I have to fall down laughing at anyone who has the gall to talk about "moral hazard".
We're not only in a Depression, we're going through the Sixth Great Extinction.
In the next few years there are going to be wars for water. Here.
Wake up.
About Real Estate
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
That's quite a condescending screed, given that what you're actually describing is the US government bailout of big business, banks, savings & loans, etc., and the pillaging of the Social Security trust fund over the decades.
Not only have Americans paid into the programs that you dismiss out of hand as programs they scam, American citizens, as consumers, created the great wealth wealth of this nation by purchasing on credit. Americans have also not seen any real increase in their wages in more than 30 years. We have paid, many times over, what our purchases really should have cost.
And, of course we're a secular Constitution democracy, you id-jit; my citation of the bible was for those holier than thou rightwingers who don't believe that we are and who believe the nation was founded as a Christian nation. They believe as you believe, and don't support retiring consumer debt. That doesn't really square with their other beliefs about this nation's Chr!stian roots, now does it? It doesn't make them very good Chr!stians, now does it?
You need to get your head out of your @$$ for some fresh air.
(Do you like being talked to this way? If you don't, why would you talk to others this way?)
About Rahm Emanuel
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And I suggest you learn what 'Democratic Caucus' means.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What you don't get about this situation is that nobody expected miracles from him.
We did expect honesty, transparency, and have been getting nothing but a snow job.
There can be no democracy, no solutions, no functioning government, without honest, without trust, when elected officials are Iying, cutting secret deals and then spinning them as something that they're not.
The fact that you are defending him just tells me that you're either ig.no.rant of the facts, or, you're as corrupt as he is. Because if you wanted what we all thought we were getting when we put Obama and Democrats into power, you would be joining those who are only doing what he told us we were going to have to do.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama told people that they had to stay involved after the election, that they couldn't just vote for him, go away for four years and expect that he would do what they had hoped. He said that there were powerful interests working against what the people wanted, and if We The People wanted Obama to do our bidding, we would have to MAKE HIM DO IT.
Obama's 'most ardent supporters' forget that those of us who criticize Obama are only doing what he warned us needed to be done. NOT to trust him.
Since the election (and even before, with his FISA vote), Obama's given us every reason to distrust and doubt him. He's been deceptive, breaking every campaign pledge and promise, conceding the positions of the left (getting nothing in return), and hobbling real Democrats at every turn while making Republicans and Blue Dogs stronger (and harder to beat in 2010 and 2012).
Obama's 'most ardent supporters' (like you) are the most immediate problem, as they help him screw them (& us) over. They keep his personal numbers high. That enables Obama to blow them (and all Democratic voters) off. Until they wake up to these facts, they are their own (& our) worst e n e m ies, and the reason we don't get what we all thought we were voting for when we voted Obama and Democrats into office as the majority power in our government.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
he is inherently a political pragmatist, rather than a liberal ideologue.
=========================================
No.
Obama's a politician, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word.
He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.
He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.
But first and foremost, Obama is a lawyer (also in the worst sense of the word).
Obama chose his words very carefully (lawyer-speak) during the campaign, giving people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote. It's why even among his most ardent admirers, they still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican.
Doing what is right for transnational corporations is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican, "What's good for GM is good for America."
He did a job on everybody.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
By the way, try reading the entire comment.
Had you read it, you would have seen the direct argument to your comment.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama sure made some deal with Lieberman -- Here's one of the many 'services' Lieberman has performed for Obama:
After Obama flip-flopped (one of many) on an issue he campaigned on (transparency and releasing the thousands of t0rture photos of detainees), he used Lieberman to slip it into legislation that gave the SoD the power to gut FOIA and bury the evidence forever.
http://www.truthout.org/1022095
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143322/outrage:_house_sne akily_pass es_bill_ba nning_rele ase_of_pho tos_showin g_detainee _abuse/
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama sure made some deal with Lieberman -- Here's one of the many 'services' Lieberman has performed for Obama:
After Obama flip-flopped (one of many) on an issue he campaigned on (transparency and releasing the thousands of t0rture photos of detainees), he used Lieberman to slip it into legislation that gave the SoD the power to gut FOIA and bury the evidence forever.
http://www.truthout.org/1022095
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143322/outrage:_house_sne akily_pass es_bill_ba nning_rele ase_of_pho tos_showin g_detainee _abuse/
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I guess you really don't comprehend 'party government'.
There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered.
When you are the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. The only people who don't understand this are those who have never worked in politics or in government.
Democrats like to hide this from the people, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.
If you do not get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you will NOT have the party organization behind you either at a state or national level, and that is certain de@th for your time in office, not to mention your overall career in politics.
Obama insisted Lieberman remain in the Democratic Caucus. In spite of multiple betrayals by Lieberman before and during the 2008 election (Lieberman endorsed McCain, campaigned FOR McCain).
