Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Testicular Politics: Obama Is Getting Punked By the Big Dogs of Banking, Does He Have the Balls to Do What's Right?

By William Greider, The Nation. Posted April 24, 2009.


What we are witnessing is a high-stakes melodrama of glandular politics. Will Obama roll over or fight back?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

    The big dogs of banking and finance are playing a rough game of bump-and-run with our president, trying to knock him off balance and demonstrate their dominance. The best names in Wall Street -- Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase -- pumped out happy talk about quarterly earnings, then announced that they intend to give back the government's money (more than $50 billion, if counted honestly). The crisis, they announce, is over for them. They want to be free of official meddling in their private affairs. The arrogance is breathtaking, even for Wall Street bankers.

      Forget the financial numbers. What we are witnessing is a high-stakes melodrama of glandular politics. This rival power center, though gravely weakened, is contesting for control with the president. Think of dogs circling one another to establish who will be leader of the pack. For three decades, the Wall Street guys in good suits have ruled the economy, demanding deference from the political system and from corporate managements, too. Those who failed to follow them were punished, either through stock prices or election financing. Despite their catastrophic failure, the surviving bankers and financiers are trying to hold on to their thrones.

      For the last couple of weeks, they have poked the kid in the chest and mocked his economic advisors with condescending gestures. Jamie Dimon of the Morgan bank handed Treasury Secretary Geithner a fake check for $25 billion. They threw complicating wrenches into the government's financial rescue plan. Their essential message, crudely colloquial, was intended for Barack Obama : "You don't have the balls to take charge of us."

      The question is: Are they right? Obama seems cowed by their bluster. He certainly looks reluctant to take them on in a public way or refute their version of reality. This president wants to govern through public-spirited cooperation. The financial titans play hardball in return. I say "seems" because we do not yet know about Obama and how he will resolve this mess. The administration has been stalling action on the troubled banks, as if it believes in its own wishful forecasts about an early recovery for the economy. The bankers trumped him by announcing, hey, things are already better for us. So back off.

      The bankers think they have the president cornered. His rescue plan cannot possibly succeed without much more money -- hundreds of billions more -- that Congress will be extremely reluctant to provide (Obama hasn't yet had the nerve to ask for it). The bankers' offer to return their welfare checks is a cute gesture, but a bluff. They know Obama's government is committed to save them, whatever it costs. As usual, the big dogs want to have it both ways -- take the public's money but promise nothing in return.

      Roughly speaking, that has been Obama's posture, too. He acts as though the old order must be restored with public money, but without forceful government direction. He can call their bluff if he has the courage -- shut down a couple of big banks, take control of the system -- and the public would cheer. During the campaign, Obama demonstrated he is a great teacher -- his political vision changed the country. But we do not yet know if he is a confident political leader willing to use his power against formidable adversaries in order to get his way. Every potential rival is now taking his measure. Weakness would doom him.


    Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

    See more stories tagged with: obama, finance, regulation, economic crisis, stimulus package, financial crisis

    William Greider is the author of, most recently, "The Soul of Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster).

    Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


    Advertisement
    Advertisement

     

    Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
    Comments closed.
    The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
    View:
    Obama Has A Clear Choice ...
    Posted by: mmckinl on Apr 24, 2009 12:14 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Will he side with the citizens of the United States of America or the very culprits that caused our current crisis, the "big dogs of Wall Street"?

    Will Obama condone the looting of our treasury to save the very actors whose greed, incompetence and fraud caused this economic catastrophe?

    Obama has a clear choice, it couldn't be clearer: Wall Street or Main Street.. The perpetrators or the people . His choice so far: the "big dogs of Wall Street" and the looting of our treasury.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: Obama Has A Clear Choice ... Posted by: richholland
    » Obama made his choice. Posted by: rafaeltoral
    » RE: Obama made his choice. Posted by: chorton
    » RE: Summary: Posted by: oregoncharles
    » RE: wake up Posted by: solrev
    » RE: wake up Posted by: mmckinl
    » RE: wake up Posted by: richholland
    » RE: Obama Has A Clear Choice ... Posted by: richholland
    What's with the title of this article?
    Posted by: sawadee on Apr 24, 2009 12:21 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    For a progressive news source, this is a really sexist title. It's as bad as Arnold Schwarzenegger and his "girly-man" comment.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: I don't like it, either. Posted by: oregoncharles
    » RE: I don't like it, either. Posted by: Sashaaa
    » what's worse Posted by: Sashaaa
    Ahh quite...
    Posted by: bonapartist on Apr 24, 2009 12:34 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Big dogs of banking... Those would be those same big dogs that run the US economy into the ground, weakened the world economy by proxy and got billions of taxpayers money in bailout. The same Bailout that is a form of deficit spending that will be paid by future (probably) heavy taxes and signed by same president Obama.

