From what i read Obama maintained status quo and was not as progressive so the people most to gain from reform became the ones most victimized. He didnt actively do anything good or bad.

Is having the power and doing nothing worst than someone actively taking it away. I want to say yes but I also think the rapist is worst than the guy that just watched.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Bailing out the banks was an actively bad thing. That's what gave the banks the power to barrel through with the rampant foreclosures that annihilated PoC wealth.

This is like saying FDR was great because he saved capitalism from destroying itself. If they had done nothing at all it would've been better in the long run because the crisis would have destroyed capitalism and we could finally move on to a system that puts human need above the acculumation of endless wealth.

Besides, this is completely ignoring the pillaging of Libya that took place under Obama, where Libya went from a forward-looking (yet flawed) democratic country to a failed state ruled by human trafficking operations and various statelets that control oil fields. It's the only place with open air slave trafficking markets. It ignores the occupation of Afghanistan that also took place under his watch. The expansion of the surveillance state, Guantanamo, the US-Mexico border camps, the support of Israel during 2012's Gaza bombings, the drone strikes in Pakistan and several other atrocities.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 points 2 days ago

I thought the same back then but I'm not sure if that's entirely the right call now. I think we both agree None of those banks should have gotten the parachute in that form. I think now they should have stiffer punishments and guidelines but of course even if they did I bet govt wouldn't have followed through anyway.

load more comments (2 replies)