# My heart is broken... (about Obama) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144 "2009-10-26T05:19:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/81 "2009-10-28T01:57:08Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Also, Obama could use a ‘Sister Souljah’ moment to regain some trust on the right. He needs to find an issue on which he can stand against his party and support the Republican side, to at least give him a fig leaf of bipartisanship. Perhaps school choice would be a good one, since he believes in it. At some point, it will be good politics for him to do it, and when he does, you should back him up and not blow a gasket and scream that he’s stabbed you all in the back. What, like warrantless wiretapping or TARP or increasing troop levels? Way ahead of you, buddy. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/82 "2009-10-28T02:40:08Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There are many ‘nuclear options’. The term has been used to describe any attempt by a simple majority to circumvent normal rules… Sure it has Sam. I’m sure you chose the phrase for that very meaninglessness. If you’ve got nothing, vacuum must serve, ehhh? For the majority, regular old non-nuclear reconciliation will serve just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/83 "2009-10-28T03:37:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Great. Have a nice time, guys. Kick and scream and demand that Obama move farther to the left. Push him into invoking the nuclear option and passing sweeping regulation through reconciliation. > > I’ll ask you again how you’re enjoying yourselves in 2011. You’re just concern trolling. Fact-free concern trolling, that’s what you do here. When you’re debated on the facts you run away. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/84 "2009-10-28T03:42:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > They didn’t have to deal with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh galvanizing ~49% of the population against them by making shit up. Yes, it’s amazing that there was no political media machine criticizing the President before they came along. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/85 "2009-10-28T04:00:45Z")
What level of media crticism is appropriate for a man who’s arrogance and stupidity have killed thousands? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/86 "2009-10-28T04:10:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Jesus, **Sam** , get your facts straight before you spout off. > > Bush used reconciliation for 3 huge tax cuts, one Medicare cut, and a college loan bill. Two of those bills only passed because of Cheney’s tie breaking vote. I know you are really riled up about Obama, but an alarming number of your facts are simply incorrect. I don’t know if you are simply unaware of the facts, or you don’t care enough about what you’re saying to verify any of it, but some of the points you’re making in debates are simply false – not in the eye of the beholder, but objectively, empirically wrong. I suggest you address these serious deficiencies. You better get your facts straight first. Reconciliation is specifically for budget issues. It was originally passed to prevent budgets from being held up in Congress, in the hope that it would help with deficit reduction. The use of it to pass budget-related items is not only permissible, it’s what it was designed for. It was never intended to be used to enact social policy, create new agencies, or to extend the scope and reach of the government. Bush’s use of reconciliation fits within those parameters, although you could argue that the student loan program was stretching it. Democrats are shoehorning health care into the reconciliation process by claiming that it needs to pass in order to bring the Medicare budget into line, thus making it primarily a fiscal matter and therefore a candidate for the reconciliation process. This is about as big a stretch as you can make without giggling, but it’s probably technically legal, so they can do it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/87 "2009-10-28T04:12:31Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Sure it has Sam. I’m sure you chose the phrase for that very meaninglessness. > If you’ve got nothing, vacuum must serve, ehhh? > > For the majority, regular old non-nuclear reconciliation will serve just fine. From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option): > [@](#): > > Beyond the specific context of U.S. federal judicial appointments, the term “nuclear option” has come to be used generically for a procedural maneuver with potentially serious consequences, to be used as a last resort to overcome political opposition. In a recent legal ruling on the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 (Jackson and others v. Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, 13 October 2005), the UK House of Lords used “nuclear option” to describe the possibility of creating hundreds of new Liberal peers, which the government threatened to do in order to force the Tory-dominated Lords to accept the Great Reform Act of 1832 . I chose the phrase because I have heard it repeatedly used in the context of this particular debate. For example, [on CNN](http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908190061). Care to retract your snark now? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/88 "2009-10-28T04:26:38Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option): Sure, because here in America we _always_ defer to obscure British usage of the phrase. What could be more natural for fellow subjects of the queen, than to inject _her_ english? Too bad we’re not subjects of the queen, and use our own terms with their own distinct meanings. If you wanted to get all Britishy on us, you should have pointed that out, instead of simply employing a turn of phrase in a manner not common in the United States. You could have avoided using it altogether, instead you’d have us believe you ‘accidently’ tossed in a charged right-wing buzz-phrase because Canada is a member of the Commonwealth? That’s unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/89 "2009-10-28T04:34:00Z")
