What Obama really meant by change.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-28-bundlers_N.htm


More than 40% of President Obama's top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama's campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.

... snip ...

That's a rate higher than any president in more than four decades


Little did we suspect that when Obama spoke of *change* ...

he meant this kind of change:

$$$$$.

:D

[McHrozni]

Hm. A few of these are really important in diplomacy: ambassadors to France, UK, Canada, Japan and probably EU as well are surely among the top 10 US ambassadors in importance. It could be he just really trusted them more than career diplomats ... though that is somewhat questionable.

I'll withold the judgement for the time being, however.

McHrozni

[quarky]

No one is big enough to go against entrenched power.

The question remains: did Obama ever intend to deliver blows against the empire, or is he just another smooth-talking 'suit'?

My guess is that he's simply business as usual, in a fresh new flavor.
But even if he wasn't, what could he possibly hope to achieve?

We (American liberals) take pride in having a black president, at last.
Problem is, he's actually white. That's what they don't want to tell you.

Obama is another white, male president.

[wufwugy]

This is pretty hard to quantify. Obama IS change, he's just not as much of a change as we liberals hoped for, and we seem to engage in hyperbole and forget that he still is change. If McCain were in office you can guarantee that the vast majority of things that have happened since the inauguration would simply have not. The fact that we're even talking about reducing an iota of corporate power, about regulating banks, health reform, global warming, etc, is change.

But is it ENOUGH change? I think, unequivocally, the answer is no, but that is because we have become so deeply entrenched in corporatism, propaganda, entitlements, legal fraud and the violent contrast between economic success and global warming, etc, that the amount of change we will garner under Obama is simply not enough, and we're going to end up paying for it

[A.A. Alfie]

This is pretty hard to quantify. Obama IS change, he's just not as much of a change as we liberals hoped for, and we seem to engage in hyperbole and forget that he still is change. If McCain were in office you can guarantee that the vast majority of things that have happened since the inauguration would simply have not. The fact that we're even talking about reducing an iota of corporate power, about regulating banks, health reform, global warming, etc, is change.

But is it ENOUGH change? I think, unequivocally, the answer is no, but that is because we have become so deeply entrenched in corporatism, propaganda, entitlements, legal fraud and the violent contrast between economic success and global warming, etc, that the amount of change we will garner under Obama is simply not enough, and we're going to end up paying for it


If you could, what changes would you make?

[wufwugy]

If you could, what changes would you make?


Hmmm, it would take me days to consider and type up everything. A few ideas...

- Campaign finance and lobby reform. I'm not sure of the exact details, but the finished package would create a scenario in which wealthy special interests cannot generate a disproportionate level of funding. Basically, the vast majority of campaign finance would be public, and lobbyists for private interests would not be able to out-muscle public interests. The purpose for this is to keep our pseudo-corporatocracy from turning into a full-fledged corporatocracy, and to actually provide liberty a chance to thrive

- Universal health coverage. However, costs would be controlled by not providing the high cost/low effect care to those without extra financing. While it would be nice to be able to provide all levels of care for all people, I do not think that is economically possible

- End drug war immediately. All drugs become licensed and regulated

- End overseas war. Replace troops with strategic aid focused on supporting reform from within. Close all black sites. Reallocate troops to defend foreign aid

- Overturn Patriot Act, and in its place open up the adequate communications jurisdictions between intelligence agencies. This is what should have been done in the first place

- End illegal immigration, gun trafficking, and gang wars between US and Mexico. Do this by providing adequate control on the border, and providing the Mexican public sector with enough aid to become the US' partner instead of the red-headed step child

- Legalize companionship for pay, but heavily regulate it

- Modernize every school, dramatically raise teacher pay, and reduce class size by adding teachers and infrastructures.

- Provide adequate regulation on the banking industry, and overpowered corporate interests in general. Something for the banks could be as simple as overturning the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

- Place US on a path to be carbon negative by 2030. This still wouldn't be close enough to avoid serious climate change, but it will be among the many things necessary to avoid Armageddon.

And we would have enough money to pay for all this for two reasons...

- Put the banks and relevant parties that caused the Crisis of 08 on the hook for all the money they were given in bailouts as well as all the money that was lost in the recession. It would take a decade or so for them to pay it back, but the trillions of dollars that they stole would be used to pay for all the reform we need.

- Massively increase taxes on the super wealthy. Billionaires should not exist. At least not as long as a large chunk of the world's population lives on $1 a day


Oh, and I would give Texas to North Korea. Or at least let them secede from the union so they can realize what it's like to keep all their benefits but have to pay assloads in taxes to finance it

And bomb Britain. Or at least give them a stern talking to. That whole Cricket thing is unacceptable


P.S. What I suggest is sort of outlandish, but that's only because of the times, and it's all debatable. The point is that the socioeconomic paradigm of allowing those with the money to dictate the rules is one of the primary suspects in the world's problems. Reforming governance to a paradigm that encourages liberty and equality by discouraging special interests from exploiting the system is the goal

[applecorped]

Obama is another white, male president.


