Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

[blazespinnaker]

http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/...obama-presiden

I'm often surprised this theory doesn't get more play, especially on iTulip. I'm generally very anti-conspiracy / anti-doom, but this this particularly thesis has always bugged me.

One thing I predicted and wish I had followed through on more carefully, was that after Obama got elected the markets would go back up. The reason being that the global forces at play did not want John McCain and his erratic ways .. they saw Obama as a more safe choice to bring some humility to America and so took the opportunity to manipulate the US election by pulling out money during that time. The timing was just too perfect.

I believe the bankers also felt that Obama was a safe choice and had a sense that he could be bought, or at least, could be controlled and Obama has proven to be a pawn of the Oligarchies by appointing insiders at every turn.

And what happened over the last couple of years? Massive, historical volatility. As we all know, it's during volatile times that great transfers of wealth occurs. Imagine being in a position to make that play.

If this theory holds and Obama can be controlled, then what does that say about the future? Will his curbs on risk taking banks have any real teeth? My guess is that they will not. Or perhaps they will, but Goldman and friends are quite happy to 'debank' now that they have squeezed out as much profit as they can. Or also possible, but less likely, Obama has decided to reject his bosses and remove them from power.

Further, what does this say about the markets going forward? If we assume the Oligarchies and World Money are still in control and own the presidency, what's their next play?

I think if Obama cooperates, we will see a return to normalcy and things will do well enough to get him re-elected in 2012. This will mean the markets will have to go up and the world will once again be flush with liquidity.

If Obama does not cooperate and starts acting ornery and/or a more suitable republican candidate comes along (doubtful, the republican party is full of jingoists), then the forces may try to remove him or simply not bother to do anything.

My guess - Obama will continue bowing, will continue talking smack about the banks but not really doing anything, and the markets will rise into 2012. A small dip between now and then might occur in order to show that countries are serious about trying to get their financial houses in order.

Perhaps there used to be a time when this wasn't possible. But lets face it, China is fascist. Petro dollar countries are fascist. Even Japan, to a degree, is fascist. At an international level, capitalism simply does not play.

And to be honest, let's all be truthful here, Obama could not be owned by these forces unless the American public wanted to him to be. Perhaps deep down, voters realize they are vulnerable and have become addicted to all that cheap credit. They *want* Obama to bow..

John McCain's odds of winning the presidency have plummeted in the past week. Just this morning, in fact, they hit a new low on Intrade: 36%.

In part, this plunge is of McCain's own making: The hamfisted charge to Washington, flip-flopping on the debate, and Bailout debacle have really hurt. Then there's the stock market: impoverished voters want change. And, as Paul Krugman notes, in part McCain's nosedive is the result of a critical decision by Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson earlier this month: To let Lehman Brothers fail.

Two weeks ago, on September 15th, Paulson let Lehman croak--and the credit markets went haywire. In short order, this led to the failure of AIG, WaMu, Wachovia, and the chaos of the emergency Wall Street Bailout.

September 15, not coincidentally, was the day on which John McCain's odds of winning peaked.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

I don't buy it.

Obama was winning all of the polls until the RNC convention.

McCain gained a bounce and than lost it a few weeks later.

The cause of the short-lived bounce was Palin. The Palin bubble wasn't burst by Lehman, but by Palin herself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4456249.shtml

Obama's advantage can be traced in part to independents, who favored Obama in late August, swung to McCain just after the Republican convention, and have now returned to Obama. Obama now leads McCain among independents 46 percent to 41 percent.

Obama now also leads McCain among women, a group that favored McCain by five points in polling taken just after the Republican convention, where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin became the second woman ever to be nominated to a major party ticket.

Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago.

[jtabeb]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

I think if Obama cooperates, we will see a return to normalcy and things will do well enough to get him re-elected in 2012.

Not possible

If Obama does not cooperate and starts acting ornery and/or a more suitable republican candidate comes along (doubtful, the republican party is full of jingoists), then the forces may try to remove him or simply not bother to do anything.

My guess - Obama will continue bowing, will continue talking smack about the banks but not really doing anything, and the markets will rise into 2012. A small dip between now and then might occur in order to show that countries are serious about trying to get their financial houses in order.

Perhaps there used to be a time when this wasn't possible. But lets face it, China is fascist. Petro dollar countries are fascist. Even Japan, to a degree, is fascist. At an international level, capitalism simply does not play.

And to be honest, let's all be truthful here, Obama could not be owned by these forces unless the American public wanted to him to be. Perhaps deep down, voters realize they are vulnerable and have become addicted to all that cheap credit. They *want* Obama to bow..

I think if Obama cooperates, we will see a return to normalcy and things will do well enough to get him re-elected in 2012.

Not possible, the PUBLIC realizes how bad the situation is, and that's it's getting worse, and that for the Trillions we spent last year, there isn't much (aside from the financial industry) to show for it (for the public). More and more people I talk to see this whole sham for what it is. The only thing that was keeping them from caring was that they thought they were benefiting along with the top 1%. Now that they (and their children) have, or will loose most everything, they have NO REASON to "go along, to get along" anymore.

Now that they know it was just a bunch of parlor tricks, and that top 1% get to keep theirs and (the rest of what the other 99% have) the game is exposed. No matter how criminal or fraudulent the financial system's activities, the public knows that there is NO justice in the legal system (for the Oligarchy), let alone a concept of social justice. Just witness the $23 Trillion in financial bailouts and $700 Billion in TARP, $1.5 Trillion in QE, etc.That is what the top 1% in the FIRE economy got.

What did the other 99% get? A small, ineffective stimulus bill that did not create a single job. The market can go up till the cows come home, people know and for the FIRST TIME UNDERSTAND, how rigged and deeply flawed the system is. (My god, The republicans were OPENLY LAUGHING at the President's speech several times, including, my favorite, when he was talking about the "Universal Scientific consensus on Climate Change". People are starting to understand that Cap and Trade is just a new way to transfer "RENTS" to the FIRE industry, that's all it is. And they KNOW that Cap and Trade is the new BUBBLE engine. They saw what happened with the last two bubbles, and they now think "thanks, BUT NO THANKS!!"


Perhaps there used to be a time when this wasn't possible. But lets face it, China is fascist. Petro dollar countries are fascist. Even Japan, to a degree, is fascist. At an international level, capitalism simply does not play.

You didn't say what you should have here. That is "WE, the US are now FASCIST TOO."

And to be honest, let's all be truthful here, Obama could not be owned by these forces unless the American public wanted to him to be. Perhaps deep down, voters realize they are vulnerable and have become addicted to all that cheap credit


I don't know what PLANET you are on. But MOST of US that voted for Obama (at least the people I've talked with), DID NOT VOTE TO PRESERVE A FAILING SYSTEM that rewards the criminal activity and morally bankruptcy of a elite that only serves to enrich themselves and their paymasters, a rapacious financial system, flawed monetary policy, INVALID scientific claims, increasing dishonesty, NOR a promulgation of the existing DEBT PEONAGE for all but the wealthiest 1% of society. WE THOUGHT we voted to change that system for the better. (I grant you, it didn't). We KNOW that we have a HARDER battle to fight now, but to think that after seeing the Light we will allow the status quo to "run over us" is false. We WILL CHANGE the system, ourselves through peaceful means of civil disobedience. We KNOW that the system REQUIRES our voluntary compliance to function. We KNOW that if we WITHHOLD our voluntary compliance, that the system is UNTENABLE.

THAT is how we will change! (One way, or another)

I don't know anyone who voted for a Fascist Oligarchy, and to give up their individual liberty of free choice and self-determination. There might be some, but I doubt if they read Itulip.

And to put the record straight, it is FALSE that ANYONE deserves the financial system of Debt Peonage or the increasingly Fascist Political system that we have today in this country. The only person who would make that claim is one who stands to benefit from the continued perpetuation of the status-quo. (In other words, an APOLOGIST Serving the ELITES). It was the same argument used to support slavery, and to argue against disbanding the First and Second Bank of the United States. The same justification was provided to support opposition to a woman's right to vote, and the civil right's movement. It is, quite simply, UN-AMERICAN!

