Suskind Book: Inexperienced Obama Bamboozled by Summers, Geithner & Emmanuel

I would take a homeless crackhead over Obama. The guy is either an idiot or he is hell bent on destroying our country.

I don't think he is an idiot.

 

Agree 100%. I dont subscribe to a particular political philosophy, but I find myself far more in line with Democrats than Republicans these days. That said, I'm disturbed at how often self proclaimed liberals and progressives try to make excuses for Obama when he attempts to pass policies that are in blatant contradiction of liberal/progressive ideals. At some point, you have to start holding peoples feet to the fire, and Greenwald hits the nail on the head when he mentions how convenient it is for Obama to return to his liberal roots as we approach elections.

 

So you believe that Obama is trying to destroy our country?

What evidence do you have to back up this belief?

Do you believe he turned down high paying jobs to work and build up low economic communities in the hopes that he could somehow use it to destroy the country?

Do you believe he worked his ass off to get into the best schools, and pay for them, while making it onto Harvard Law Review and then becoming its president all in hopes of destroying the country?

Do you believe he put undo stress and strain on his family while running for office, and serving in office for the purpose of destroying the nation?

Do you believe he took the steps to take out Bin Laden, in hopes that he would destroy this country?

 

I love it when right-wing nuts are going nutz cause when they are unhappy, it means something must be going right.

 

food prices are up, gas prices are up, healthcare prices are up, unemployment is up, inflation is up, average income is way down. None of those numbers are expected to improve in the next year or so. What exactly do you think is 'going right'?

 

Compared to if McCain had won? A lot.

 

oh lord. first of all obama's first piece of legislation was for jobs, ever heard of the stimulus plan greenwald.

secondly, americans voted in republicans because they were fooled as usual, and when that happened, you should have counted on tax cuts extended for two more years.

this isn't hard to understand

 

Is it safe to say they were fooled in 08 too? Since Americans are too stupid to vote, what do you suggested?

 

yeah, they were fooled, they thought they got someone who didn't understand foreign policy and he got bin laden

 

Wait a tick, you're saying it's Obama's fault?

First it's Bush's fault.
Then it is the fault of the Tea Party.
Now it's Obama's advisor's at fault.

Interesante!

 

After reading a few threads I just wanna throw in my .02. Being a student of history and economics, or at least I was before medical school took over my life, all I can say is that the system is broken. People have ideas on how best to fix the economy or how the government is to blame or how the rich are to blame or how republicans or democrats are to blame. Each, no doubt, has played their role in to getting us to where we are now but its all part of a larger problem. The entire system itself is broken. The people whom we elect to represent our interests are untrustworthy. Whether, republican or democrat our elected officials voice the concerns of a select few. It is only natural for people to look out for themselves and that in itself seems to throw most citizens under the bus. How can we expect Senators and Congressmen who financially exist in the top 1% of the population to genuinely represent the interest of the remaining 99%?
Its the same problem that occurred in communism, which is a terrific idea, but as soon as greed, corruption, nepotism take over the whole system crumbles. There needs to be widespread reform, people in general have become ignorant to as to whats happening to us. Citizens have been bled dry by bureaucratic loopholes, earmarks, lobbyist groups, and by our ignorance on the whole. The solution? Well that comes first by admitting the grand scale of the problem and addressing each contributing factor. Its never going to be easy, but history has shown us the rise and fall of many civilizations with many different foundations. Nothing lasts forever, and Americans are filled with a pride that has become counter productive to where we need to go.
Anyways, didnt mean to make this so long but this kind of stuff we would discuss in undergrad and it was always interesting to me that most people didnt/couldnt see the grand scope of the problem.

 

Say what????????????????

 

I was reading a bit more about this, and it's actually a kind of sad, embittering thing, just as much as it is a potential failure.

Obama has always been obsessed with bipartisan "reach-across-the-aisle" moderation. He had a definite idealism about building consensus going into the presidency. It was, frankly, important to him. So much so that he intentionally (I think) kept his team diverse - he included Hillary, his former rival, numerous republicans in defense or intelligence positions, and wanted to see dialogue.

He extended this to his economic team, and it really backfired on him, IMO. Obama was noted for really liking the Lincoln-era history book Team of Rivals and I think he honestly wanted to emulate that.

He got burned. But, for once, I don't think my cynical purview is necessarily correct. It's more tragic than that.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

I think most people here agree with you Kaufman, but the questions that always come from that are "what to do instead?" and "how do we get there?". Without a general plan of what to do it hard to get enough support for any cahnge, and even with support there is very limited ability to change an ingrained system. Too many people too much to lose, and most of the others are just too scared of change.

Because of that, most people try to figure out the small changes. Of course it is all "band-aids" and "robbing peter to feed paul" but sadly, it is often all that can be done.

 

Isn't the point of the book that he ignored his own economic team? What's the point of having dialogue with economists if he already had his mind made up?

 

I think this article (one of several I read) correctly indicates that the answer there is unknown. There is evidence for both POVs.

I'd like to think he wanted to trust his advisers, as disparate as they were. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Just what the hell is "right" about what's happening in Washington D.C. or the country as whole these days?

Grandstanding?
Corruption?
Greed?
Lies?

These are the policies of the US Government, well, for quite some time now going back to Bush.