Skip to main content

View Diary: Citigroup gave Lew $940K ONLY if he got a high-level government position (313 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Technically not a Walmart exec (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duufus, Bisbonian

    Rather, a Walmart Foundation exec, its president specifically. She used to work for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, so she's not exactly a far-right ideologue. Rather, she appears to be another careerist neoliberal working to further the interests of the 1%. The WF poses as a charitable foundation and has donation a lot of money to causes, but actually uses this money to bribe these causes to support its parent firm's interests, or at least not oppose them. E.g. not supporting worker strikes or attempt to unionize Walmart.

    And this is who Obama appears to want to manage the country's budget, according to Lee Fang at the Nation. I.e. another neoliberal corporate hack or shill, like Lew, Geithner, Emanuel, Daley, Panetta, Holder, etc.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 04:20:30 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  What is wrong with Obama? (0+ / 0-)

      He should be embarrassed to be appointing corporate hacks like these to powerful jobs during a recession created by the 1%.   What is he thinking?

      Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 11:37:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's thinking that as a neoliberal posing (0+ / 0-)

        as a progressive, this is exactly what he should be doing. I really wish we'd stop this silliness about pretending that he's a genuine progressive and not a neoliberal to the core. There is some overlap between the two, especially on social issues (but then social progressivism is good for business so it's more of a practical than moral stance), which probably explains part of the confusion. But mostly we confuse his rhetoric for his true beliefs and intentions, which are best deduced from his actions, not his words. Bush also said some nice things about compassion and freedom and stuff.

        Once you realize that he's a neoliberal who's moderately socially progressive on some issues (and even then only when pushed to it and on issues where there isn't a huge neoliberal downside), it all makes sense.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 12:37:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site