[cjppjc]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

After 8 years of Bush the country was going to vote Dem. Another couple of years like this and the GOP will be back in the White House.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

And to put the record straight, it is FALSE that ANYONE deserves the financial system of Debt Peonage or the increasingly Fascist Political system that we have today in this country. The only person who would make that claim is one who stands to benefit from the continued perpetuation of the status-quo. (In other words, an APOLOGIST Serving the ELITES). It was the same argument used to support slavery, and to argue against disbanding the First and Second Bank of the United States. The same justification was provided to support opposition to a woman's right to vote, and the civil right's movement. It is, quite simply, UN-AMERICAN!

You do know that one of the major reasons fascism arose was to stop debt peonage right?

[jtabeb]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

You do know that one of the major reasons fascism arose was to stop debt peonage right?

For a country, yes (Germany), and more correctly speaking this was the vehicle that the fascist used to rise to power. I don't think Hitler was out for the good of the "common man" despite his rhetoric to the contrary (The Nazi Party members were one of the largest groups of millionaires at that time, funded by good old crony capitalism, of course). For a a group of people indebted to private interests, no, I'm not familiar. (Other than Huey Long's populism campaign before he was assassinated).

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

I don't buy it.

Obama was winning all of the polls until the RNC convention.

McCain gained a bounce and than lost it a few weeks later.

The cause of the short-lived bounce was Palin. The Palin bubble wasn't burst by Lehman, but by Palin herself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4456249.shtml

Obama's advantage can be traced in part to independents, who favored Obama in late August, swung to McCain just after the Republican convention, and have now returned to Obama. Obama now leads McCain among independents 46 percent to 41 percent. A well timed strike by Al Qaeda or some other revelation about Obama himself could have tipped the election into favor for McCain.

Obama now also leads McCain among women, a group that favored McCain by five points in polling taken just after the Republican convention, where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin became the second woman ever to be nominated to a major party ticket.

Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago.

Sure, but he was a black president of a rather historically racist nation. The first black president ever of a developed nation.

I can't imagine people thought his election was particularly probable. I know at the time Intrade certainly showed him as someone who could not be defeated.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

Fascism, in many ways, is a much more powerful system than democracy.

Might, however, does not make right.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

I don't know what PLANET you are on. But MOST of US that voted for Obama (at least the people I've talked with), DID NOT VOTE TO PRESERVE A FAILING SYSTEM that rewards the criminal activity and morally bankruptcy of a elite that only serves to enrich themselves and their paymasters, a rapacious financial system, flawed monetary policy, INVALID scientific claims, increasing dishonesty, NOR a promulgation of the existing DEBT PEONAGE for all but the wealthiest 1% of society. WE THOUGHT we voted to change that system for the better. (I grant you, it didn't). We KNOW that we have a HARDER battle to fight now, but to think that after seeing the Light we will allow the status quo to "run over us" is false. We WILL CHANGE the system, ourselves through peaceful means of civil disobedience. We KNOW that the system REQUIRES our voluntary compliance to function. We KNOW that if we WITHHOLD our voluntary compliance, that the system is UNTENABLE.

Itulip != the mass voting public.

The mass voting public want the american dream. They want to have their house, be able to go to dinner with the friends, take vacations, buy the car, etc etc.

I'm not sure Americans, in general, really want the cheap credit to stop flowing. If they understood what that really meant they'd probably freak out.

Regardless, I believe China and the Petro countries have a lot more control over the global and american economy than we give them credit for.

[Ghent12]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

Sure, but he was a black president of a rather historically racist nation. The first black president ever of a developed nation.

I can't imagine people thought his election was particularly probable. I know at the time Intrade certainly showed him as someone who could not be defeated.

I won't quibble with your first sentence except to ask what nation is not historically racist? Racist history is really a rather moot point and relevant only to modern racists, in my opinion.

