I've often worried that power corrupts in the presidency. And I hoped that Obama would handle the job better than the presidents before him. But a series of choices he's made indicate that he's a tool of big finance and that bodes ill for our country.
Can anyone explain why the banks that defrauded shareholders out of billions due to risky debts should get off scott-free while the US auto industry, which has been in decline for at least 30 years, is being held accountable for their (in)actions? Obama's latest move, to force out the head of GM because of his failure to set the former largest employer in the world on a successful track makes sense. But not yanking out the CEO's of AIG, Chase, and Citibank is infuriating.
I'm thoroughly opposed to helping out the banking industry. The largesse that Obama's team has blessed them with -- tax monies from both current and future US citizens -- is unprecedented and undeserving. When was the last time a bank offered to share their profits with taxpayers? If they fail, and refuse to make changes to their business practices and leadership, then they should fail on their own. To hell with them -- they grew too big for their britches. Perhaps the lesson we as a nation should learn from this is that real oversight is needed, and keeping banks as smaller lending institutions makes more sense than allowing them unfettered growth.
I'm not sure why Obama has such great support from liberals since he's only half-fulfilling his promises to fix our government. I applaud his moves against torture and towards improving our international relations with other nations by 180 degrees. However, he's still kind of a suckup to large financial organizations, and they can't be trusted -- so why do we keep trusting him?
**
I hate banks except for the banks of the Mississipi River, Ernie Banks, and banks of Fender Amplifiers" - Mojo Nixon
**
By the way, it's not right when people hack into my tags to change them.
That kind of recklessness discourages folks from participating on DailyKos forums.