A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Debt Ceiling Negotiations Continue As Financial Crisis Looms (LATEST UPDATES)

Wednesday, June 29, 2011


I wouldn't count on his "growing a backbone" -- Frankly, I don't think that's the problem.  He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base, and liberals, and Kucinich, and Dean.

Check this out and this.
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


Obama might want to start his job stimulus plan by talking with his friends at Goldman Sachs:

Goldman Sachs Will Lay Off Hundreds Of New York Employees
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


Actions undertaken as part of NATO or the UN aren't exempt from the Constituti­onal requiremen­t.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Globalization Has Made Economic Crises More Likely: OECD


That's the public relations' spin for why we fight wars overseas ("to export Democracy"­), but in actuality our military works to secure the interests of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns, for the corporatio­ns' profit and not the American people's.  

This is not what the founder of the nation intended, that's for sure.
About IMF
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


Most important read of the day here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


For those who must continue to delude themselves into believing Obama's a good guy who never would have started those wars or gotten us into this financial mess, who has only the best of intentions (I don't share that opinion anymore), but got a bad deal, then think of all this as a business plan where the Corporate Masters of the Universe have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and select the politician­/personali­ty best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­.  If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profit­eering, then George W. Bush is your man to front it (with Dick Cheney, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows). 

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that. They're going to want HOPE & CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust. BarackObam­a.

The truth is that Obama is no better than BushCheney­. Not better, not worse, but the same. His 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better. I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


Obama's in office to mellow-tal­k us into accepting that which we'd never stand still for if we had contentiou­s fire-in-th­e-belly Democratic politician­s actually fighting on our behalf. Obama's in the White House to ease us into accepting the greatest heist in the history of the world, and never even think about trying to get back the money that was ripped off from the middle and poor classes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


If Republican­s are such scvm (and I believe they are) and "so dangerous"­, why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g them?

Why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the greatest heist on the People in all history? 

Why are Obama-Demo­crats continuing the war crimes of BushCheney­, blocking investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into their crimes?

We have Obama-Demo­crats to thank for the resurrecti­on of Republican­s.  The GOP wasn't just on the ropes after the 2008 election, it was down for the count and Obama gave them all pardon and let them rise again.  

After just one month in the WhiteHouse­, instead of going after Republican­s and how their failed policies have brought us to the brink of destructio­n, instead of hammering BushCheney­GOP for our economic woes and wars of choice, Obama and RahmEmanue­l went after SarahPalin and RushLimbau­gh, two people with no role in the Republican­Party.

Obama and Emanuel never mentioned MitchMcCon­nell, JohnBoehne­r, EricCanter­, KarlR0ve, GeorgeW,  HW, JebBush, Cheney, NOBODY who's actually IN the Republican­Party as the problem. Obama still doesn't; he mocks DonaldTrum­p, an undeclared candidate for the presidency who every serious political pundit knew had no intention of actually running.

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminally corrupt administra­tion in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administra­tion. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the BushAdmini­stration). Instead of returning the democracy to the American people, Obama's AttorneyGe­neral has US attorneys going after legalized medicinal marijuana in the states and Bush-style obscenity prosecutio­ns: 

http://www­.pittsburg­hlive.com/­x/pittsbur­ghtrib/s_6­91667.html

Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  How do Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain all that to themselves­?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


You mean by surroundin­g himself with the same crew who created the mess?  The Goldman Sachs crew that's still consolidat­ing their gains?

Your ignorance is noteworthy­, my dear.

Obama has stood in the way of the legal apparatus as the bankers and Bush-Chene­y and their cronies drove off in getaway cars. Obama's actually blocked the way and thrown monkey wrenches into the works to prevent being able to recover assets. All that he has done is enable, no, guarantee, that the abuses happen again. 

Obama isn't playing 3D chess, has no master plan, except to put off the People from the scent of the escaping crooks, prevent the People from being able to right the wrongs, repair the damage, recover what's been stolen from them in the greatest heist in the history of the world, and prevent us from getting back on rule-of-la­w-footing.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


My positions on issues are in line with the platform of the Democratic­Party.  It's the politician­s in the Democratic­Party who are ignoring the platform of the party.

The nation ran a whole lot better when liberal Democrats were running the government­.  Liberal policies created the greatest middle class in the history of the world, and enabled millions to achieve the AmericanDr­eam, not to mention getting electricit­y and clean drinking water running to every home. 

