Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (174771)	10/28/2011 1:36:18 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541421

<<<It is said Obama did tell Geithner to take citi group apart and Geithner just didn't do it. He slow walked it. And summer s ran reiteration conferences that did nothing. Make sense out of all of that if you can. I can't.>>> In any large organization, there are internal politics. Everyone is trying to get their views heard. There is internal competition. In this case, Obama is not a micro manager. Jimmy Carter was a micro manager and Clinton to a lesser extent flitted in and out of the weeds. But that is just a matter of management style. The buck stops at the top. In the first Bush administration, Bush gave Cheney (and to a slightly lesser extent, Rumsfeld) practically full authority to be in full control but Bush was still the one that was fully accountable. He never wavered from that stance. In his second administration, after it was obvious when everything fell apart, Bush reduced Cheney/Rumsfeld role to a minimum. But the damage had been done and Cheney /Rumsfeld had already placed second, third , and fourth level bureaucrats in place. It will take time to flush all those out of office. In Bush's second administration, he still pursued a stupid policy agenda except he had more of a hand in it. But he basically had a lazy nature and delegated most of his authority. Still he was the man in charge. As an aside, I would have to say that some of time he spent passing through liberal prep school, Yale and Harvard somehow rubbed off in small ways. But my point is this. The US presidency is a very powerful position. The President has to be held accountable. IMO, the current problem with our financial system is caused by the policies that was followed by Presidents of the United States. IMO, in the past 30 years, rep Presidents have been intellectually weak. They followed and interpreted rw policies that have created the economic mess we are in. It is clear to me, dem Presidents have been intellectually superior and pursued more humane and practical policies. IMO, to get us back to a policy of sustainable economic growth with fairness and justice, we have to win the hearts and minds of all Americans - especially all the unfortunate middle class that have been duped by rw propaganda generated by special interests, Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, and the likes of the Koch brothers. To get bogged down with finger pointing and prosecuting all the outliers would be self defeating. But if you want to decide who is to blame and if a crime(s) have been committed consider the following: 1. Public policy that transferred wealth to the super wealthy, started wars we didn't have to fight, didn't budget for, and deregulated all the save guards in social safety nets and regulations in doing business. Compare that to: 2. Going on a witch hunt to find people who committed massive fraud, petty crimes, and the small percentage of corrupt public servants. I am not saying we should pardon all the wrong doers, but where should we put our resources in trying to restore the health and welfare of our country. Why squander on the chips that we have for low return activity - like hunting done financial criminals - who for the most part are clever, have resources, and tie things in courts for years.