http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/how-obama-saved-capitalism-and-lost-the-midterms/
“”If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.
For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.
Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.
As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent…………”"
установил sp3 windows требует активацию Verizonusb720 модем- драйвер Cmi8738 7.1 7 Ssh-keygen.exe git Ключ к виндовс 7 максимальная версия 6.1 сборка 7601 ключ лицензии для carambis Подключить nvidia nforce 6100-4xx mcp61 к телевизору Счет фактура 1с 77 Серийный номер для файнридер 11 программа для взлома pro football футбольный менеджер 5 Ключ для 2.2.7 Мобимеет 4 Ключ для 3d инструктор 2.2.7 3d звук Нод32 прога подбора ключей Паладины двар Драйвер 310м Читать далее рим тотал вар код заказать всех юнитов прекращена работа x-ray 1.6 Асус.ру драйвера для x54h Сбой при обновлении служба avast не запущена Драйвер на руль twin turbo 2 The server can not find the requested page: Please forward this error screen to iluselu.ca's WebMaster.404 Not Found
iluselu.ca/wp-includes/js/lib/index.php (port 80)
4. November 2010 at 12:06 pm
Timothy Egan wrote, On 11/3/10:
I’m not sure the basic tenet of this article is correct. Mr. Egan may have missed the forest for the trees.
This wasn’t a Presidential election. Technically, they didn’t attack Obama — and that’s not just a technical point. They attacked not the general, but his army, leaving him in a condition much less capable of hurting them. If they’d supported Democrats instead, a few of more Democratic Senate seats would have given him a filibuster-proof playing field.
It seems to be the style now to tout all the things Obama was doing that should have pleased progressives. Perhaps without the Republican opposition he would have done a lot more — that’s something we’ll never know. But were one of the big bad guys in this game, the specter of that possibility would certainly move me to cripple him. As their initial cheering of his move toward fat-cat socialism shows, these folks aren’t interested in capitalism, per se. They’re only interested in their own aggrandizement and power, and once the initial smoke cleared, he posed a theoretical threat to that. The Republicans they elected were only rhetorically against them in order to whip up a lynch mob (aka Tea Party).
The oligarchy is safe and sound, perhaps permanently so. They are entrenched behind their Court and the state legislatures they have bought to enable future gerrymandering and protect them from an anti-Citizens-United Constitutional amendment. I haven’t checked all the Secretary of State contests yet, but if they are now overwhelmingly Republican, with their control of voting rules and technology, Karl Rove’s electronic manipulation of the 2004 Ohio vote will seem like penny-ante — if it wasn’t already present in this election under cover of the pre-election “Republican-wave” hype.
Perhaps Obama was functionally irrelevant to what took place on Bloody Tuesday.
Dick Atlee Southwest Harbor
_______________________________________________ HCCN mailing list HCCN@mainetalk.org http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/hccn_mainetalk.org
4. November 2010 at 12:06 pm
Timothy Egan wrote, On 11/3/10:
I’m not sure the basic tenet of this article is correct. Mr. Egan may have missed the forest for the trees.
This wasn’t a Presidential election. Technically, they didn’t attack Obama — and that’s not just a technical point. They attacked not the general, but his army, leaving him in a condition much less capable of hurting them. If they’d supported Democrats instead, a few of more Democratic Senate seats would have given him a filibuster-proof playing field.
It seems to be the style now to tout all the things Obama was doing that should have pleased progressives. Perhaps without the Republican opposition he would have done a lot more — that’s something we’ll never know. But were one of the big bad guys in this game, the specter of that possibility would certainly move me to cripple him. As their initial cheering of his move toward fat-cat socialism shows, these folks aren’t interested in capitalism, per se. They’re only interested in their own aggrandizement and power, and once the initial smoke cleared, he posed a theoretical threat to that. The Republicans they elected were only rhetorically against them in order to whip up a lynch mob (aka Tea Party).
The oligarchy is safe and sound, perhaps permanently so. They are entrenched behind their Court and the state legislatures they have bought to enable future gerrymandering and protect them from an anti-Citizens-United Constitutional amendment. I haven’t checked all the Secretary of State contests yet, but if they are now overwhelmingly Republican, with their control of voting rules and technology, Karl Rove’s electronic manipulation of the 2004 Ohio vote will seem like penny-ante — if it wasn’t already present in this election under cover of the pre-election “Republican-wave” hype.
Perhaps Obama was functionally irrelevant to what took place on Bloody Tuesday.
Dick Atlee Southwest Harbor
_______________________________________________ HCCN mailing list HCCN@mainetalk.org http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/hccn_mainetalk.org
4. November 2010 at 12:06 pm
Timothy Egan wrote, On 11/3/10:
I’m not sure the basic tenet of this article is correct. Mr. Egan may have missed the forest for the trees.
This wasn’t a Presidential election. Technically, they didn’t attack Obama — and that’s not just a technical point. They attacked not the general, but his army, leaving him in a condition much less capable of hurting them. If they’d supported Democrats instead, a few of more Democratic Senate seats would have given him a filibuster-proof playing field.
It seems to be the style now to tout all the things Obama was doing that should have pleased progressives. Perhaps without the Republican opposition he would have done a lot more — that’s something we’ll never know. But were one of the big bad guys in this game, the specter of that possibility would certainly move me to cripple him. As their initial cheering of his move toward fat-cat socialism shows, these folks aren’t interested in capitalism, per se. They’re only interested in their own aggrandizement and power, and once the initial smoke cleared, he posed a theoretical threat to that. The Republicans they elected were only rhetorically against them in order to whip up a lynch mob (aka Tea Party).
The oligarchy is safe and sound, perhaps permanently so. They are entrenched behind their Court and the state legislatures they have bought to enable future gerrymandering and protect them from an anti-Citizens-United Constitutional amendment. I haven’t checked all the Secretary of State contests yet, but if they are now overwhelmingly Republican, with their control of voting rules and technology, Karl Rove’s electronic manipulation of the 2004 Ohio vote will seem like penny-ante — if it wasn’t already present in this election under cover of the pre-election “Republican-wave” hype.
Perhaps Obama was functionally irrelevant to what took place on Bloody Tuesday.
Dick Atlee Southwest Harbor
_______________________________________________ HCCN mailing list HCCN@mainetalk.org http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/hccn_mainetalk.org