    What is he going to do actually? Go sulk in the corner if they refuse to have him their toys? Judging by the facts that is abotu the only thing he can do. Well, that and depreciate US dollar and/or make US default on its debt.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Truelass
    Posted by: Truelass on Apr 24, 2009 1:46 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    The President can play hardball and regulate the banks. Let him show that he has the intestinal foritude to stand up to those crooks who have robbed the elderly of their life savings and caused millions on to the bread line. It is time for action now, we should not be molly coddling criminals.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: Truelass Posted by: Spiritgirl
    I just don't understand!
    Posted by: Blacktiger1 on Apr 24, 2009 2:09 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    The people of the USA have the chance to make a big change, with a President who was willing to go the distance.Now when things look a little dicey you leave him stranded, with no backup.For heaven's sake show him, tell him, he is your leader, but by your vote. Stand up against those Big Dogs with him, after all it's your kids and grandkids and their kids that will carry this load if you don't.
    Right now you sound like whinny babies who can't get what you want.You have to work too,it's your tax dollars,you are the boss, not the Big Dogs.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: I just don't understand! Posted by: villager1
    » RE: I just don't understand! Posted by: Lara1967
    » RE: I just don't understand! Posted by: blondesprite
    » Left him stranded?? Posted by: DJC11
    » RE: I just don't understand! Posted by: Lara1967
    » RE: I just don't understand! Posted by: Lara1967
    Obama
    Posted by: Perry Logan on Apr 24, 2009 2:31 AM   
    Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    is what you call a lousy leader.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » Teabag philosophy Posted by: westomoon
    Bold Action is Impossible without Dedicated Public Support
    Posted by: jbpazz on Apr 24, 2009 3:17 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    One man can not tame a power elite that has run roughshod over the citizens for three generations. The last President who bucked the system and got away with it was Dwight David Eisenhower. He pulled out of Korea on the strength of his character and reputation. A lesser man would have been impeached or shot.
    As of yet, the US public is not prepared to incarcerate or execute the traitors who have run the country to ground.
    I won't present a laundry list of culprits that would run into the 100's of thousands.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » Kennedy tried ...and died. Posted by: waterflaws
    » When did the US leave Korea? Posted by: WhatNow?
    Decision Day
    Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Apr 24, 2009 3:30 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    I chose not to vote for Obama after I sent him an email asking if he was going to prosecute the George W. Bush Criminal Conspiracy and got back a form letter basically saying that he's not one to wallow in the past.


    FREE AMERICA

    VOCA, NOW!

    REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: Decision Day Posted by: votingvet
    votingvet
    Posted by: votingvet on Apr 24, 2009 4:48 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Can someone explain what the game is that is being played here?

    I am confused. The story seems to say that the banks want to give back the money that they received as a bail out. How does this challenge Obama and, if they do pay it back, how does that alter the need for tight regulations?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: votingvet Posted by: sunnywater
    » RE: votingvet Posted by: weathered
    » RE: votingvet Posted by: votingvet
    » RE: votingvet Posted by: VZEQICVA
    Regulate banking and Wall Street right down to their shoe tops.
    Posted by: thekidde on Apr 24, 2009 5:06 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Limit their compensation and/or tax the hell out of ALL excess compensation, nationalize health care, dump the Federal Reserve, nationalize energy and kick the fucking oligarchs out of the country or into jail as traitors. Do it soon or the pot boils over. We're fucking sick of this shit.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » The bankers are wimps. I did 911. Posted by: GuitarBill
    One pic.....
    Posted by: robertmc on Apr 24, 2009 5:49 AM   
    Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    One picture is worth a thousand words.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Punked
    Posted by: Jim Swanson on Apr 24, 2009 5:50 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Title error: to be punked (old jailhouse expression--Uncle Bill Burroughs always wondered why punk musicians chose this name, did they want to be raped?), is to be forcibly raped anally.

    The real victims are not Obama, but the American People, who are being raped--repeatedly. Other than the title error the article is great.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: Punked Posted by: yesman
    Well what did y'all expect?
    Posted by: Romantic Violence on Apr 24, 2009 5:58 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Did you really expect that people from out of nowhere would come along and fix everything for YOU..I hope YOU didn't believe that. Of course Obama is punked by the so called Big Dogs because they are the people who appointed him into office. He was 'chosen' because of his docile subservitude to the whims of corporate-military-financial interests. Obama is no fool, he will not bite the hand that feeds him and that hand is not US. One more thing, for those of you who still believe in fairy tales, the people didn't elect anybody. Obama was selected not elected...

    FTW

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
    » RE: Warning - don't use that link! Posted by: oregoncharles
    Obama is surrounded by rat-weasels
    Posted by: weathered on Apr 24, 2009 6:42 AM   
    Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    again these are hybrids;faux scholarly scum bags w/Emanuel leading the pack.

