bush policy about oil, regardless of the facts of what he actually did. They matter - but not to that ground for suspicion.
Since Obama is "letting Wall Street get away with what they want" he deserves the same suspicion, correct?
No, Obama's background is far different, and he does NOT deserve the same suspicions based on that background.
However, he deserves different suspicion, from everything from his own policies to his acceptance of large Wall Street Money.
That ain't all buddy. And I have never agreed with "windfall taxes" but I also don't agree with virtually no taxes when you made a metric fuckton of profit.
Sometimes a windfall tax can be the blunt instrument needed to deal with armies of lawyers who get around any attempt to tax.
What about the banksters who committed crimes?
See above.
Lets have the debate, I'll ask the first question: Exactly who are these people that are preventing him from investigating the banksters for crimes that even my dumbass can prove and we even have friggen sworn testimony to Congress of?
See above.
What if his calculation is that these interests are powerful enough that they could cost him re-election if he pursues those convictions, so that he can't do so without handing over the White House to the Republicans who would do that and a lot more wrong, and his only choices are to do their bidding on this and possible get re-elected to try to do some decent policies, or to not get elected and let the Republicans steal the country?
I'm not saying that's the case, just that there are different possibilities between 'willing servant of corrupt interests' and 'always pursuing the public interest'.
It goes back again in part to the larger question of 'less bad' you don't want to talk about.
Or maybe it's worse, and he doesn't mind being in bed with them. Hard to say.
Your question is flawed, asking 'who is preventing him' - I don't see that anyone can 'prevent him'. Rather it's about his choices and the costs to them.
When Reagen's de-regulation the finance industry wanted (and Neil Bush's scheming) led to the S&L crisis, hundreds were convicted, IIRC.
Since then, the country has moved well to the right, those interests more powerful (over both parties).
At least then we could have some justice.
Now, we have the Republicans terribly corrupted for reasons from money to ideology, Democrats increasingly corrupted with the progressives a minority voice in the mess, and the tea party who are screaming about TARP demanding we let the system be exploded while not paying attention at all to the actual issues, bullsh**ters in a China Shop of Congress.
Facebook
Twitter