General Question

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Do you agree with Naomi Klein?

Asked by SquirrelEStuff (9116points) October 5th, 2008 from iPhone

She says Bush creates crises to enrich himself and his friends. What do you think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

La_chica_gomela's avatar

No, I think that’s crap. Crises make him look bad. Looking bad is never good if you’re a politician.

critter1982's avatar

Agreed with La Chica. Do you have a link to an article, I’d be interested in reading her bogus statements?

mabd's avatar

La Chica Gomela, crises do indeed make him look bad, but they also get him what he wants through fear and a sense of heightened urgency:
9/11 -> patriot act
financial crisis -> bailout

Critter, I’m surprised that you would call her statements bogus if you have not read them yet.

What I have read and recommend is her book called “The Shock Doctrine”.

La_chica_gomela's avatar

You bring up a good point, but why would he care more about the patriot act than his approval ratings? That doesn’t make sense to me.

Just to be clear, I was reacting to the question posed by chris the way he said it. I have no idea who Naomi Klein is or if she really said that. I’m just saying what I think about that idea, just like critter.

It’s an interesting theory, but in the end, i just can’t buy into it, from the information i have so far. it doesn’t seem plausible. not that i don’t think he would stoop that low, but that i don’t think it would make sense for him.

besides that, if you look at the practices of fannie mae and freddie mac in recent history, it becomes quite apparent why this happened, and bush had nothing to do with it.

i just read a very interesting article about it in the new york times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=fannie%20and%20freddie&st=cse&oref=slogin

Maverick's avatar

Well, I’m not sure I would say he “creates” crisis – I think that is just a natural offshoot of this Republican Administration’s complete and utter incompetance. I would say, however, that they have certainly used fear to get what they want and enrich their friends. Clearly Bush wanted to invade Iraq, for any reason, and Haliburton has certainly profited. The current economic crisis will certainly benefit a lot of rich bankers and probably nobody else.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

@la chica

Google naomi Klein colbert

While I agree that Bush did not create the practices used by FM and FM, (Clinton signed the deregulation) Bush and his boys created the urgent need to pass the bill quickly (patriot act also).
Have you heard any economists views on the bailout?? I cant post links, but do a google search and you wsee ee that many thought of to be a bad idea.

qashqai's avatar

Bush jr. -> Non exhisting nuclear weapons reports -> Iraq -> war -> Carlyle group -> Bush sr.

susanc's avatar

I think Bush is a true believer – he really believes, the same way he believes Jesus chose him for his job, that he’s doing the right thing. But his worldview is very tiny, because he’s never been outside the tiny world of the unutterably privileged, so when he makes moves that line the pockets of the kind of people he and his family know, he believes he’s doing the right thing. (He also believes strongly in “trickle-down”; and for those who don’t benefit from the enrichment of the rich, there’s always the classic Reward in Heaven for their patience.) This worldview isn’t exactly conscious, perhaps, but having unconsciousness doesn’t pardon his actions. He was advised against plenty of his mistakes. Now, about Dick Cheney…...

critter1982's avatar

@mabd: No matter what the particular statement was by Naomi, I believe that the thought process that President Bush would intentionally create crises to enrich himself and his friends is obsurd.

@chris6137: It wasn’t Bush that generated the need for something to be done. It was the failing banks and the market itself (401K’s were a major concern. I don’t necessarily agree with the bailout (mainly becuase I don’t fully understand it and all of the implications) but there unfortunately was an urgent need for “something” to be done.

kevbo's avatar

I realize this is still speculative, but if you found out that Wall Street may not take the bailout package because it is “too cumbersome,” then what do you make of all the song and dance from the President and Paulson about how Congress needed to take immediate action? Imagine if this wasn’t 5 weeks before the election and the public hadn’t become outraged and the first version had passed? We would have given the Secretary of the Treasury (an executive branch position) unprecedented powers.

Here’s an interesting provision in the revised bailout:

Banks no longer have to keep even a small amount of people’s bank accounts available as cash. They don’t have to fail, they can just say they are out of cash today. Your money is still there, FDIC does not kick in, but they just stop giving out money..

This provision was already slated to kick in in 2011, but the revised bailout bill has allowed it to take effect immediately.

susanc's avatar

Holy shit.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther