Ok, I'm no economist. I don't understand this bailout thing. I know the experts say it's necessary. To me it sounds like we're saving greedy bankers (I found it interesting to hear this morning that the banks are lobbying for the bill to pass but against the provision that limits how much bank CEOs can make.... interesting).
I read Senator Obama's remarks here and thought, "Did he just say what I thought he said?" Because it sure sounded like he said screw the environment, the working class, the poor, the elderly, veterans, etc. We need to hold off on those proposals to save greedy bankers. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but a vote for Nader is sounding better than ever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Rachelle - any reason the date on this post is showing up as last Wednesday?
It's not for me?
Okay...I think you did read this wrong, because to me it says Obama believes the bailout is necessary (for the economy - not for rich bankers) and he wants to work to protect taxpayers and prevent CEOs from getting big payouts. Where did you read, "screw the environment, the working class, the poor, the elderly, veterans, etc. We need to hold off on those proposals to save greedy bankers"??
I got that because he is saying he is going to have to hold off on his initiatives he has been campaigning on because of this bailout.
I'm not going to vote for Nader. I am going to vote for Obama. I just hate feeling jerked around every four years like there is some huge gap between the parties. I feel like there is one, just not a big one.
We read a book called "The Famished Road" in a class on Magical Realism. In the book the subject of party politics is broached. Essentially, the story presents two parties one "the party of the wealthy" and the other "the party of soured milk." They are called this because they give handouts to the poor - the "soured milk" - in hopes of getting their votes. In class, most everyone agreed that in a two party system there really is no party that fights for the poor; just one that is willing to give shitty handouts in exchange for votes.
I feel like someone really fighting for the environment, the poor, the elderly, etc. Wouldn't be elected.
I know this sounds negative, and, to reassure, I will vote for Obama, but it just makes me wonder.
Also, I'm in an overly pessimistic kind of mood in the last few weeks. So, forgive my cynicism.
It also appears the section I read has been edited out. So I can see why my post wouldn't have made much sense!
Post a Comment