On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
On 2010-10-28, at 3:35 PM, c b wrote:
Jim D:
...the bail-out could have
been combined with putting the bailed-out institutions under
conservatorship -- or simply insisting on being paid for loans with
corporate equity (stock). (Call it "nationalization," if you will,
but
it wouldn't be socialism.)
^^^^^
CB: Not with Congress with the current sum of Republicans +
Rightwing Democrats.
As a comrade said to me the 2008 elections did not constitute a
compelling mandate for far reaching change nor were the necessary
forces were present to make such a election mandate.
I'm with Jim here. Obama may never, as you claim, have mustered
enough congressional votes for a bigger stimulus, tougher bank
regulation or restructuring, public healthcare, or mandatory
mortgage relief. But it was well within the realm of possibility
that, given the political will, he could have forced congress to act
- or at least have demonstrated leadership - by using the bully
pulpit of the Presidency to sustain and rally the broad coalition
which propelled him to power.
Congress has nothing to do with it. The Office of President has
virtually unlimited constitutional power. Congress wasn't needed for
FDR to declare a "bank holiday." Absolutely nothing stood in the way
of Obama's declaring a national emergency (nobody pretends that it
wasn't a real emergency) and placing insolvent too-big-to-fail banks
into receivership. The fact is that he was the bought-and-paid-for
slave of the banksters. He didn't use his powers because he had not
the least desire to do anything of the sort. That's all, folks.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