    This article is nothing but a distraction that offers up a sliver of opportunity when the path has already been clearly marked.

    Im hardly a defeatist, but each day that goes by will only entrench an agenda for One government/One currency.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    what a gross title. It's not enough to violate fair usage laws?
    Posted by: Sashaaa on Apr 24, 2009 7:14 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Alternet, I mean, if you're going to rip off someone else's article without compensating them, the least you could do is try not to disgrace the author's thought piece with such a childishly attention grabbing title. I linked back to see what the original headline for this column was and I see that it is "Obama and the Big Dogs." Nothing about genitalia.I know that you guys rely on sensationalism to survive, but this is too much. I think you owe the author an apology.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Looking forward with President Obama
    Posted by: grindermonkey on Apr 24, 2009 7:20 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    The future of our country has not been presented or imagined to my knowledge by President Obama. Futures require the rule of law and a sound financial system. What we have here is the legacy of the Bush past tainting the present and threatening our future. The torture and the financial mess need to be packaged up and stored at the Hanford Reservation with all the other radioactive and toxic political waste from the past century.

    Close the banks, fire the incompetents and begin again. Consign the past administration and its wars to the dust bin of history. Require decency on the public airwaves. Get these children off the streets and into school.

    There's one vision of a future. What is yours, Mr. President?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Obama and the Dems have always been in league with big business
    Posted by: chlamor on Apr 24, 2009 7:22 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    In promoting the big business agenda, a number of "moderate" Congressional Democrats refuse to even consider the modest Obama-foreclosure act. Many Democrats are no doubt heavily influenced by financial industry lobbyists who vehemently oppose the Obama foreclosure plan. These lobbyists claim that "judicial modifications" of mortgages will increase interest rates for new housing loans and further hurt the unstable credit market. Why Democrats should seriously kowtow to bankers threatening to further curtail loans at a time when the Wall Street has lost nearly all its credibility with the American people is unclear. One thing is clear, however. The Democrats refuse to sever their close ties with the Wall Street elites who got us into this crisis in the first place. The ties between Obama and the financial community are deep indeed. Obama's National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, serving as President of Harvard until 2006, presided over the firing of university endowment manager Iris Mack, after she blew the whistle on the school, warning about dangerous derivative investments with which Harvard was involved (unregulated derivatives are now understood to have played a major role in the 2008-2009 economic collapse). Obama Economic Advisor Robert Rubin served as the Chairman of the troubled Citigroup Corporation (which was intimately involved in the derivatives fiasco and the sub-prime mortgage crisis). As a Rubin's and Summers' protégé, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner helped spearhead the International Monetary Fund's disastrous efforts to promote global economic deregulation, and Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, served as on the Board of Directors for the failed Freddie Mac mortgage corporation (which also played an instrumental in the mortgage crisis).

    It is probably unfair to attack Obama for "selling out" the progressive community. He never gave any indication that he was planning on promoting a progressive agenda.

    LINK

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Testicular, Balls and Clitoral politics
    Posted by: deapp on Apr 24, 2009 7:25 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Why all the sexual references to male gentiles and the absence of them? If Obama do not have balls then what do he have, a over enlarged Clitoris. Is Clitoral politics bad or was that Bush politics? The author is obviously sexist.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    MY BOSS IS A JEWISH
    Posted by: waterflaws on Apr 24, 2009 7:29 AM   
    Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    banking conglomerate.

    Well, sometimes it feels that way. Probably some Saudis, Waltons, Japanese and Chinese in there, too. ...all with no particular national allegiance.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Andrew Jackson's been there, done that...
    Posted by: sktyler on Apr 24, 2009 7:44 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    This is a potentially historic moment for the country, and it's happened before... with Andrew Jackson. (Hint: he's on the $20 bill)

    The book "Presidntial Courage" by Michael Beschloss, chapters 7-10, explains how Jackson took on the mighty and corrupt Second Bank of the United States in 1837. This is a parallel situation to our present day mess, and it required an exceptionally courageous and committed president to take on the challenge against staunch resistance.

    --"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » "I killed the bank" Posted by: rafaeltoral
    » why people dont "get it"... Posted by: rafaeltoral
    » RE: Jones is a FRAUD Posted by: techcafe
    Appeasement
    Posted by: Exile65 on Apr 24, 2009 7:45 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    There is a word for what Obama is doing:

    APPEASEMENT.

    People should start using it.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Call it what it is!
    Posted by: tarnishedreality on Apr 24, 2009 7:45 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Like it or not that is exactly what it is and the world of high finance continues to be a good old boys institution as well as being dog eats dog world. Funny the last big company I worked for was and engineering firm and it was the same way. I watched friends not get promotions despite the fact they were doing most of the work due to the fact they didn't have the right set of genitals. I think the financial industry is even more that way.

    Is the author supposed to candy coat the truth of what it is just because it's on a liberal site? The author may be liberal, but those who are being written about are far from.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    testicular fortitude
    Posted by: techcafe on Apr 24, 2009 7:46 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    let's face it... one would need gonads the size of cantaloupes to take on the wall street banksters, fraudsters & hucksters, plus washington's power brokers & lobbyists, plus attempt to rebuild the american / world economies, plus smooth-over foreign relations & restore america's good name abroad, etc... and that's just for starters!

    i don't envy Obama one bit... that man has a lot to contend with, and one hell of a huge mess to clean-up. which, i might add, he was not responsible for; the Obama administration inherited this catastrophe of ongoing wars and global economic meltdown from the 'evil-doin' Bush Regime. it seems that some of you need to be constantly reminded of that.

    the stress & strain on Obama must be enormous. i can tell you this, if it were me, dealing with enormity, the gravity of the situation that Obama is facing right now - i would have cracked a long time ago. they'd have shipped my ass off to the funny farm.

    can any of YOU - alternet armchair generals - do any better??

    would you even have the courage, the testicular fortitude, to take on the monumental challenges that president Obama is facing right now?!

    i seriously doubt it. so yeah, go ahead, sit back & relax, whine, bitch & complain from the comfort of your computer chair & keyboard.

    meanwhile... your president has actual WORK to do.

    personally, i'm inclined to cut the man some slack... after all, he's only been in-office for three months. Bush's despots & cronies had 8 long torturous years to rape, pillage, plunder & destroy... yet somehow, Obama's supposed to snap his fingers, click his heels and fix everything right NOW.

    jesus h christ, some of you need to give your bobbleheads a damn good shake - stop criticizing and start HELPING for fucksake! but ohh-noo, that would mean getting off your self-righteous asses and actually doing something USEFUL.

    ahhh, but it's so much easier to just whine & complain, when you've got nothing better to do with your time, now isn't it?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: testicular fortitude Posted by: samd11
    » Poor little fella Posted by: 2dogarage
    » RE: testicular fortitude Posted by: yesman
    Ball's in our court
    Posted by: chrysalis124812 on Apr 24, 2009 7:48 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    I don't see people pouring into the streets demanding prosecution of banking and interrogation crimes. Obama cannot act alone or without overwhelming visible popular support to reverse course on these issues.
    I think we have a good advocate in the presidency, and he is a sly one too. Maybe he realizes that people will have to be infuriated at HIM TOO to get them off their collective behinds.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Regulate!
    Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Apr 24, 2009 8:23 AM   
    Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    I heard a radio interview, and I wish I could say who was talking to whom, but by the time something like this catches your ear, you're beyond the introductions.

    Anyway, the talk was about how banks are already abusing Obama's program of taxpayer money for trouble assets, combined with private investment money. Apparently the ratio is something like 20 percent private, 80 percent public. There will be readers who can correct me on that ratio if wrong. The deal is the guaranteed coverage of losses with government money, which has led the banks to buy each other's toxic paper to inflate their books. When that bad debt remains toxic, or gets worse, the bailout kicks in again.

    I have a feeling it won't be over until this country is completely destitute.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Come Home, America
    Posted by: Bill Greider on Apr 24, 2009 8:30 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    This is the title of my new book, just published by Rodale. I am trying to help people understand we are at a decisive turning point in the history of our country. If people do not regain their confidence as citizens and intrude on the regular politics, the deterioration of our democracy will continue with grave consequences. Check it out. "The Soul of Capitalism" was published in 2003 and also relevant to our present crisis. Thanks. Bill Greider

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » try Amazon.com or Chapters.com Posted by: techcafe
    » RE: try Amazon.com or Chapters.com Posted by: Bliss Doubt
    » privacy center wanker Posted by: techcafe
    » Take back America Posted by: weathered
    » RE: Come Home, America Posted by: riondluz
    » Bill Greider. Cool. Posted by: GuitarBill
    Neuter the junk yard dogs and be done with it
    Posted by: FeralCat on Apr 24, 2009 8:43 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    I like William Greider. I like his book "The Soul of Capitalism. But he has got to stop putting into all his posts that he believes in Obama's "good intentions". Obama's "good intentions" are not the same as Greider's. Obama was hired to be a spokesman for the status quo and he is and always was comfortable with that.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    NOW, can we arrest some of these assholes?
    Posted by: willymack on Apr 24, 2009 9:23 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Being a crook is one thing. Being an in-your-face, insufferable crook with delusions of omnipotence and infallibility is quite another. Who the hell do they think they are? Bush? These people are THIEVES, and no different than purse snatchers or pickpockets, just bigger versions of them. They belong in JAIL, period. If Holder is overloaded, he can always hire competent help. Vincent Bugliosi comes to mind, as does John Kerry.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Bastille Day for Big Money
    Posted by: sirmalcolm on Apr 24, 2009 9:46 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Obama is walking a tightrope. He knows history and the challenge to truly change this situation. We are fools to believe his Presidency has the power to seize control from the invisible International Central Bankers (e.g.: "Federal" Reserve among others) who have ruled the world for centuries. Those who have tried, here and abroad, fail or fail to live--look at our Presidents Garfield and Kennedy. ("JFK?', you ask? Search EO 11110, Executive Order 11110). We all have our price and Big Money has enough cash to buy anyone for anything--and so they rule.

