Elizabeth Warren on Barack Obama "They Protected WallStreet"

Koapa

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
5,860
Reputation
931
Daps
32,642
Reppin
Arlington, Tx.
When things don't look good Democrats are the first to jump ship. I do remember how disgusted the Republicans were after the election in 2008. And I dod remember Mitch McConnell saying this:



The president had a solid House against him and bytch azz Democrats on his side. In all honestly, Wall Street has always ran the White House and they run circles around the regulators (SEC).
 

CACtain Planet

The Power is YOURS!
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
8,182
Reputation
-10,825
Daps
13,281
Reppin
CACness Aberdeen
When things don't look good Democrats are the first to jump ship. I do remember how disgusted the Republicans were after the election in 2008. And I dod remember Mitch McConnell saying this:



The president had a solid House against him and bytch azz Democrats on his side. In all honestly, Wall Street has always ran the White House and they run circles around the regulators (SEC).


Still doesnt change the fact that Dems had control of Congress and the Presidency in '09 though.. If they was really about that life they could have jammed whatever meaningful WallStreet reform legislation through the pipeline before repubs took back the House in '10..but as I said before payola gets in the way
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,647
Reppin
humans
Still doesnt change the fact that Dems had control of Congress and the Presidency in '09 though.. If they was really about that life they could have jammed whatever meaningful WallStreet reform legislation through the pipeline before repubs took back the House in '10..but as I said before payola gets in the way

Man, you don't even need to point towards that alone. Larry summers, Geithner, Holder, having health insurance companies at the table from the start. Extending Bush tax cuts. Then you have him putting lobbyists in charge of the FCC. Having his justice department and homeland security department work at the behest of banks to stomp out the occupy wall street protests.

It's disgusting. Reaganomics light.
 

CACtain Planet

The Power is YOURS!
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
8,182
Reputation
-10,825
Daps
13,281
Reppin
CACness Aberdeen
Man, you don't even need to point towards that alone. Larry summers, Geithner, Holder, having health insurance companies at the table from the start. Extending Bush tax cuts. Then you have him putting lobbyists in charge of the FCC. Having his justice department and homeland security department work at the behest of banks to stomp out the occupy wall street protests.

It's disgusting. Reaganomics light.

This right here should have been the wake up call to everyone still trapped in the red/blue paradigm... still amazing how some people will defend the Obama Administration's actions to derail the occupy wallstreet movement to this day smh
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,672
Reputation
6,972
Daps
91,554
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Still doesnt change the fact that Dems had control of Congress and the Presidency in '09 though.. If they was really about that life they could have jammed whatever meaningful WallStreet reform legislation through the pipeline before repubs took back the House in '10..but as I said before payola gets in the way

I see your point, agree with your point, but I think you should angle your point in a different direction. Established democrats are about the status quo. They have no problem going back to the 2004 economy as long as they can prevent or prolong the 2007 recession. (I hope that sentence made sense).

So while you have a long term goal of financial stability, those democrats, along with those republicans, have a vision of long term profits. Two different end games really.

So though they had control of the house and senate, they were too scared of reconfiguring the system because they honestly had no problem with it in the first place. They were more afraid of losing congressional seats by telling the truth than fixing the system and setting the record straight.

I hope that made sense. I'm drunk. My points may be too vague (it took me 5 tries to write vague)
 

CACtain Planet

The Power is YOURS!
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
8,182
Reputation
-10,825
Daps
13,281
Reppin
CACness Aberdeen
I see your point, agree with your point, but I think you should angle your point in a different direction. Established democrats are about the status quo. They have no problem going back to the 2004 economy as long as they can prevent or prolong the 2007 recession. (I hope that sentence made sense).

So while you have a long term goal of financial stability, those democrats, along with those republicans, have a vision of long term profits. Two different end games really.

So though they had control of the house and senate, they were too scared of reconfiguring the system because they honestly had no problem with it in the first place. They were more afraid of losing congressional seats by telling the truth than fixing the system and setting the record straight.

I hope that made sense. I'm drunk. My points may be too vague (it took me 5 tries to write vague)

I definitely agree with your points about the established democrats (and republicans) wanting to protect the status quo which is why Ive always maintained that as much as people (specifically black folk) want to believe in the democratic populists rhetoric and marketing tactics during campaign season as it pertains to economics, there policy proposals when they actually get in office does not match up.
 
Top