Fellow
Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
Obama campaigned on more transparency, but the widely supported bipartisan Audit the Fed bill has been around for awhile and he hasn't backed it yet. I'm not holding my breath. It's just more evidence that both Romney and Obama are part of the problem. It would be an interesting question to ask how much change the president potentially can provide? The fact is the Congress is largely detached from reality. Most people have been sitting there too long and they were not very bright to start with. So, the successful president needs to be really strong leader. Historically, my memory allows to get a feeling starting from Reagan. He certainly was able to make changes. GH Bush was transitional figure and he did not do much. Bill Clinton was very important. He basically destroyed the Democrat party as it was known in the past, and he placed it firmly under corporate control. Deregulation of the financial industry by Clinton associates (Rubin, Summers, Greenspan) paved the way to today's problems. GW Bush was also important. He was a front man though, military and security apparatus was running the show. Demolishing the towers was very important event, it takes a certain mindset, arrogance and determination to do that. The event again was related to military/security apparatus interest, but the eminent economic collapse signs were possibly a part of the decision. Obama has been a president of un-change. His desperate attempts to hold status quo against destructive forces are tragic and sad. "Magic negro" he was called when he was running for president first time. He has proved having a magical thinking all the way. We can not make sure assumptions about Romney. People who support him hope he can do what Obama is obviously failing, to keep economy steady without much change. It is an illusion, of course. He is not a radical reform-minded, decisive figure for sure.
|