    Our best hope exists Right Now as awareness continues to grow about who these people are and how they operate. Our only chance of success is to stoke this fire to create an overwhelming populist demand, supported by our President to strip these people of their power--Wall Street is a modern day aristocracy similar to that which the French rebelled against in the 18th c. Let's redirect the foolhardy 'rage' of today's "Tea Parties" toward Big Money instead of at a President who struggles against these forces in an effort to better represent We the People. Sing the song Big Money "We'll never be free until we break the bank"! Only our numbers can overpower them.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Re "Testicular Politics"
    Posted by: Lilly on Apr 24, 2009 9:52 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Re "Testicular Politics:...Will Obama Have
    The Balls To Do What's Right?": All depends on whether he turns out to be a prick.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: e "Testicular Politics" Posted by: DaBear
    Balls have nothing to do with courage!
    Posted by: LeeAnnG on Apr 24, 2009 10:42 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    This kind of sexist expression is unworthy of William Greider, whose writing I have always admired. To conflate "balls" with "courage" or integrity is to denigrate those without balls - i.e. women.

    Note that if a man is called "a pussy," most people understand that to mean he is weak and acts like a woman. It's an insult. But if someone says a woman "has balls," it usually means she is courageous "like a man." It's a compliment.

    Courage is not about testosterone, but about anyone's - male or female - having enough conviction and integrity to do what is right. It is about standing up to adversity in the face of possible loss, whether that loss is political, physical, or personal. It is most certainly NOT limited to those with testicals.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: Balls have nothing to do with courage! Posted by: coolfuzzybreeze@hotmail.com
    Testicular Banking
    Posted by: coolfuzzybreeze@hotmail.com on Apr 24, 2009 10:47 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Great title. It is right on. Go Obama go...using your brains always works. It is amazing to watch someone with intelligience lead this country and speak to us and world leaders so eloquently and wise. I agree with Newt Gingrich, who said "You have to be an idiot to want Obama to fail."It is perhaps the time to show some right with the mite. Go Obama Go! The banks are fighting the leader of the hands who feed them. Shape up! We are angry. Meanwhile, small banks and credit unions serve us people well and honestly. Thank you.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    or does he??...
    Posted by: Annapurna1 on Apr 24, 2009 10:56 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    new pew and rasmussen polls show that the citizens of the united states of america are solidly on bush/cheneys' side on the torture issue...if they agree with bu$hco on something as fundamental as the rule of law.. then they prolly back other aspects of fascism..such as the banking cartel..as well...

    the reason is quite simple ..obama only needed "im not bush" in order to win the POTUS...as such..he failed to produce a compelling narrative opposite to that of bu$hco...

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » More Teabag logic Posted by: westomoon
    What do we call that?
    Posted by: susanhathaway on Apr 24, 2009 12:17 PM   
    Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    What do we call a politician like Obama, who sucks up to big business, refuses to challenge a rival political party (even when its leaders and/or former leaders have committed heinous crimes), insists on pursuing futile wars in order to look "tough," and pretends that the average citizen's rapidly and continuously worsening economic condition can be solved with further huge bailouts for corrupt, bankrupt industries while refusing to impose the regulations that would prevent the same catastrophe from happening again?

    In this country, we call that a Democrat.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: What do we call that? Posted by: Lara1967
    Real analysis would be too dangerous.
    Posted by: hilaryuk on Apr 24, 2009 12:25 PM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Obama, like most of the US & UK political and economic establishment, is evading the hard truths. At the moment both countries are spending untold (and probably unaffordable) zillions on applying sticking plaster and cosmetic surgery to the broken model of globalised free market capitalism. Our leaders are labouring under the delusion that we should be trying to get back to the way things were, with a few little tweaks here and there. In the short term they may even succeed, but in the medium to long term the economies built on shifting sands, running on dreams and producing precious little apart from dreams, will collapse yet again because the model doesn't work. For most working people it never worked, and the easy credit that bought the system down was actually necessary if those on moderate incomes weren't to notice that they were actually getting poorer in real terms. Globally the economic model never worked as it pushed millions from livable poverty into desperation and hunger.

    So what is the point of throwing ever more resources into the black hole that is the failed system? Are we to go on being blackmailed out of our of diminished national wealth by the incompetent, dishonest, greedy mobsters in suits that are the financial sector? On both sides of the Atlantic they are taking the money but refusing to use it for the public good. A good first step would be to encourage at least one of the institutions to pay the taxpayer back, then let them sink or swim regardless. If you really wanted to play hardball, a government could guarantee savings only in banks that were operating within tight regulations.