Personally, the 2008 election was just a few months before my political awakening (where the good Doctor cured my apathy). My passing knowledge of the situation led me to conclude that the Republicans would win again; surely if Bush could get re-elected, no Republican could ever lose! I did not have the detailed knowledge that Carl Rove was the driving force behind that and that he was not on the McCain campaign. C'est la vie.

In hindsight, I think 2008 was the time when America chose once again to take the easy popular path instead of putting some critical thought into their decision. Now anti-war people are somehow surprised at President Obama's warmongering and war expansion, as if that wasn't one of his campaign talking points. Pro-Civil Liberties groups are similarly surprised by his actions. We had a real choice in 2008 for peace, security and financial stability, and it was lost in the Republican primaries due to the Republican establishment (for the most part).

Any thinking person should not be surprised that a Chicago politician is behaving like a Chicago politician.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

Or also possible, but less likely, Obama has decided to reject his bosses and remove them from power.

If I were Obama and I did that, I'd micro-manage the selection of my Secret Service detail with the same sort of paranoid and brutal hand as Saddam Hussein used.

[MulaMan]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

If I were Obama I'd impeach GW Bush and Dick Cheney right before the mid-terms.

In the UK Iraq War inquiry, but not getting much press over here:
-Blair was told the Iraqi war was illegal
-Blair knew GW Bush wanted to topple Sadam YEARS BEFORE 9/11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/no...hilcot-inquiry

In my opinion, GW Bush and Cheney commited high treason against America and the country will not heal until there is a proper trial and the truth comes out. If found quilty and then executed, that would be a positive outcome for America - no man is above the law.

Americans are cowards and/or retarded and/or brainwashed.

High treason is usually defined as participation in a war against one’s own country; attempting to overthrow its government; spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power; or attempting to kill its head of state.

“In this case, high treason has been interpreted to include pursuing an illegal and devastating war that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of over 4,000 Americans and perhaps a million Iraqis, for essentially insane ends,” said Vincent Bugliosi, a former federal prosecutor whom Feingold named lead special prosecutor in the case. “In effect, the Iraq War amounted to a war against America,” added Bugliosi, who is also the author of the book, The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder.

http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04...reason-charge/

[MulaMan]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

It is important the GOP Fox News crowd read this stuff and understand how brainwashed they are and in denial about the truth. All the information has always been there but people talking the truth were attacked as "anti-Americans' or fired by Dick Cheney scum.

Tony Blair's government knew that prominent members of the Bush administration wanted to topple Saddam Hussein years before the invasion but initially distanced itself from the prospect knowing it would be unlawful, it was disclosed at the Iraq inquiry today.
British intelligence also dismissed claims by elements in the US administration that the Iraqi leader was linked to Osama bin Laden, it heard.
Evidence given at the opening day of the inquiry, chaired by the former top civil servant Sir John Chilcot, painted a picture of a Whitehall slowly realising the significance of George Bush's election in November 2000 on US policy towards Iraq.
Even before Bush's administration came to power an article written by his then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, warned that "nothing will change" in Iraq until Saddam was gone, Sir Peter Ricketts, a former chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC) and now the Foreign Office's top official, told the inquiry.
"We were aware of these drumbeats from Washington and internally we discussed it. Our policy was to stay away from that part of the spectrum," added Sir William Patey, then head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office.
He revealed that in late 2001 – following the 9/11 attacks on the US – he asked officials at the ministry to draw up an Iraq "options" paper, including regime change. "We dismissed it at the time because it had no basis in law," Patey told the inquiry.
"We quite clearly distanced ourselves in Whitehall from talk about regime change," said Ricketts. Up to March 2002 "there was no increased appetite among UK ministers for military action in Iraq," he added.
Simon Webb, a former policy director at the Ministry of Defence, who also gave evidence today, described the issue of regime change in Iraq during the early days of the Bush administration as "the dog that did not bark. It grizzled, but it did not bark".
The exchanges on opening day of the inquiry are significant in the light of previously leaked documents which reveal that Blair told Bush in April 2002 – nearly a year before the invasion of Iraq – that he would in principle support military action "to bring about regime change".
A month earlier, David Manning, Downing Street foreign policy adviser at the time, told Blair that he had advised Rice: "You [Blair] would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a parliament, and a public opinion which is very different than anything in the States."
Yet in July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, was still warning the government that regime change was "not a legal basis for military action", according to leaked documents.
Pressed today by Sir Roderic Lyne, a member of the inquiry panel and a former UK ambassador to Moscow, to explain the JIC's assessment of the threat posed by Iraq at the time, Ricketts replied that it was a "major feature on the agenda but by no means dominant". The Balkans, Sierra Leone – where British forces were facing down rebels – and Afghanistan, were considered a higher priority, though attempts by Saddam to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction was "a continuing threat", he added. Patey said Iraq did not pose "an immediate threat".
The Iraq inquiry also heard that any lingering US sympathy for Britain's policy of "containment" of Saddam through UN sanctions quickly evaporated after 9/11. The Pentagon, rather than the US state department, became the "dominant instrument" in American foreign policy.
Moreover, voices in Washington were starting to link the Iraqi leader to al-Qaida. Ricketts said Britain had no evidence showing Iraq was "linked in any way to 9/11". He added: "We didn't have any such evidence."
Neocons in the Bush administration and the CIA claimed in the run-up to the invasion that Saddam was linked to al-Qaida, a claim dismissed at the time by MI6.

According to previously leaked documents, Ricketts, political director at the Foreign Office at the time, described the US in 2002 as "scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida", a link that was "so far frankly unconvincing". He told Jack Straw, then foreign secretary: "We have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for. Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam."

Lyne questioned why Britain and the US came to such different conclusions from other countries about the dangers Iraq posed. He asked: "With the exception of Kuwait, were the countries in the region banging on doors in London and Washington saying 'We're very worried about Saddam Hussein, please can you do something about him?'"

Patey replied: "I can't say my door was being knocked on very regularly."
One of the panel members, Lady Usha Prashar, later questioned whether official policy towards Iraq was about disarmament or regime change. "It seems a deliberate policy of ambiguity," she said. "I don't think that's true," replied Ricketts.

The inquiry also questioned officials about the legality and effect of no-fly zones imposed by the US and UK over northern and southern Iraq.
Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister would "of course" appear before the inquiry if he was asked, but so far he had not been.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

I buy more into the theory of letting Lehman fail to "show" the public the banks needed to be rescued and in the process help Goldman Sachs get rid of one of its main competitors. Especially when you look at all the ex-Goldman Sachs working as adviser or making policy starting with Henry Paulson...

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Failing Lehman to elect Barack Obama

Itulip != the mass voting public.

The mass voting public want the american dream. They want to have their house, be able to go to dinner with the friends, take vacations, buy the car, etc etc.

I'm not sure Americans, in general, really want the cheap credit to stop flowing. If they understood what that really meant they'd probably freak out.

Regardless, I believe China and the Petro countries have a lot more control over the global and american economy than we give them credit for.

With respect to fascism, I think you are wrong about the American dream. The people want to be part of something greater than themselves and to emulate the superior presented to them by our various propaganda apparatuses.

Americans, now more than ever, are ripe to be mobilized. They are truly hopeless, and most realize their lives are pointless. Simply look at how easily the masses are led in this country towards mindless consumerism, how our children so easily emulate the depravity of Hollywood culture, and how our elders - after finally giving up - engage in the most gluttonous self destruction henceforth unknown since Roman times.

The American Dream was nothing more than a consumerist nightmare foisted on the "Greatest Generation" thrown into turmoil by the depression and World War II. The gleefully indoctrinated their Boomer children with these vile morals, most of whom promptly went insane - and now we are stuck with the result.

Much of the antisocial behavior of Americans is best explained by the nihilism of our age. Particularly the youth, I am quite certain that if you give them the chance to strive for immortality and risk their lives to create a new society, they will gladly take that choice over "The American Dream".

The elderly certainly fear the end of the great Ponzi Scheme - but the youth? The men who are young enough to still possess sufficient stamina and bloodlust? I'm sure they would love nothing more for the end to come sooner rather than later, at least they will finally get some excitement in their lives.