Skip to main content

View Diary: Book Review: Kevin Phillips' "Bad Money" (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When both parties are substantially funded (18+ / 0-)

    by Wall Street billionaire privateers, there's little hope for change.

    There was a candidate who challenged Wall Street and exemplified economic populism, but the corporate media saw to it his haircuts and house size were all voters knew about him.

    Obama is obviously better than McCain, but too many in Congress, of both parties, are thoroughly bought off by Wall Street crooks.

    The Republicans want to cut YOUR Social Security benefits.

    by devtob on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:44:30 AM PDT

    •  Wall Street Investment Banks Love Obama (5+ / 0-)

      Obama has done better at bundling contributions from the Wall Street Investment banks than either Clinton or McCain. These big capitalists understand that despite his frequent talk of "Change" he intends to keep the the mis-distribution of wealth and power in the US intact.

      Eugene Debs would take a look at the upcoming presidential election and say no thanks to Obama, Clinton, or McCain and tell people to vote socialist. I'm with Debs.

      •  I thought it was John Edwards who was the (3+ / 0-)

        darling boy of Wall Street. What happened to this line of thought that he was the tool of hedge funds and addicted to the DJIA?

        This seems along the lines of Obama being the most liberal person in history (More Liberal than Jesus!) when in 2004, John Kerry was the most liberal.

        Crooks and Liars do a good job of picking this apart (or maybe Sadly, No).  There is so much of this getting tossed about these days that I am going to need a new manure fork before August.

      •  Or (5+ / 0-)

        They realize that without rational policies the whole game is over. Even Paul Volker, no friend of the Wall Street folks, is on Obama's side.

        The Wall Street folks are not stupid. They know it is time for the adults to be put back in charge.

        I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman

        by taonow on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:36:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, but still vote (7+ / 0-)

      Dem in Nov.

      I know they aren't free of corporate influence, but  there is a difference. I think if we learned anything since 2000 it is that it that things could get worse.

      The Dems are a little less beholden to some special interests and might not have created Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the entire Iraq debacle. The environment, religious (and non religious) freedom, freedom from spying, women's rights etc... all will fare better under the Dems.

      An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

      by rini6 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:08:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Democrats Keep the Wars Going (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        devtob, cruz

        If the Democrats had wanted to live up to their campaign promises in 2006 the war in Iraq would have ended long ago. Instead Obama and Clinton vote for every appropriation for continued war.

        People should vote for whomever they want, but we need to also build a huge antiwar movement that calls to bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan now. The larger the peace demonstrations become, the more pressure is exerted on whomever sits in the White House.

        Remember it was the conservative Republican Nixon who was forced to withdraw the troops from Vietnam (from a war the liberal Democratic President J.F.Kennedy had started and that moderate Democratic President Lyndon Johnson escalated). There is massive sentiment for withdrawl now as most Americans despise the wars in the middle east. This fall there will be big demonstrations organized for bringing the troops home now. Let's help build them and bring out our friends to join in the marches.

        •  I agree with creating an anti-war movement (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          devtob

          However,

          think of the 90's. Think of the 00's.

          Which do you want????

          An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

          by rini6 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:30:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  However rini (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            devtob, rini6

            Let us not let a poster by with asserting that JFK started the VN War.  An examination shows US involvement tracks back substantially as far as 1950 but Ike seems to be the one who jumped first in terms of extensive involvement:

            http://servercc.oakton.edu/...

            To do so perpetuates the myth that Democratic presidents are the ones who start wars and GOP presidents preside over periods of peace.

            •  I see what you mean (0+ / 0-)

              Gotta be prepared for the argument.

              An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

              by rini6 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:45:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  However rini cont... (0+ / 0-)

              Yes it is silly to claim Democrat politicians start wars and Republican politicians  don't. They both are controlled by the same corporate interests and equally likely to start aggressive wars.

              President Eisenhower was deeply disappointed when the French empire's military was defeated by the Vietnamese in the 1950's- he was no friend the struggle to end colonialism. It this particular case though it is important to remember how the most liberal Democratic President started a massive escalation to keep Vietnam under Western corporate domination.

            •  once upon a time (0+ / 0-)

              a Vice President beloved of his party's right wing was being groomed for a Presidential run when his President's term was over. He needed foreign policy experience, or at least the appearance of such.

              The President was less than confident in the judgement of his VP, so he resolved to send that VP to somewhere that no matter how badly the VP fucked up, America's national interests couldn't be affected.

              A colonial empire was falling apart, the insurgents had won. They were looking for a third party to supervise the treaty negotiations. The President jumped at the chance to acheive his goal.

              The place was French Indochina (later to be called Vietnam). The Vice President was Richard Nixon.

              We wound up as the treaty guarantor after the treaty was signed.

              Didn't turn out so well.

              Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

              by alizard on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:46:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  before we beatify Nixon the peacemaker (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          devtob, rini6

          Let us look at the timeline of the entire conflict:

          http://www.landscaper.net/...

          Nixon did not believe in a purely military solution but he also believed he could bomb the North into submission or at the least destroy enough Communist assets in neighboring countries so as to deny the NVA final victory. His and Kissenger's miscalculations cost millions in lives and the outcome would not have been any different had the withdrawal been in 1968 or 1974.

          One problem with assessing Nixon is even at this juncture we are still not sure of the total numbers of assets he had committed where and when.

          •  Before we beatify Nixon (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, Nixon was an awful president.

            But his example of being forced to withdraw from Vietnam by a huge anti-war movement shows that politics is about much more than elections.

            On health care, on Iraq, on the need to redistribute wealth the American people are way to the left of the Democratic  and Republican Party politicians. The strategy of always voting for the "lesser  evil" has been used for many decades, and it always leads to more messes. We need a fresh start with a movement that puts human needs before profits. Capitalism, and its twin political parties in our country stands in the way of us making the progress we need for survival.

          •  At least Nixon had (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse

            two brain cells to rub together.

            An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

            by rini6 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:48:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  sadly so. re: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah

      "Since the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 dissolved old legal separations and constraints, commercial banking, insurance, securities, and mortgage lending have intertwined like tossed four-colored linguine in a bowl."

      I think Phillips was talking about the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act under President Clinton.

      It was irresponsible and eliminated the wall between commercial banks and the insurance business/investment banking/hedge funds etc.
      Banks no longer were limited to lending and borrowing but could now take on the risk of financial derivatives driven by greed over fees.
      I don't think anyone has a clue about the real risks behind these funky black box derivatives.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site