    Then, having dispelled the myth of the efficacy of globalised capitalism, we could start a discussion about what shape a sustainable economic system should be. But let's not waste any more time or treasure on flogging this particular dead horse.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » Spot on. Posted by: freelyb
    We're so used to crude and stupid
    Posted by: westomoon on Apr 24, 2009 12:45 PM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    ... if nobody's getting hit with an anvil, we think nothing's happening.

    This President has already shown he is capable of some truly extraordinary political judo -- as well as the classic magician's misdirection. "Oh, look at this shiny thing over here, so you won't notice what my other hand is doing."

    It's easy to forget that Tai Chi is a very effective martial art, because it looks so vague and peaceable in action. Wax on, wax off, Grasshopper -- it's very early days yet.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Put negatively
    Posted by: yesman on Apr 24, 2009 2:34 PM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    "He can call their bluff if he has the courage -- shut down a couple of big banks, take control of the system -- and the public would cheer."

    This statement is certainly true. But only because "the public," aside from the the usual Fox-News-addled fanatics, has been willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama--trusting, like the author, in his "good intentions." That forbearance has limits, though.

    We might rather say, negatively, "If he does not call their bluff and have the courage to shut down a couple of big banks, take control of the system--the public's displeasure will reach the boiling point." That is, he must actually DO SOMETHING to hold the crooks accountable. After all, we're talking about the biggest theft in human history, and so far not only has almost no one been punished in any way, the major crooks STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS AND BONUSES! In absolutely NO OTHER BUSINESS do managers who preside over the destruction of their own companies (not to mention the larger world economy) get REWARDED for their incompetence and criminality.

    We can't start working toward a better future until we've dealt with the crimes and malfeasance of the past. The past doesn't simply disappear once the moment has passed. (See the law of karma.)

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Wishful thinking
    Posted by: troy on Apr 24, 2009 3:31 PM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Obama was elected because he was 1) pro Wall Street, 2) pro Israel, 3) pro weapons industry. After pleadging his allegance to these forces he was then given relatively good press. He was made deals with devils. Whether he thinks he will get the best of them in end or not, who can say? Wishful thinking is a great placebo. What exactly has changed? A few productive policies with regards to Cuba. He has thrown more money at alternative energy source development. We are still bailing out criminal companies and paying interest on the debt. We are still in Iraq and Afganistan and maybe Pakistan in the future. We still "render" so-called enemy combatants. Bush administration criminals will get off the hook if Obama has his way. So much for accountability-unless you are economically disadvantaged then you can be imprisoned for practically nothing.
    Dream on Obama supporters. Everything gonna be all right.
    TRC

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Citizen Lopez
    Posted by: yodyos on Apr 24, 2009 4:13 PM   
    Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Obama is a very special actor on the world stage of political illusion. He is not a true leader of a country because he does not have the deeply ingrained sense of honor required of a leader of an abused population. He is an actor or a flim flam man that used his special talents of oratory to defraud all of us that voted for him. He is the mindless puppet of the lords of our country who will let him stay in his presidential palace because he is controllable and predictable.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Bad title, good synopsis. It's bearings, not balls that matter.
    Posted by: SlyGuy on Apr 24, 2009 7:03 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Yes the public clearly grasps the immorality of the current rescue operations and failure to regulate or prosecute those who perpetrated fraud. Why? Several reasons that are not related to gumption, courage, or its cousins. One, too many of both parties signed off on legislation that made it possible to commit fraud and call it modern finance. Two, many fear dissolving the real big insolvent banks will tank the stock market and economy or greatly forestall recovery, even though we all know it won't be quick. 2 year terms in Congress and other factors promote concerns for re-election over the needs of the country. Caveat, doing things the Japanese way will lead to a prolonged recession. Three, the truth is that the debt from derivatives and credit default swaps and other forms of legalized fraud probably are so far in excess of anything we current imagine that total honesty in revealing the depth of the corruption and fraud will be intolerable, to markets, credit, general economy and public sentiment. What a horrible job our electeds have done in acquiescing to the Greenspans, Bernankes, and others of high finance and low morals. Call it treason, I believe.

    Who would have the courage to face these issues and the frauds who perpetrated them in real debate before the American people? A Lincoln or Washington perhaps? Andrew Jackson for all his faults? But Grieder is right in one respect, there is a pattern of fence-sitting while this young president obtains his bearings--problem is, it's not balls that matter, it's your moral bearings that you must ultimately rely on, and the ability to articulate using the pulpit and position you have earned to right wrongs. Nothing else will guide you. Triangulation is nothing more than calculated lying depending on the audience.

    Perhaps he should watch V for Vendetta this weekend and contemplate what a few good historians might say, not what the pundits and self-appointed gurus tell him.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » Excellent post. Posted by: freelyb
    a theory
    Posted by: seads on Apr 24, 2009 7:56 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Our nation is the ultimate Christian nation. Our leaders, especially the President are beloved of God. They're all simply the reincarnations of the first President, Goerge Washington, so this country has really only had one President all along. At the same time, whenever God allows a President to die, he, or she, will be taken immediately to heaven to become part of the 144,000 elders spoken of in Revelation. When that number is filled with 144000 Presidents the US will have fulfilled its divine purpose.
    As for us normal mortal citizens of the US, we'll also go to heaven to become part of the
    Great Multitude. We'll be given 4 legs and tails so that we can grovel appropriately (no one can grovel as well as a dog).

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: a theory Posted by: mrcentrist
    » RE: a theory Posted by: Lara1967
    » RE: a theory Posted by: Lara1967
    » In GOD We Trust Posted by: techcafe
    Either Obama knows something we don't, or he has sold us out.
    Posted by: nmeyer on Apr 24, 2009 8:11 PM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Unless Mr. Transparent is withholding some information we need to know, there is no way around it... these banks should have been taken down and apart, like the S&Ls.

    A friend asked me today: So if these banks (and companies) are too big to fail, why are we hearing "we will never let this happen again" while at the same time seeing them reward and enable what happened and keeps happening?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Big Balls
    Posted by: mrcentrist on Apr 24, 2009 9:54 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    The Big Boys on Wall Street have the big balls to rape the common man and woman in America. The common man and woman lays back and lets the Wall Streeters stick it in where it counts, if you catch my drift...... Anyway. we will have to see if Obama has the balls to stand up to Wall Street. I wonder, considering Wall Streeters have those big balls that I was just writing about. I like those big balls.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    how much time are we going to give
    Posted by: grkjr on Apr 24, 2009 10:34 PM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    this administration under the new bushlike policies, why do we keep hoping for something different.. as we continue the bailouts, war against terrorists in another country, crushing the constitution under more presidential and administrative powers.. how much time do you give one man to change his stipes. give me a break.. he is the same man that turned in circles after his nomination and has continued the bush track while giving you marsels of "talk" that seems to passify anyone who follows words versus works.. simple, the only way this will turn out different is if the american people decide enough is enough.. but that isn't happening as the latest polls show that we don't see the similarities of paths we are on, most think we are on a new and different path, as the polls show and this artile still holds out for "hope".. we are about to get exactly what we voted for unless the outcry is loud enough.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Is Obama
    Posted by: wormfarmer on Apr 25, 2009 1:07 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    going to be an "Uncle Sam" for the PEOPLE, or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations? A legitimate question. A controversial one that deserves an answer, please.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Use good examples
    Posted by: LeonBNJ on Apr 25, 2009 6:54 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    To me Pres. Obama and his Administration should look at the banks that are clean and didn't need any or very small amounts of TARP funds. I transferred earlier this year a significant amount of money in an interest bearing checking account from an WAMU-Chase account to another bank as the interest on it went down to 1/10th of 1%. I moved to a large local bank, Hudson City Savings (based in my home state of New Jersey), that is one of the largest banks in the USA (in the top 25)that did not take any TARP monies and paying relatively decent interest rates (1.8% APR as of yesterday). It is regarded as one of the best run banks in the USA. They didn't get involved in exotic high risk mortgages, they don't pay their executives exorbinate salaries and bonuses and they actually made a siginicant profit for thier shareholders in the 1st Qtr. of 2009. How Husdon City, and many other small but better run banks should be used as a model as to how to redo our banking system.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Obama's history will tell you all that you need to know.
    Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 25, 2009 7:23 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    And so far, he presidency is proving that correct.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    BAILOUT...THE FINANCING OF EXPENSIVE LEECHES --part A
    Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 25, 2009 9:12 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Wth the money the USA has WASTED on BAILOUT the PRIVATE sector could have opened more than a few CLEAN BANKS AND BUSINESS --WITHOUT bailout WITHOUT toxix assets and WITHOUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAILOUT contract..

    DERIVATIVES are what are used in hedge funds the driving force at the helm of the financial meltdown.

    People most of the companies in the bailout are a form of a Madoff scheme for certain.

