Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 27, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar
The Associates

The Associates

By Richard Rayner

more items

Email this item Print this item

Live Chat: Robert Scheer on Obama and Big Business (Update: Video)

Posted on Jul 15, 2010

(Page 2)

11:22 ZeusBizNews via twitter
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:22:47 GMT

 CNN Money: Is the U.S. battery business for real?: President Obama is once again stumping for stim… #Business #Money

11:22 Question From dick ginnold
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:22:58 GMT
Comment: Why isn’t Obama more aggressive? Just his nature and conservatism or a tactic that he thinks will work?

11:27 Comment From WSmart
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:27:38 GMT
Comment: Nader says it’s a one-party system, and I agree. As long as people are willing to vote to win rather than vote for the issues, you will get whatever this duopoly says you get and you’ll like it, period. If winning is everything to the voter why shouldn’t it be everything in Washington, the world be damned, for real.

11:27 Robert Scheer
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:27:45 GMT

 (To dick ginnold) That’s a complex question. I think Obama, being the first African-American president, was properly forewarned that he would be savaged for anything he did and he’s been under a lot of pressure to prove that he’s just like any white American male president, that he is capable of governing from an established center. Connected to that is the power of Wall Street to say that “if you don’t play with us, we will pull the rug from under you.” So any American president down in our history has found that he is the subject of blackmail by the big financial corporate interest. And at key moments with presidents, the Roosevelts, Truman, who took on the steel industry, they had to say, “I’m not going to submit to your blackmail and instead I’m going to do what is better for the American people,” and unfortunately Obama, and I think this is the great disappointment of this administration, he turned economic policy over to some bad actors, the aforementioned Geithner and Summers, who both were on the record for their actions in the Clinton administration. Summers while he was advising Obama was getting money from hedge funds, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, saying what’s good for Wall Street is good for mainstream. Why [Obama] would turn to elitist society to deal with a recession that Wall Street created is frankly beyond me.


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile

11:27 Truthdig
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:27:52 GMT

 Question from abikecommuter of Belmont: “So what is the president getting for being Bush As Usual over Guantanamo, Honduras, climate change, etc.? After Nancy Pelosi bailed him out on health care from a Jimmy Carter Tailspin? Isn’t the president compromising the most effective House leader in a number of generations with his commitment to war, bailed-out banks, CEOs like Jamie Dimon (cover of NYT Business) and offshore drilling?”

11:30 amyparsnews via twitter
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:30:46 GMT

 When Obama promised to create jobs did he really mean for the Chinese and Indians instead of the U.S.?

11:33 Robert Scheer
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:33:27 GMT

 (To abikecommuter of Belmont) Absolutely. Again, the point is he is compromising the spirit that elected him. Remember he was attacked by Palin as being that community organizer, and a socialist, the bleeding-heart liberal; well we need more of that [those qualities in Obama]. We have a lot of people losing their jobs—we need a little of that [those Obama qualities] and we need to hold the scoundrels accountable. I think a lot of us voted for Obama because he had a heart, and instead it’s Vietnam all over again. The really smart, best and brightest are leading us astray. The tip-off on this is not just Pelosi. You have good people like Russ Feingold—no better person in the U.S.  government to deal with these issues than Feingold—he dealt with these issues in the past and is incredibly smart about it. He voted against the Clinton reversal and was warning about this problem in the ’90s and announced that he could not vote for this legislation if it did not restore the Volcker Rule on becoming too big to fail, and instead of changing the legislation to obtain Feingold’s vote, they chucked him overboard and went with [senators] like Brown from Massachusetts and weakened the bill in order to get their vote rather than strengthen it and get Feingold’s.

11:33 Comment From Turd Furgeson
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:33:33 GMT
Comment: Most people would agree that the most important thing for people to do when presidential elections roll around is vote. Just get out there and vote. I would disagree, noting that most people don’t do enough research to make educated and rational decisions, they just pick a name. I would rather those people that don’t know what they’re voting about not vote at all. I see those people as dangerous. What do you think? Should people that don’t know about politics be pressured into just picking a name?

11:33 Comment From Kawika
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:33:37 GMT
Comment: Robert, I’ve been thinking about the whole concept of creating change by voting for the lesser of two evils and then pushing that politician towards a more progressive direction. I guess I feel that it won’t work. Voting for who you really feel will institute policies that you believe in might not get them elected, but maybe having the worse of two evils in office will speed up a collapse that might actually create meaningful reform.