Over REAL Democratic senators, Obama insisted Lieberman keep the chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs & Homeland Security Committee. That's the committee that whitewashed the Bush administration's failure during Hurricane Katrina. Obama rubberstamped that committee's not investigating Bush once Democrats took over control of government after the 2008 election.
Does anyone really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote? No agreement from Lieberman that he couldn't join Republicans in filibustering? No agreement that he would sign on to a public option?
Obama never pressured JoeLieberman, Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln, or any Blue Dog. That's by their own admission. The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs of members in their caucus that joined with Republicans and threatened to filibuster a public option for healthcare.
The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. But it hasn't. Because Lieberman & Blue Dogs (& Republicans) provide cover to Obama & the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, to let them continue to serve corporate interests over the interests of the People.
KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
We've been doing it your way (the DLC's way) for 20 years now, and the nation and the Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right.
If you and I are on the same side, if you and I want the same policies (real Democratic policies), and going about getting them your way (protecting Obama, siding with Obama) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?
Do you ever realize it?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
We can keep trying to out-p!ss each other, JMBrodie, but the fact is that these posters were produced as investments which, had Obama been authentic, would have been solid and sound.
Now they're not.
They haven't held their prices (there are several different ones, different grades), and have gone from "not being available for purchase at any price" to "can't give them away".
The quality of the paper that yours is on, however, will always have value. But it'll be gone in one flush.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You got the one on the cr@ppy paper, the inferior product.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I find it to be extremely interesting that we live in a country that can put up with an absolute reckless and dangerous president for 8 years but will not give this man more than 2 years to fix all of the enormous problems that the previous regime left him.
=====================================
Because he's going in the wrong direction.
Obama has watered down Democratic legislation, conceding ground on the left that really wasn't his to concede. He did it, he's claimed, to get Republicans' votes, but it hasn't worked. Instead of withdrawing the legislation and putting the 'real thing' through by way of reconciliation, he gets Republican-like legislation passed, to the pleasure or satisfaction of his corporate masters. They are who he and the DLC-controlled Democrats have always intended to please anyway. What Obama and Democrats have needed, though, is cover with Democratic voters, and so far 'being inept' is something that Obama's most ardent supporters accept and forgive.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama, Rahm Emanuel, the DLC, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, all have worked their @$$es off to prevent real progressives getting into office.
One example right off the bat is Blanche Lincoln.
The White House put their full weight & support behind Blanche Lincoln over the true progressive (& union-backed) candidate in the primary, Bill Halter.
This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with Arlen Specter and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvania, trying to buy off (among other alternative candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representing them) Joe Sestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican Arlen Specter, could retain the seat.
Lincoln is 40 points down behind the GOP candidate John Boozman.
Guess who could beat Boozman in Arkansas? Bill Halter. Because, like just about all Americans, Arkansans would prefer an authentic candidate, even if it's a progressive. We appreciate honesty.
But more progressives in Congress means real populist legislation getting passed into law. Real reform bills, that re-regulate banks and big business. Real stimulus bills, with jobs creation, green clean energy development, and more.
But that's not who or what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are about.
The rightwing attacking Obama and their refusal to work in "a bipartisan manner" should have pushed Obama to play hardball and move populist legislation through Congress quickly and decisively. To undo the Bush-Cheney abuses, especially with the tentative hold on a filibuster-proof majority Democrats were given in the 2008 election.
Instead, he let Republicans dictate the pace and shape a debate that was already done and voted on and won by Democrats in 2008.
If Republicans are so bad (and I think they are), why is Obama blocking all investigations and prosecutions into the Bush-Cheney administration? Perhaps if Bill Clinton hadn't done the same thing for the Reagan-Bush administration, we wouldn't have been saddled with Bush-Cheney at all.
When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count. And Obama issued them a pardon.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I have one of the $500 Shepard Fairey posters of Obama.
Want to buy it?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did. Nothing changed.
Democrats said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate". In 2008, we gave them the 60. And the White House.
Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in America, than ever in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatocracy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate t00I.
And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at d.e.a.t.h's door, Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & sloooooowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans", after Republicans had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, and vote no on everything, in lockstep.
Since Obama has gotten into office, he's continued most of Bush's policies & his 'accomplishments' are being spun as "reform" when, in fact, they're Republican in nature.
There could be 100 "progressives" in the Senate & 435 in the House, & they & Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporations instead of the People. And then try to blame it on Republicans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
If Obama's "just a man", then John McCain wouldn't have made any difference either.
Nor then would Sarah Palin.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Because this is how the rich get rich and stay rich.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Retire the American People's debt.
I proposed the idea back when HenryPaulson was scaring Congress into thumb-sucking fetal positions about the imminent collapse of the economic system, and lobbying Congress for unlimited powers & money (TARP).
I continued proposing the idea when Obama was handing out the 2nd half of TARP, & bailing out GM, & paying cash for clunkers (abzurd program, helping the rich yet again, foreign car makers, while hurting working class & used car dealers), & passing FinanceRef ormLegisla tion that doesn't prevent another meltdown.
I kept at it while millions have been losing their jobs, their homes, losing their health insurance (& still not having any, despite Obama's great big corporate giveaway to BigInsurance & PhRma), & the economy continues to spiral down.
Now, after WeThePeople are picking up the tab for another unwinnable war so that theDickCheney&Bushes can get transnational gas & oil company dividends from their stock portfolios, the only way that this economy is going to turn around is if the People have money to spend.
Businesses aren't hiring because nobody's buying. Nobody's buying because only the rich have money, & they already buy all that they want & need. That is, by definition, what 'rich' means. Banks got bailed out, they're sitting on the money, & they've giving themselves bonuses.
Retiring the People's debt -- Why should that be such a radical idea?
The People who actually labored & made the money & the great economy we had, who haven't been properly compensated for decades (but ripped off by corrupt politicians of what little they were able to put away for retirement, their children's college, & unforeseen emergencies), getting a lifeline that would keep the US from becoming a third world nation.
Retiring all debt every 7 years is even 'biblically proscribed', for all of the Jude0-Chr!st!ans who ins!st on scripture as the basis of US laws.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Retire the American People's debt.
I proposed the idea back when HenryPaulson was scaring Congress into thumb-sucking fetal positions about the imminent collapse of the economic system, and lobbying Congress for unlimited powers & money (TARP).
I continued proposing the idea when Obama was handing out the 2nd half of TARP, & bailing out GM, & paying cash for clunkers (abzurd program, helping the rich yet again, foreign car makers, while hurting working class & used car dealers), & passing FinanceRef ormLegisla tion that doesn't prevent another meltdown.
I kept at it while millions have been losing their jobs, their homes, losing their health insurance (& still not having any, despite Obama's great big corporate giveaway to BigInsurance & PhRma), & the economy continues to spiral down.
Now, after WeThePeople are picking up the tab for another unwinnable war so that theDickCheney&Bushes can get transnational gas & oil company dividends from their stock portfolios, the only way that this economy is going to turn around is if the People have money to spend.
Businesses aren't hiring because nobody's buying. Nobody's buying because only the rich have money, & they already buy all that they want & need. That is, by definition, what 'rich' means. Banks got bailed out, they're sitting on the money, & they've giving themselves bonuses.
Retiring the People's debt -- Why should that be such a radical idea?
The People who actually labored & made the money & the great economy we had, who haven't been properly compensated for decades (but ripped off by corrupt politicians of what little they were able to put away for retirement, their children's college, & unforeseen emergencies), getting a lifeline that would keep the US from becoming a third world nation.
Retiring all debt every 7 years is even 'biblically proscribed', for all of the Jude0-Chr!st!ans who ins!st on scripture as the basis of US laws.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
So where is Barney Frank taking this?
This looks like "election conversion", which is second cousin to a US Supreme Court nominee having a "confirmation conversion".
Is this all we can expect from Barney Frank? Is this just this call to Obama to bring the troops home, in which case Obama will continue to ignore the situation, or is Frank going to do what's within his power to do as a UnitedStat
All we've seen from Democrats in Congress is a whole lotta diffuse talk, but no action.
Obama & Democrats ran on putting the wars on the budget, with no more supplemental emergency spending bills to pay for these wars. Funding the wars through supplementals was how Bush & Cheney managed to avoid congressional oversight & public scrutiny.
After close to two years of controlling both Houses of Congress & the WhiteHouse, Democrats are continuing the funding of the wars through supplementals.
What's significant about this?:
When the funding of wars goes 'on budget', congressional committees & subcommittees then hold hearings & investigations into US policies, about US interests around the world, from which the UnitedState's overall foreign & military policies are derived. That's how civilian-control over the US military takes place: Through the citizens' chosen representatives choosing weapons systems & overseeing US military operations & installations, plans & policies, etc.
This doesn't happen with supplemental spending bills.
The nature of them is, "It's an emergency, we're running out of money, give us $80 billion now (that's the magic sum, invariably $80 billion) or you won't be 'supporting the troops'...We'll talk about it later".
"Later" doesn't happen.
The $80 billion ploy is so the American people think they're always talking about the same $80 billion.
I know, I know, "How is that possible that the average American wouldn't realize it's not the same $80 billion when it's year in& year out?" The average American is just barely keeping it all together as it is & fighting for his life(style).
Committees in both Houses of Congress have either never begun investigations into fraud and abuse, or dropped investigations (both on what happened during the Bush administration and afterwards), yet Congress is doing no oversight, & thieving criminal private contractors are still being awarded government contracts.
Congress didn't authorize any war against the Taliban, or nation-building in either Afghanistan or Iraq, yet these wars continue. After taking a nation to war with Iraq based on l!es (not just about Iraq having WMD, but Bush got the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq from Congress based on his assurances that it was only to bolster his 'bullying Saddam Hussein'-strategy, & that he would go back to the UN for its authorization & come back to Congress before he did anything -- Bush did neither), no legal basis exists for the US military remaining in either of those countries.
So, Barney, what else are you going to do?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
