Why did Obama support bailing out the banks if he's a class warrior?

[woolfe9999]

I think when people bitch about the bailouts it has alot more to do with the fact that no new regulations were put in place, muchless working on convicting those responsible for the fraud they committed. Or maybe even breaking up "too big to fail".

Yes those are legitimate complaints. But I think many people were pissed about the bailouts pe se. In fact, it's obvious they were since the outrage started before the watered down financial reform bill and before anyone knew how little prosecution there would be. The trouble with the bailout rage is that it's addressing a symptom rather than a cause, which makes it poorly focused and ultimately non-constructive.

 

[Craig234]

Someone bought and paid for him back in Chicago in 2004. Now he's paying them a return on their investment.

Based on nothing.

Got links to the money transfers, and who paid them to him?

 

[senseamp]

then why during his campaign speeches does he separate "millionaires and billionaires" from " average americans"?

Because he wants to end the class war that millionaires and billionaires are presently waging on average americans.

 

[fskimospy]

Because he wants to end the class war that millionaires and billionaires are presently waging on average americans.

I don't know why people care if someone has been engaging in class warfare or not. The rich have been engaging in class warfare for 40 years now and you never see anyone complain about that.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with delineating interests due to wealth and income, in fact it's one of the most rational starting points for different interests that exists. Instead, America is okay with having social warfare about whether or not the dirty dirty homos can get married, but not okay with having class conflict that actually impacts everyone's lives.

In short, we need more class warfare, not less.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because he wants to end the class war that millionaires and billionaires are presently waging on average americans.

Bullshit. He's a part of the system and indeed his party and his campaign needs them. Just look at his top donor list.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00009638

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes those are legitimate complaints. But I think many people were pissed about the bailouts pe se. In fact, it's obvious they were since the outrage started before the watered down financial reform bill and before anyone knew how little prosecution there would be. The trouble with the bailout rage is that it's addressing a symptom rather than a cause, which makes it poorly focused and ultimately non-constructive.

Many people I know were unhappy because it was a giveaway with few strings. Those at fault were financially rewarded and virtually nothing was done to put safeguards in place. That's my beef.

 

[woolfe9999]

Bullshit. He's a part of the system and indeed his party and his campaign needs them. Just look at his top donor list.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00009638

Yup, that is absolutely correct. However, the recent buzz is that Romney is getting the bulk of the Wall Street money this time around. It isn't for lack of trying on the part of the Obama organization, however. Still, IF Obama does get re-elected, in my mind it's better if he didn't get a lot of donations from Wall Street.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yup, that is absolutely correct. However, the recent buzz is that Romney is getting the bulk of the Wall Street money this time around. It isn't for lack of trying on the part of the Obama organization, however. Still, IF Obama does get re-elected, in my mind it's better if he didn't get a lot of donations from Wall Street.

Businesses tend to hedge their bets but give more money to those who would seem to be best disposed to their way of thinking and that's not really a surprise. My point isn't that Romney gets more money because of course he would being a republican. My take is that if there's a difference it's quantitative at best, and I wonder how much the actual raising of funds reflects that. My objection is to the claim by some that Obama is qualitatively different and I'd say he isn't. He's a lesser evil perhaps in a particular context, but "he's for us and against them" type of statements are naive at best and outright deceptive on the whole. To beat the dead horse the system by which politicians come to power and keep it discourages options and encourages corruption and that's the real issue in my mind. "Why do we keep getting these people?" has the simple answer of there isn't a real alternative, at least at the national level.

 

[woolfe9999]

Businesses tend to hedge their bets but give more money to those who would seem to be best disposed to their way of thinking and that's not really a surprise. My point isn't that Romney gets more money because of course he would being a republican. My take is that if there's a difference it's quantitative at best, and I wonder how much the actual raising of funds reflects that. My objection is to the claim by some that Obama is qualitatively different and I'd say he isn't. He's a lesser evil perhaps in a particular context, but "he's for us and against them" type of statements are naive at best and outright deceptive on the whole. To beat the dead horse the system by which politicians come to power and keep it discourages options and encourages corruption and that's the real issue in my mind. "Why do we keep getting these people?" has the simple answer of there isn't a real alternative, at least at the national level.

Absolutely. Almost any American candidate for office would take money from terrorists if they could get away with it. Obama only *might* be the lesser of two evils because Wall Street is rejecting him this time around, not because he is too principled to not take their money.

You should be supporting aggressive campaign finance reform.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You should be supporting aggressive campaign finance reform.

I do however I believe the most meaningful changes would require a Constitutional Amendment. That's because it can be initiated outside of DC and at least in theory is therefore less subject to Beltway butchery, that it can be crafted so that it explicitly limits contributions and their sources, and devise a system where more parties who aren't connected with the Big Two have a chance in an election. Problems that I see is that there is no accountability while in office, no "vote of confidence" option, and the spoils system. When we vote we don't collectively pick a party at all, but they serve as powers to themselves lacking much oversight or control. Campaign reform yes, but I believe it's a few hundred years past the time when we should have addressed George Washingtons concerns.

 

[woolfe9999]

I do however I believe the most meaningful changes would require a Constitutional Amendment. That's because it can be initiated outside of DC and at least in theory is therefore less subject to Beltway butchery, that it can be crafted so that it explicitly limits contributions and their sources, and devise a system where more parties who aren't connected with the Big Two have a chance in an election. Problems that I see is that there is no accountability while in office, no "vote of confidence" option, and the spoils system. When we vote we don't collectively pick a party at all, but they serve as powers to themselves lacking much oversight or control. Campaign reform yes, but I believe it's a few hundred years past the time when we should have addressed George Washingtons concerns.

You missed the biggest reason we need a Constitutional Amendment. So that the SCOTUS can't shoot down every effort to reform the system as being against the First Amendment because corporations are persons and money is speech. A Constitutional Amendment to take the bulk of special interest money out of our politics would be the single best thing we could do right now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You missed the biggest reason we need a Constitutional Amendment. So that the SCOTUS can't shoot down every effort to reform the system as being against the First Amendment because corporations are persons and money is speech. A Constitutional Amendment to take the bulk of special interest money out of our politics would be the single best thing we could do right now.

I didn't mention it because an amendment would define this particular issue in a way separate from the First, but you are absolutely correct. Finance must change. My desire however is to go beyond this and address why money is such a concern to begin with and that is that the system encourages graft and resistance to other options. IMO campaign finance reform is merely one aspect of gaining a government which is more responsive and accountable to the public as a whole. Those who point out that ours isn't a Democracy are correct in that our system has little direct input and I understand the advantages of a republic, however for those to have real benefits the government needs to put people above partisan concerns, which I'm sure you see hasn't been the case far too often.

 

[Anarchist420]

Absolutely. Almost any American candidate for office would take money from terrorists if they could get away with it. Obama only *might* be the lesser of two evils because Wall Street is rejecting him this time around, not because he is too principled to not take their money.

You should be supporting aggressive campaign finance reform.

The Articles of Confederation is aggressive campaign finance reform. 2nd best campaign finance reform is returning the power of appointing Senators back to the State legislatures.

And if Dr. Paul gets the GOP nomination, they'll shift their support back to Obama in a heartbeat.