Just like Lincoln.:boxedin:

[linusrichard]

France is one thing, the Bahamas are another. I don't want the president giving the French ambassadorship out as a perk for campaign donations. At the same time, just because someone fundraised for Obama does not make him unqualified for the post. Maybe this is someone who has a bachelor's in international relations from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, is fluent in French, has done business in France for decades, and has had exposure to the diplomatic world at his father's knee. Is that enough of a qualification? I honestly don't know.
The last guy had more diplomatic experience (4 yrs., Czech Republic), also a Harvard MBA, and also a lot of business experience. At the same time, the last guy was also a co-owner of the Texas Rangers (with W), and, yes, Connecticut state chairman for the Bush/Cheney campaign.
The guy before that was another businessman, apparently not fluent in French, and happened to give $400,000 to Bush/Cheney.
The guy before that was from France, a former partner with Lazard Freres, and, what's this? A Perot supporter?

So, it looks to me like Obama and Bush have in common giving the post to a fundraiser/donor, and Obama and Clinton have in common giving the post to someone with real experience doing business in France.

Is that the lesson, here?

[Darth Rotor]

No one is big enough to go against entrenched power.

The question remains: did Obama ever intend to deliver blows against the empire, or is he just another smooth-talking 'suit'?

My guess is that he's simply business as usual, in a fresh new flavor.
But even if he wasn't, what could he possibly hope to achieve?

We (American liberals) take pride in having a black president, at last.
Problem is, he's actually white. That's what they don't want to tell you.

Obama is another white, male president.
Don't tell his wife. ;)

PS: quarky, great post. I chortled.

[Dancing David]

I am curious, why just teh top 47 fundraisers, how did they get that cut off?

Not that it is isn't a great story!

They keep saying the Dems should be more like the Reps!

[BeAChooser]

And bomb Britain. Or at least give them a stern talking to. That whole Cricket thing is unacceptable.


LOL!

[BeAChooser]

More of that Obama "Change" ($$$$$).

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/white-house-faces-questions-on-big-donor-maintenance-programs.html


The White House found itself on the defensive Wednesday as spokesman Robert Gibbs tried to answer questions about a Washington Times Investigation indicating that this White House - like those before it - rewarded big Democratic donors with access to the White House and its powerful players.

During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings," wrote Matthew Mosk. With internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times, Mosk wrote that high-dollar fundraisers were "promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections."

... snip ...

"We cannot let the rules of the game continue to be rigged against ordinary Americans," President Obama said last June. "We need a President who will look out for the interests of hardworking families, not just big campaign donors and corporate allies."


Wow. You mean to say this voice of *change* was just leading us on ... like all politicians? So "Ordinary". So "Average." Just like Krauthammer said. :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh, and I would give Texas to North Korea. Or at least let them secede from the union so they can realize what it's like to keep all their benefits but have to pay assloads in taxes to finance it

You posted a lot of idiotic stuff in that message (along with your pie in the sky Utopianism), but this one really takes the cake.

[wufwugy]

You posted a lot of idiotic stuff in that message (along with your pie in the sky Utopianism), but this one really takes the cake.


0% of what I posted was idiotic, and you 0% understood that the Texas comment was a joke. A joke with a ring of truth to it

[UnrepentantSinner]

0% of what I posted was idiotic, and you 0% understood that the Texas comment was a joke. A joke with a ring of truth to it

I 100% don't care whether it was a joke or not. It was still orders of inanatude greater than the rest of your idiotic Utopian post.

I know because I live in Texas. There's no ring of truth to your "joke" at all.

[wufwugy]

There's always at least one

[mhaze]

Someone wants to "give Texas to North Korea?"

I am sure that the liberal perspective of this matter would be that it is a smear on a presumed hotbed of conservatism, but the myopic view expressed is revealing.

It presumes that someone "owns" Texas and thus could "Give it away".

It presumes further, that Texas was a population of Sheeple with no say in the matter.

It presumes lastly, that Texas would not take over North Korea. Which is the more likely outcome of the joke. Ergo facto, the joke is on you..., Liberal Authoritarian Controller Personality Disorder victim demonstratably exercising full capability of both brain cells.

Oh, and by the way - The Texas state budget is balanced, and shows a profit. Unlike New York, California, Illinois, etc. The schemes that have bankrupted the hotbeds of liberal progressivism have a bit to actually learn about reality. New York has lost 15% of it's population, over a million people, in the last decade due to people fleeing oppressive taxation.

Jeer all you want, but recognize the jeers may be seen to be those of a fool.

[cwalner]

Looks like we are giving soulful love to the frozen north with this appointment.

Barry White Ambassador to Norway

Yeah, I know its probably not that Barry White, but it made me giggle.

[MikeMangum]

This is basically just the spoils system in action. It has its benefits and drawbacks, but it has been in use since the time of Jackson. I'm not a fan of Obama, but this doesn't seem to be a big deal to me, certainly it's not a change.