Sam you have zero credibility as a reasonable observer. You have been anti-Obama since he looked electable. You have become Fox Newts for this board. All you do is bitch about the dems as the repubs have acted like babies saying they would stop any and all programs the dems offer. If that is your idea of governance , i will pass. Not one repub is on board to fix a broken health care system. Not one. Please tell me what the republicans have offered to fix the problem. i must have missed it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/90 "2009-10-28T04:35:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You better get your facts straight first. Reconciliation is specifically for budget issues. It was originally passed to prevent budgets from being held up in Congress, in the hope that it would help with deficit reduction. The use of it to pass budget-related items is not only permissible, it’s what it was designed for. It was never intended to be used to enact social policy, create new agencies, or to extend the scope and reach of the government. > > Bush’s use of reconciliation fits within those parameters, although you could argue that the student loan program was stretching it. Democrats are shoehorning health care into the reconciliation process by claiming that it needs to pass in order to bring the Medicare budget into line, thus making it primarily a fiscal matter and therefore a candidate for the reconciliation process. This is about as big a stretch as you can make without giggling, but it’s probably technically legal, so they can do it. You said Bush never used reconciliation to pass legislation. You are wrong. Demonstrably wrong. I think you’re even admitting you are wrong, but can’t bring yourself to actually say the words. And the idea that reconciliation was originally a pure as the driven snow budget matter before Republicans polluted it with policy matters in 1996 is also nonsense. COBRA health benefits – what workers depend on to continue private health benefits after being laid off – was created by a reconciliation bill passed in 1986. In addition, the welfare reform bill was passed in 1996 under reconciliation, and then reauthorized in 2005 also using reconciliation. New retirement investments were authorized in 2001. The idea that GWB didn’t use reconciliation to pass anything is wrong, and your revision of your argument that he didn’t pass any significant legislation under reconciliation is wrong, too. Shit, he even tried to get ANWR in under reconciliation procedures, and was foiled only at the eleventh hour. **Sam,** you have made a number of compelling arguments on a variety of topics. Your recent arguments against Cash for Clunkers was compelling. But when it comes to attacking Obama, you have on a number of occasions taken serious liberties with straightforward (though perhaps esoteric) facts. This is one of those occasions where you are wrong and have been called on it. Either admit it or just simply drop this and move on to the next subject. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/91 "2009-10-28T04:45:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Bush’s use of reconciliation fits within those parameters… Good lord, I forgot to comment on this. If you really think reconciliation is supposed to be about deficit reduction, how dare you call Bush’s tax cuts a good use of reconciliation. They were such an abomination to the budget process that they couldn’t be made permanent beyond the ten-year window (due to the Byrd Rule) because they made the deficit explode. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/92 "2009-10-28T07:08:02Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > You’re just concern trolling. Fact-free concern trolling, that’s what you do here. Do not accuse other posters of trolling, (nor even “concern trolling,” whatever that is), outside of the BBQ Pit and expressly not in Great Debates. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/93 "2009-10-28T08:32:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You said Bush never used reconciliation to pass legislation. You are wrong. Demonstrably wrong. I think you’re even admitting you are wrong, but can’t bring yourself to actually say the words. No, to be honest I had forgotten about those uses of reconciliation. But I guess I forgot about it because it wasn’t that big a deal at the time, because his uses of it were within the context of fiscal policy (again, arguably not the student loan program). It just didn’t make much of an impact on me at the time, I guess. If it was a big deal at the time, then unfortunately I still don’t remember it. Maybe it was a big issue on the left, and not talked about much on the right at all. But once again, I have to point out that I’m not an apologist for Bush. I didn’t remember his expansion of student loans, either. I thought his 10-year tax cut was a gimmick - he knew that ten years down the line, failing to renew them would be seen as a tax hike, and therefore the tax would get extended. It’s a perfect example of the kind of shenanigans politicians play with numbers, which would be illegal in the private sector. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/94 "2009-10-28T16:56:39Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You better get your facts straight first. Reconciliation is specifically for budget issues. It was originally passed to prevent budgets from being held up in Congress, in the hope that it would help with deficit reduction. The use of it to pass budget-related items is not only permissible, it’s what it was designed for. It was never intended to be used to enact social policy, create new agencies, or to extend the scope and reach of the government. > > Bush’s use of reconciliation fits within those parameters, although you could argue that the student loan program was stretching it. Democrats are shoehorning health care into the reconciliation process by claiming that it needs to pass in order to bring the Medicare budget into line, thus making it primarily a fiscal matter and therefore a candidate for the reconciliation process. This is about as big a stretch as you can make without giggling, but it’s probably technically legal, so they can do it. Exactly how do the tax cuts or the unfunded 2003 Medicare bill fit within the paramenters of deficit reduction? You make post after post of total rubbish. Are you sure you’re not doing this intentionally to get a reaction from the board, it’s hard to believe you can be so consistently comprehensively wrong, misleading etc. without it being on purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/95 "2009-10-28T17:04:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > My point is this: I think you and a lot of other people mistook the kind of person Obama is. He’s a politician, and he’s willing to compromise on almost anything. That was always pretty clear if you listened to him speak and read what he wrote. Willingness to compromise was one of the attributes he campaigned on. Revisiting this in case you needed more of the rhetoric not matching the reality: > [@](#): > > But before I do, I want to say a few words at the top. And I’m going to start out just by talking about these AIG bonuses you’ve been hearing about. > > Now, I know a lot of you are outraged about this – rightfully so. I’m outraged, too. It’s hard to understand that a company that’s relying on extraordinary assistance from taxpayers to keep its doors open would be paying anybody lavish bonuses. It goes against our most basic sense of what’s fair and what’s right. It offends our values. > > But these bonuses, outrageous as they are, are a symptom of a much larger problem. And that’s the system and culture that made them possible – a culture where people made enormous… > > …sums of money, taking irresponsible risks that have now put the entire economy at risk. So we’re going to do everything we can to deal with these specific bonuses. > > And I know Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it’s their fault, the Democrats’ fault, the Republicans’ fault. Listen, I’ll take responsibility; I’m the President. (Applause.) We didn’t grant these contracts, and we’ve got a lot on our plate, but it is appropriate, when you’re in charge, to make sure that stuff doesn’t happen like this. So we’re going to do everything we can to fix it. > > So for everybody in Washington who’s busy scrambling, trying to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it’s my job to make sure that we fix these messes, even if I don’t make them. (Applause.) > > But what’s just as important is that we make sure we don’t find ourselves in this situation again, where taxpayers are on the hook for losses in bad times, and all the wealth generated in good times goes to those who are at the very top of the income ladder. That’s the kind of ethic we’ve had for too long. That’s the kind of approach that led us into this mess. That is something we have to change if we’re truly going to turn our economy around and move this country forward. > > So I’m absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the tools we need to prevent the kinds of abuses that sent AIG spiraling. And we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got regulations that don’t allow companies to take these huge risks that are so big that they can sort of hold us hostage. > > SOURCE: [Text of President Obama’s Costa Mesa Town Hall meeting, March 18, 2009](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/03/obama-text.html) Now consider this: > [@](#): > > The latest White House Friday-night document dump had its desired effect, as it’s Monday morning and there’s little to no attention being paid to how stupendously beholden it turns out President Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers, is to the financial industry that he is ostensibly trying to rein in. > > Summers, it turns out – according to financial disclosure statements released by the White House late on Friday – was paid $5.2 million for his part-time work for a massive hedge fund last year. He also raked in more than $2.7 million in fees for speaking engagements at such places as Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs. For one speech alone last April, Goldman Sachs paid him a cool $135,000. > > All of a sudden, Obama’s expressions of outrage over the culture of excessive pay on Wall Street are a bit harder to take at face value. > > And the advice Obama is getting from Summers, his economic guru, is looking very suspect. > > I mean, come on: How tough are you going to be on someone who paid you $135,000 in one day? > > It’s become increasingly clear over the last several months that despite the Obama administration’s generally progressive economic views and sporadic bouts of populist rhetoric, the White House has something of a soft spot for Wall Street. Especially when it comes to financial rescue plans, Obama and his aides have held back from applying the tough medicine that an ever-growing number of economists say is necessary. > > SOURCE: [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/financial-crisis/millions-of-reasons-to-doubt-s.html](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/financial-crisis/millions-of-reasons-to-doubt-s.html) Even more damning stuff in that last link. I encourage you to go read it and am interested in how to spin it that I am missing what he really meant and matching it to his actions. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/96 "2009-10-28T17:32:12Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Even more damning stuff in that last link. I encourage you to go read it and am interested in how to spin it that I am missing what he really meant and matching it to his actions. I’m not spinning anything. In the speech he’s talking about preventing corporate abuses and excessive compensation, and just the other day it was announced that companies that took bailout money - including AIG - will have limits placed on the money they pay their executives. He needs to do more here and I make no excuses for that. From here, it looks like Obama wants to work with Wall Street in regulating Wall Street. Is that the only way to do it? No. Is that the way it’s usually done, and one that’s in keeping with his stance on compromise? Yes. All of this is wrong but typical. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/97 "2009-10-28T17:52:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > From here, it looks like Obama wants to work with Wall Street in regulating Wall Street. Is that the only way to do it? No. Is that the way it’s usually done, and one that’s in keeping with his stance on compromise? Yes. All of this is wrong but typical. Well, he is the President. He sets the tone. He tells his people how he wants things to proceed. Again, his rhetoric is far different than the reality in his administration. Read the transcript again then point to where his administration is remotely living up to that. Stop bonuses at a relative few companies is one. A bone thrown to appease the masses. Beyond that? Let’s see… > [@](#): > > The judge accused Bank of America and the S.E.C. of concocting the settlement to effectively absolve themselves of further responsibility. > > “The S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger,” he wrote, and “the Bank’s management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators.” > > The ruling echoes a long-standing criticism that the S.E.C. has largely failed to prosecute cases against corporate executives, opting for quick settlements in which companies themselves are penalized instead of their leaders. > > SOURCE: [Judge Rejects Settlement Over Merrill Bonuses, September 14, 2009](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/business/15bank.html) ^^There is the work the administration is actually doing. How about the Faustian deal made with Big Pharma? I am beating this drum because I feel the apologists are, well, overly apologetic in light of the reality. Many are being bamboozled by the rhetoric and completely missing it is empty words. I realize that Obama just does not wave a magic wand and get his way. I realize no matter what Wall Street and Pharma and Insurance will make themselves part of the discussion. Obama however seems to be capitulating across the board. That is not cool. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/98 "2009-10-28T18:06:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Read the transcript again then point to where his administration is remotely living up to that. I didn’t say they are living up to it. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/99 "2009-10-28T18:06:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not spinning anything. In the speech he’s talking about preventing corporate abuses and excessive compensation, and just the other day it was announced that companies that took bailout money - including AIG - will have limits placed on the money they pay their executives. He needs to do more here and I make no excuses for that. > > From here, it looks like Obama wants to work with Wall Street in regulating Wall Street. Is that the only way to do it? No. Is that the way it’s usually done, and one that’s in keeping with his stance on compromise? Yes. All of this is wrong but typical. It’s not the way it’s usually done. Even Reagan managed to send a few hundred people to jail during the Savings and Loans crisis, one which cost the taxpayer a tiny fraction of the bill for the curent meltdown. In the 1930s they took things even more seriously. Here’s what the guy who FDR put in charge of investigating the 1929 meltdown had to say about things : _Under the surface of the governmental regulation of the securities market, the same forces that produced the riotous speculative excesses of the “wild bull market” of 1929 still give evidences of their existence and influence. Though repressed for the present, it cannot be doubted that, given a suitable opportunity, they would spring back into pernicious activity. Frequently we are told that this regulation has been throttling the country’s prosperity. Bitterly hostile was Wall Street to the enactment of the regulatory legislation. It now looks forward to the day when it shall, as it hopes, reassume the reins of its former power. That its leaders are eminently fitted to guide our nation, and that they would make a much better job of it than any other body of men, Wall Street does not for a moment doubt. Indeed, if you now hearken to the oracles of The Street, you will hear now and then that the money-changers have been much maligned. You will be told that a whole group of high-minded men, innocent of social or economic wrongdoing, were expelled from the temple because of the excesses of a few. You will be assured that they had nothing to do with the misfortunes that overtook the country in 1929-33; that they were simply scapegoats, sacrificed on the altar of unreasoning public opinion to satisfy the wrath of a howling mob blindly seeking victims. These disingenuous protestations are, in the crisp legal phrase, “without merit.” The case against the money-changers does not rest upon hearsay or surmise. It is based upon a mass of evidence, given publicly and under oath before the Banking and Currency Committee of the United States Senate in 1933-1934, by The Street’s mightiest and best-informed men. . . After five short years, we may now need to be reminded what Wall Street was like before Uncle Sam stationed a policeman at its corner, lest, in time to come, some attempt be made to abolish that post._ Here’s how the bankers reacted to being investigated, from Time magazine : \*. . . bankers high & low throughout the land, while not condoning the acts of 1929, loudly proclaimed that last week the greater villains were U. S. Senators who would risk the credit of the U. S. by putting scandal into the headlines when Confidence had already received body-blows at St. Louis, New Orleans, Michigan and in many another state. But the Senate Committee had succeeded in getting its man. On Monday morning at 9 a. m. Charles Edwin Mitchell, 66, resigned . . . hours later the directors of National City Co. accepted the resignation of President Hugh Baker. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Baker returned to Washington for further grilling. More from the chief investigator : The investigation was not completed until June, 1934. But long before that date the defects it had laid bare in our financial structure had already led to the institution of a sweeping program of reforms. The old regime of unlimited license may be said to have definitely come to an end. [DD: Ha!] The testimony had brought to light a shocking corruption in our banking system, a widespread repudiation of old fashioned standards of honesty and fair dealing in the creation and sale of securities, and a merciless exploitation of the vicious possibilities of intricate corporate chicanery. The public had been deeply aroused by the spectacle of cynical disregard of fiduciary duty on the part of many of its most respected leaders; of directors, who conveniently subordinated their official obligations to an avid pursuit of personal gain; of great banks, which combined the functions of a bank with those of a stock jobber; of supposedly impartial public markets for the sale of securities, actually operated as private clubs for the individual benefit of their members.” He then goes on to explain the major Acts of reform: The Banking Act of 1933, which separated commercial banking from “security flotation and market plunging”; The Securities Act of 1933-“the so-called ‘Truth in Securities’ bill”; The Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.[…]The more business recovered, however, and the stronger it felt, the more openly and bitterly did Wall Street oppose any sound program of reform. In place of the humble disclaimers of omniscience of March, 1933, the titans of finance developed once again an arrogant self-confidence and a dogmatic assurance that any attempt to restrain their own activities must inevitably mean the ruin of the country. Even so mild a measure as the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation became a target of vehement resentment. . . . The ‘Truth in Securities’ bill was condemned as a measure which would ‘hinder legitimate business without accomplishing any essential purpose.’ To the Merchants’ Association of New York ‘it was almost self-evident’ that practically no individual dealer or banking house would assume the personal liability provided for in the Act. […] . . . The real center of warfare, so to speak, remained the New York Stock Exchange. . . “In one field after another, the necessity for some measure of public control, where private ownership failed to meet its social responsibilities, has been recognized. Public utilities-railroads-“business affected with a public interest”-banks-industry generally, all came to regard public supervision as normal and beneficial. But there was one important outpost that resisted the tide of progress-the New York Stock Exchange, the last citadel of ‘rugged individualism.’ Since its foundation in 1791, it exercised complete control over its own practices and jealously guarded its self bestowed privileges. Despite the fact that it was intimately intertwined at a thousand point with vital interests of the public, it knew no law but its own will. . . The disclosures of the shocking practices and base uses to which the Exchange was customarily put, stripped it of its mystery and sanctity, and dissipated the awe with which it had been regarded. Fighting at every step, it finally went the way of all flesh. Like the humblest of us all, even the might Stock Exchange must now recognize the existence and authority of the United States Government. . . . . . It is certainly well that Wall Street now professes repentance. But it would be most unwise, nevertheless, to underestimate the strength of hostile elements. When open mass resistance fails, there is still the opportunity for traps, stratagems, intrigues, undermining-all the resources of guerilla warfare. These laws are no panacea; nor are they self-executing. More than ever, we must maintain our vigilance. If we do not, Wall Street may yet prove to be not unlike that land, of which it has been said that no country is easier to overrun, or harder to subdue.\* We’ve already been through this thing once. We handled it exactly right last time, gradually deregulated our way back to 1928, and are now bailing out the banks at par with taxpayer money, not prosecuting anybody, not re-regulatin anything. Obama is guaranteeing a much bigger meltdown down the road, probably sooner rather than later. Imagine if Bush was still in power and was doing what Obama is currently doing. He’d be crucified by the left and rightly so. Obama should be held to the same standard. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/100 "2009-10-28T18:09:17Z")
Our Democracy R E E L S from crisis to “CRISIS” like a punch-drunk ``` palooka. ``` Dig it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144.md?page=6)