11:33 Comment From Turd Furgeson
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:33:41 GMT
Comment:@ abikecommuter of Belmont

11:33 Comment From WSmart
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:33:44 GMT
Comment: He didn’t say, did he!

11:33 Comment From Ryan Blatz
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:33:59 GMT
Comment: Why can’t we get a young new moderate liberal to champion the idea that the old way of doing things has got to change with a platform focused on campaign finance reform, reducing defense spending, and creating some confidence in our leadership system.  Republicans won by talking about values ... something every person can understand. The Democrats just talk about issues, and no one understands and no one listens. We need someone to run on the values of common sense and integrity.

11:34 Truthdig
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:34:03 GMT

 Question from Jason Logan from Vancouver, Canada:
“Hi Bob. I’m portraying George Soros in the Canadian premiere of David Hare’s play about the financial crash, “The Power of Yes”. What’s your opinion of Soros & what he’s done—his Open Society Institute & funding many left-wing causes? Does he really bankroll a “shadow government” for the U.S.? What do you think of him?”

11:37 Robert Scheer
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:37:44 GMT

 (To Jason Logan) I think Soros has done what an enlightened capitalist has done and should do, which is try to look for long-term interest of the economic system that has benefited himself, and what he represents is an enlightened view of his self-interest that has been absent in Wall Street. So I think both Soros, Buffett, even Gates to some extent, his father certainly, that these people are thinking at least in the future and, interestingly enough, there was just a profile with Malone, the telecommunication mogul, and he mentioned that the whole economy is collapsing and he’s pointed with pride that he has 29 miles of land on the Canadian-U.S. border and he said if the U.S. economy collapses, he will retreat to Canada because they are a more stable system. There’s an example of a corporate mogul who complained about regulation and yet now he is saying that the worst could be happening and he will go off to Canada, which after all has a more enlightened health care policy and so forth, and I thought that was very interesting. 

11:38 Tony
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:38:14 GMT

 When Obama promised to create jobs did he really mean for the Chinese and Indians instead of the U.S.?

11:41 Robert Scheer
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:41:55 GMT

 (To Tony) I am totally opposed to the scapegoating of China and India, which is implicit in that question. We the U.S., our stupid policies created this mess for the world. This was not an act of God, it was not an inevitable cycle of the business cycle and was not created by India and China. Yes, there are problems with international trade, but they are being dealt with by people in China, just like in Japan, that you have to share the wealth and can’t base it all on cheap labor. China, which is carrying so much of our debt, responded to this crisis, which we created, by spending a lot of money, building roads, improving conditions in their country to create jobs, not to steal jobs from us, they spent a lot of money on infrastructure and are in a period of robust growth. They have responded to this crisis which we created with what are basically Keynesian solutions from the Great Depression that our own government has failed to follow. 
Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
They Know Everything About You -- A new book by Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer. Order an autographed copy now!

Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Dave Tonetti, July 17, 2010 at 12:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hello Bob et al.,
I appreciate the opportunity to listen to this and even moreso, appreciate your insights into contemporary America. It was touched upon, but I really think the point needs to be hammered and that is simply this; America is totally screwing itself with this hell bent for leather militarization. It is absolutely insane the amount of money that is granted to the military (and private for-profit military contractors), and the military industrial complex, especially as America’s infrastructure goes further and further into decay. The militarization of American society will be its demise, like every empire preceding it. Sad not to learn anything from history.

Report this

By freelyb, July 16, 2010 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

Voting third party soon.

Report this

By archivesDave, July 16, 2010 at 2:06 am Link to this comment

Bob, shame on you, giving a ‘B’ to this dismal financial bill.
Webster Tarpley would give it an ‘F’ and here’s why:

Report this

By Richard Nixon, July 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to Kawika who said “Mr. Nixon and Furgeson, it’s a dangerous
path; the contemplation of removing citizens’ right to vote because of one
person’s view of the correct political path.”

Sorry I bailed a little early on the chat or I would have responded. Yes I know
that it is dangerous to do this and never would suggest it. I’m just saying I see
most people as uneducated when it comes to voting (in terms of who/what
they are actually voting for), don’t vote for the real person they want, don’t
know enough about 3rd party candidates to know if they would actually want
them or not. Even though I think this, I still think everyone should have a
chance to vote.

I just don’t know what to do about it. This is probably why Nader wants more
media because he sees that mainstream media basically takes the two
candidates and shows the majority of the U.S. that this is what they have to
support. There are no other options and if you want to support those other
options what is the point because there are only these two.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide