Yes, that is what Obama said in Athens, Greece, November 15, 2016, about the US vote for Pluto Donald Trump. Yes.
Obama did not shake things up, but, according to Obama himself, Trump, a fixture of the US plutocratic scene since the early 1970s, will? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/15/obama-says-voters-wanted-shake-things-donald-trump/
From the horse’s mouth, says Obama: “The lesson I draw … is we have to deal with issues like inequality, we have to deal with issues like economic dislocation, we have to deal with people’s fears that their children won’t do as well as they have… Frankly that’s been my agenda for the last eight years. The problem was, I couldn’t convince a Republican Congress to pass a lot of them.”
We have to deal with inequality? Wow. That’s news. “Democratic” news. Well, with all due respect, that is was Obama’s agenda, is a misrepresentation: the problem is that there was no SERIOUS plan for SERIOUS change, and no SERIOUS will for SERIOUS change on the part of the Democratic supermajority, crammed with plutocrats and their sycophants.
Then Obama said of the election results, “Perhaps the view of the American people was just to shake things up.”
Wait: where not you, Obama, supposed to “shake things up?” What happened to you? To your shaking?
Obama himself explained that the presidential office grows on you, transforms the beholder… And that it will happen to Trump. Obama gave the example of himself, that he was all disorganized when he got to the White House, and then learned organization. All too organized, I would say, around a few plutocratic principles…
Truth: Obama was a child, a child who thought he was fully grown up. A child who, being at the right place at the right time, posing in the right way with an all-inclusive message, got elected president. However, Obama had strictly no idea what he wanted to do with his presidency. (Whereas Donald Trump is on the public record about some of the things he wanted to do as president since the 1970s…)
G. W. Bush, the self-described “Decider” ordered Obama to the White House, in October 2008, and the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, told Obama what the plan to rescue the US economy from the devastation caused by the financial plutocrats was going to be. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat heading Congress, had signed on it, after Hank Paulson had gone on one knee in front of her.
[In the graph above, notice the brutal take-off under Obama; Quantitative Easing kills commercial banks, thus kills the real economy; at the same time, it fed, & feeds, financial speculators, “investment banking”.]
As a good doggie, of the obedient type, Obama signed on the Paulson plan. After all, when you are going to be president, you may as well sell your soul to Goldman Sachs, no? What about when you are president no more, won’t they take care of you? Navigation, navigation. Then Obama spent his first two years enacting said Goldman Sachs plan, using all sorts of tricks to cover-up was truly being done. And not done.
TARP, Transferring Assets To Rich People, was then covered-up, in turn, by “Quantitative Easing” and “The Twist”. That was pure rhetoric, pure dishonesty. In practice, all newly created US money was sent to the richest of the wealthiest. And the same demented, unfair policy was extended throughout the West. Thus it was rather ironical that Obama was in devastated Greece, thoroughly unawares of the devastation he visited on Greece. (And why are not the high executives of Goldman Sachs not prosecuted for what they did to Greece?)
Out of the ashes of 2008 a new, stronger plutocracy arose. Proof? A certain Steve Mnunchin, ex-Goldman-Sachs partner, profited immensely from the Obama’s administration friendliness to financial manipulators (Mnunchin made 40 million dollars personally, thanks to Obama’s financial policies…).
Amusingly, Bannon, another Trump support, and now nominee, in charge of “strategy”, declared that his new boss, Donald Trump was “selling to Wall Street”. It’s a bit complex: if I were Trump, I may nominate a financial manipulator to help “drain the swamp”. In many cases, what matters is not who one supposedly is, but what one does.
In any case, all those who voted for Clinton, the Goldman Sachs candidate, should feel better: their much admired puppet master, Goldman Sachs, knows how to hedge. Mnunchin the munchkin is there to munch them down, the way they like it.
The son-in-law of Trump, the 35-year-old Kushner, is an immensely wealthy real estate developer, himself son of one. Kushner bought his own media at 25 years old. As an observant (!?) Jew, he defended Trump from the grotesque charges of anti-Judaism leveled at him, by the likes of Paul Krugman.
Trump has asked for the high security clearances for Kushner. So, no worry, we are not going to run out of plutocratic targets.
Meanwhile, a smug Joe Biden told the press, next to VP elect Pence, that there was a lot of immensely secret (paraphrasing) things nobody who had not been as high and as long in the system as he, Biden, knew, and know he was telling them all to Pence.
My lashing answer to the Goldman Sachs/Clinton nostalgia:
The truth is that the left, indeed, has let the left down. It has been corrupted by its corrupted luminaries. Now they are waking up. Nobel Joe Stiglitz, a part of the establishment with Paul Krugman said: ”Eighty percent of the activities revealed through the Panama Papers didn’t actually take place in Panama.” What’s needed is reform in the EU and US. But this reform did not happen under Obama, or the EU governments. “There is a widely shared perspective that these tax havens only exist because the United States and Europe have looked the other way.” Stiglitz suggested that empowered lobby groups on both sides of the Atlantic blocked progressive tax reforms for decades. It is not just this: even the suggestion of progressive reforms have been censored out of the Main Stream Media.
The solution is to establish a world cadastrum, a public registry of the true owners of companies and trusts (I said so, long ago, in connection with old Roman Republic anti-wealth laws; hence the word “cadastrum”). I have suggested this forever, Pickety suggested it last year. And now Stiglitz. Why did it take so long. Why is it suggested now? Because the world, the world of plutocracy, is now in Trump’s safe and trusted hands?
One reason plutocrats have been opposing Trump desperately, is that this Trump adventure makes the control that plutocracy imposes on the whole planet, not just disorganized, but all too obvious.