    ENRON USED DERIVATIVES as well but coupled them with DUMMY CORP.

    what are DERIVATIVES---a type of risky gamble an insurance (whom cannot be called insurance otherwise they would have to be regulated by those in the insurance industry) so, they call them VEHICLES OR BETS which are sold to investment firms and they re-sell them. the bet says that when a company FAILS they will be paid back--then they sell these insurance type BETS to companies.
    Only in these BETS there the risky companies. when these irresponsible investment firms buy them NEVER CHECKING/NEVER CARING WHETHER they are a good investment for them then the IRRESPONSIBLE COMPANY try to re-sell them. Only the GOOD INVESTMENT firms seeing they are no good---the GOOD INVESTMENT firms refuse to buy them. Then the IRRESPONSIBLE investment firm is forced to sell all their OTHER good stock investments until all the IRRESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT firms have left in their companies are a hug compile of BAD DERIVATIVES at which time the IRRESPONSIBLE COMPANY is bankrupt and WASH DC SLUGS KNOWING THIS decided to tie a noose around the public neck by the name of bailout which will cause a NEVER ENDING STREAM OF MONEY out of the USA to the creators of these bad debts.

    in financial world it's not wise to put all eggs in one basket. Nationalization puts all eggs in one basket and one fails they all will fail and we will be bankrupt and owned by foreigners many of whom subscribe to sharia law.

    then the horrid stimulus grants the GOV right to COERCE public thru denying healthcare to anyone whom doesn't subscribe to Sharia law or social/glob/marx/fac/comm.

    THIS isn't about HEALTHCARE you can be healthcare can be fixed WITHOUT SOCIALIZING our NATION. However, the WASH DC SLUGS are all about control AND the quickest way to RUSH people into accepting bad decisions....

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    BAILOUT ..THE FINANCING OF EXPENSIVE LEECHES--PART B
    Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 25, 2009 9:15 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems.

    WHY??? It was said to a VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think American's are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU don't think the 99% of American's will be 'smart enough" to CARE about their country, their homes, their small business enough to kick the WASH DC SLUGS out and send them packing by way of Balagovich for NOT doing what is right to protect PUBLIC freedoms and the free enterprise system (ie meaning small business/med business) and rights.



    Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.

    Then, we will be SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST/MARX/FACIST/COMM COUNTRY and the marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED 1 or 2 or several big businesses in sector. Gone will be the hope for any American whom would wish to start a business and earn profit to live on. it's why they cannot wait to get their hands on public money and THROW parties COSTING MILLIONS and big bonuses to CEO'S at the public expense.



    SEE familysecuritymatters.org & American Center for law and justice & Council of Seniors A program of Civic Council & The National Ctr for Public Policy Research

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Sexist!!!
    Posted by: ivywmn on Apr 25, 2009 9:34 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    The implication is that only people with male genitalia are courageous, and you have to have male genitalia to be courageous.

    I've been hearing this contempt for women all my life, and it isn't "just" anything; it isn't "figurative." We want to call someone a coward, we use slang for female genitalia; we want to call someone courageous, we say they've got huge male genitalia.

    I counter this by saying someone has brass ovaries when I call them courageous.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    How to make banks and bankers - irrelevant
    Posted by: p.ray on Apr 25, 2009 11:52 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    As a long-time (27 years) successful small business owner/operator functioning within the private-sector marketplace, my primary responsibility is to create and foster an environment that affords us all the opportunity to succeed.

    Although I assumed the initial risk, nonetheless, as a collective of individuals, we all are vested and we are all responsible for our continued success. We the people are our most valuable asset - we are NOT an expense - and, we recognize that without our 'labor' there would be NO business. We carry no debt and banks and their bankers are irrelevant.

    > Whether one works in marketing or maintenance, all profit is distributed equally among all workers.
    > We respect the needs of each person. Now, as in the past, difficult times necessitate that lay-offs remain our last resort (unlike most other strictly capitalist operations).
    > Salaries and job requirements are established by consensus. New hires (and terminations) are selected/determined by majority vote. Bonuses for exemplary individual performance are determined by a vote of our entire organization (business integrity, customer service, community service, etc. are considered laudable and qualify for remuneration)
    > All expenditures and operating methods are scrutinized for both short range and long-term cost-effectiveness and waste is virtually nonexistent.
    > While we recognize that we all have unique perspectives, we do not allow our disagreements or narrow self-interests to obstruct or subvert our progress or diminish our prosperity.

    All are necessary - all are valued - and, We succeed or fail TOGETHER!

    In addition, my partners (fellow workers) and I adamantly support single-payer health care and the Employee Free Choice Act.

    Now, if you're into labels, feel free to call us (and our operting model) INDEPENDENT/PROGRESSIVE/SOCIAL-CAPITALISTS - IPSC, hey, that's a "third party" even I could support.

    Phala

    Whys=Wise but No≠Know

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    My Answer To The Question In The Title
    Posted by: ZPaul on Apr 26, 2009 8:49 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    You don't know how much I would like to believe that he does, but I seriously doubt it.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Urban Myth #3
    Posted by: Urban Myth #3 on May 2, 2009 5:50 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    This "Testicular" language does nothing for your credibility or appeal. Just run the Story maybe?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    • AlterNetYour turn

    Support AlterNet
    Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


    Feedback
    Tell us how we're doing.

    Advertisement
    Advertisement