With Obama saying he'll vote for the FISA bill, and other positions he's been taking, his glow is beginning to dim somewhat for me. I know he's having to take "political" positions because in some instances, the choices are very, very poor. And it's confusing--sometimes I don't think I know anything at all about him except that he charisma and I agree with most of his positions. But, yes, I know, performance in office will give us the best assessment of his views.
But from my viewpoint, this campaign is starting to look like too many others. I just have this strange gut feeling...after all, he's not Superman or Jesus Christ...or any other mythical figure. Of course I'll vote for him, but I want to hear more, much more.
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
With Obama saying he'll vote for the FISA bill, and other positions he's been taking, his glow is beginning to dim somewhat for me. I know he's having to take "political" positions because in some instances, the choices are very, very poor. And it's confusing--sometimes I don't think I know anything at all about him except that he has charisma and I agree with most of his positions. But, yes, I know, performance in office will give us the best assessment of his views.
But from my viewpoint, this campaign is starting to look like too many others. I just have this strange gut feeling...after all, he's not Superman or Jesus Christ...or any other mythical figure. Of course I'll vote for him, but I want to hear more, much more.
This is a news story to watch carefully. The head of Wachovia was recently "encouraged" to retire and the bank is under investigation by the Feds. Seems that they came up with some agreements with Mexican banks to do money transfers that were used for money laundering by drug cartels.
Also, don't forget that Wachovia is actually First Union. First Union absorbed about eighty banks in the 1980s and 90s and purchased Wachovia in 2001. First Union had such a bad reputation with the public at the time that they basically purchased Wachovia for the name. It was spun to the press as a "merger of equals", with First Union wanting to take on the corporate culture and good customer relations that Wachoiva had developed. Funny - it didn't work out that way.
Wachovia was one of 53 entities that contributed the maximum, $250,000, to the 2005 inaugeration of GW Bush. Since the First Union/Wachovia merger, the bank has continued to gobble up other banking and brokerage firms.
Also, according to a May 2007 article in the New York Times, Wachovia was found negligent in a massive identity theft fraud, where companies used unsigned checks to withdraw funds from customer accounts. In April of this year, Wachovia paid a fine of over $144 million - the largest ever assessed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency - because of this scandal.
The financial industry, over the past decade or so, seems to think that financial negligence and bad management can be solved by simply merging or selling out to another firm and Wachovia's history is a prime example.
It's time to draw a line and say "no" to this kind of reckless business behavior. Consumers depend so much on financial institutions for managing different parts of our lives that we have to start questioning what's going on here.
MNUSA
· 1 year ago
The banks are like our government - houses of cards. They cut staff, benefits and salaries to ensure the executives get their bonuses. They don't know how to make money anymore. But the executives have to get their bonuses. They're being sucked dry by the people at the top.
SoLeftImRight
· 1 year ago
Chris, first, try spelling Wachovia correctly. Second, why do you keep calling it a "Republican free market"? In what world do you live in (and trust me, I love Paris!) where you think the "Democratic free market" is any different? Do you think a Democratic Congress (which, oh yeah, we kind of have) or a Democratic President is going to prevent a Morgan-Wachovia merger if that's what they decide to do? First of all, it does create a massive bank, and I'm not too in favor of a merger on its face, but at the end of the day, it's not combining markets that overlap very much, it's not a case of monopoly. They're both (JP obviously) essentially "too big to fail" so it's never going to be prevented by the various politicians who get mega-bucks in both parties from these characters. Let's call foul where we find it, but let's not be dishonest. We're supposed to be leaving the shrill nonsense to the Republicans and the wingnuts.
All Comments
California: Staggering 115000 new uneployed
Obama became FISA wanker at ATRIOS
Nunn, Edwards on VP list
Obama stresses family values
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465
But from my viewpoint, this campaign is starting to look like too many others. I just have this strange gut feeling...after all, he's not Superman or Jesus Christ...or any other mythical figure. Of course I'll vote for him, but I want to hear more, much more.
But from my viewpoint, this campaign is starting to look like too many others. I just have this strange gut feeling...after all, he's not Superman or Jesus Christ...or any other mythical figure. Of course I'll vote for him, but I want to hear more, much more.
Also, don't forget that Wachovia is actually First Union. First Union absorbed about eighty banks in the 1980s and 90s and purchased Wachovia in 2001. First Union had such a bad reputation with the public at the time that they basically purchased Wachovia for the name. It was spun to the press as a "merger of equals", with First Union wanting to take on the corporate culture and good customer relations that Wachoiva had developed. Funny - it didn't work out that way.
Wachovia was one of 53 entities that contributed the maximum, $250,000, to the 2005 inaugeration of GW Bush. Since the First Union/Wachovia merger, the bank has continued to gobble up other banking and brokerage firms.
Also, according to a May 2007 article in the New York Times, Wachovia was found negligent in a massive identity theft fraud, where companies used unsigned checks to withdraw funds from customer accounts. In April of this year, Wachovia paid a fine of over $144 million - the largest ever assessed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency - because of this scandal.
The financial industry, over the past decade or so, seems to think that financial negligence and bad management can be solved by simply merging or selling out to another firm and Wachovia's history is a prime example.
It's time to draw a line and say "no" to this kind of reckless business behavior. Consumers depend so much on financial institutions for managing different parts of our lives that we have to start questioning what's going on here.