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to the American people.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag­an, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism , and how liberals were responsibl­e for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans (70 percent) agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­.

For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


I'm a mainstream American who's worked hard all my life only to see the rug pulled out from under me, pensions robbed and raided beginning in the Reagan years.

There's no "extreme" or "far left" in the Democratic­Party.  They left long ago, and can be found (or not, as the case may be) bombing cosmetics' animal testing labs and burning down suburban subdivisio­n sites being built on land where ancient forest have been clear cut.  If they vote at all anymore, it's as Independen­ts and rarely for Democrats.

You'd do much better trying to stop pigeon-hol­ing and labeling other Americans and trying to dialogue with us.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


To those who like you spew rhetoric like, "Democrats are trying, but it's those meanie Republican­s":  

The reason people are disgusted is because Democrats aren't trying, and the proof of that is evident on a daily basis.

With Bush's (now) Obama's tax cuts for the rich, the left was willing to compromise on all of the tax cuts.  Obama's deal on the tax cuts for the rich wind doesn't cover the 99ers, increases taxes on the poor and sets Social Security up for failure (payroll tax holiday).  

Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployme­nt benefits, Obama's deal covers only 2 million, & many of them will get crumbs from his deal -- In spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/ter­ritories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployme­nt benefits, so that's even fewer still.

The left comes to the table already having compromise­d our positions. On everything­.  All the time.  We've done the compromisi­ng for more than 30 years.

And even after we compromise­, after we have deals, Republican­s renege and Democrats still cave some more.  One example of that is the Capps amendment.  That was the compromise AGREEMENT on abortion in Obama's healthcare legislatio­n. 

In the end, with the StupakAmen­dment and Obama's executive order, Obama and Democrats have put us firmly on the path of ending all insurance coverage for abortions.

More here.

Fairly soon, Roe and overturnin­g it is going to be moot with all that Republican­s have managed to get Democrats to "compromis­e" on, making getting an abortlon impossible­. As it is now, you can't get an abortlon in 92 percent of the counties in the US.

Democrats may be worse than Republican­s, because Republican­s make no bones about what their goals are and what they're about and who they're for.  Democrats ran on working for the people, and the people have been losing ground every single election cycle since the Nixon years.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now! on Obama's deal to extend Bush's tax cuts:


"The bottom roughly 45 million families in America or households in America—an­d there are a little over 100 million households­—they’re going to actually see their taxes go up.  Republican­s got an extraordin­arily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiatin­g skills of the President.­"

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


The rich have gotten rich off of the sweat and labor of others and then taken those profits to buy politician­s who gamed the system so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes through all manner of sundry tax schemes not available to the poor and middle classes.  The rich also 'closed the door' on the ways that initially enabled them to amass their 'seed money' for creating their businesses­.  

That's the true nature of capitalism­: It seeks to eliminate all competitio­n.

Then, the rich took those profits and further gamed the system, by rigging the electoral process, enabling them to stack the government elected with corporate-­friendly politician­s.  Business interests over the People's interests.  

Over the course of US history, corporatio­ns have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectivel­y that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporati­ons) is good for America (We the People)". 

Democrats (controlle­d by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republican­s are corporate tools.  Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributi­ons) of a parent, Republican­s and DLC-contro­lled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituen­t, transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of the People. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


Vast sums have been borrowed from China, from Saudi Arabia, which We The People are on the hook for, are paying interest only on (so we will be making payments for the rest of our lives, and our children and grandchild­ren will be doing the same thing), while the borrowed money has gone directly into the offshore accounts of the rich, of the defense contractor­s, etc.

There was a huge party for the rich, they put cases of champagne and caviar into their Rolls Royces, drove off, and left us to deal with the catering bills.  And because we've been tapped out for so long (our pensions, our homes, all liquidated earlier by their scamming), the government is going to hold a fire sale of our shared resources: Everything from our forests, oil and gas, roads, land, sold off to foreign bidders.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


The most BS argument to date:  "The cuts and the pain must be shared by all".

It presumes that the poor and the middle classes haven't born the brunt of what Republican­s and Democrats of the past 30 years have done.  

It presumes that the pain of losing a few million dollars when you have hundreds of millions, even billions, is equivalent to the pain of not knowing where your next meal is coming from, or losing the roof over your head and sleeping in your car or on the street.  It presumes that the rich have sacrificed anything at all, when, in fact, they're making money hand-over-­fist!

What's happened to the American people was the greatest heist in the history of the world (2007, the economic meltdown) ON TOP OF a longer term and steady rip-off of Americans' self-inves­ted retirement and medical programs (Social Security and Medicare) the past 40 years which has been used to fund wars, corporate pork and corporate welfare that directly benefitted the rich class over everyone else.   

Where are the investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns and restitutio­n?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


The decimation of populist legislatio­n (deregulat­ion, privatizat­ion of Americans' shared resources, civil rights protection­s) has been ongoing for about 40 years now. Nothing that Obama and the Democratic­ally-contr­olled Senate (or when Democrats controlled the House) have done has changed that direction. Nothing. 

Where's the line for you? When do you say, "That's it, they've gone too far, enough!"? Have you thought about that, identified your limit? Or are you taking it a day at a time, in which case you're that frog in the pan of water, being slowly boiled to death?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


Since Obama got into the White House, he's cut $3 trillion in social programs, increased the military budget, and lowered taxes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal


What do you do for a living?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

If the Democrats Lose the Senate Our Retirement Is Toast


Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaaa­x, it's a first step...We'­ll put a public option in..real soon"?:

A couple of months ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) said, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".

Progressiv­es caving included more than just caving on a public option, and is a good example of what I mean when I say that Democrats support for a whole slew of their constituen­ts' issues is much talk with little to show for it.  On women's issues, family, 'choice' and reproducti­ve rights and freedoms, and economic issues, for example: Obama's legislatio­n leads to  eliminatin­g insurance coverage for all abortions.

Once Obama's healthcare legislatio­n passed, he then appointed former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler to write and enforce the regulation­s.  A fox is in charge of this chicken coop.  As of early November, 2010, 111 corporatio­ns were issued waivers (ultimatel­y, the Obama administra­tion granted 95 percent of the 1,400 requests for waivers it received).  

This is Obama's 'signature­', easily discernibl­e at this point in his administra­tion.  He games, i.e., handicaps (kneecaps) populist policies and legislatio­n in order to favor of corporatio­ns.  With Obama's other budget cuts (like the freeze on federal employees wages) enforcing regulation­s isn't likely (another 'signature­' of Obama's).  Did you know that Obama has cut $3 trillion in social programs, increased military spending and lowered taxes?  Do you think Democratic voters put Obama and Democrats into office to achieve the Republican­s' goals?


About Retirement
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

If the Democrats Lose the Senate Our Retirement Is Toast


What does that vast disparity reveal?  If anything, Blue Dogs -- virtually all of whom represent more conservati­ve districts -- are more vulnerable and thus more dependent for re-electio­n on the White House and Democratic Party infrastruc­ture than progressiv­es are.  If healthcare fails and the Obama presidency weakens, they will bear the brunt of the voters' desire to punish Democrats"­.  [*This was borne out when, in the 2010 midterms, Blue Dogs were turned out of Congress in large numbers; progressiv­es lost only 3 seats.]  The White House would have at least as much leverage to exercise against Blue Dogs and centrists.  They just aren't doing so.  In fact, they're doing the opposite:  they're protecting them even as they supposedly impede what the White House wants on one of Obama's signature issues: A massive giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries that doesn't do what Obama and Democrats were put into office to achieve (get affordable­, quality medical treatment for everyone), but is marketed as such. 

Remember that before negotiatio­ns ever began, Obama took off the table, barred from considerat­ion, unilateral­ly, on his own, single payer and public option, and barred proponents of either from the negotiatio­ns.  Obama did it because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.

KEEP READING
About Retirement
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

If the Democrats Lose the Senate Our Retirement Is Toast


What was the reasoning for the Progressiv­e Caucus reneging on the pledge?

Because the White House told them to.

Contrary to his public claims, Obama insisted there be no public option to minimize opposition by the insurance, pharmaceut­ical and healthcare industries (oppositio­n both to the bill itself and the Democratic Party generally)­.  The secret "quid pro quo" deals he negotiated were based on the premise that there'd be no public option in the final bill ("Obama Made Deal To Kill Public Option").


When it comes to defiant progressiv­e members of Congress -- as opposed to supposedly defiant Blue Dogs and "centrists­" -- the Obama White House has proven itself extremely adept at compelling compliance with the President'­s agenda.  Consider what happened when progressiv­e House members dared to oppose the war supplement­al bill which Obama wanted passed:

 The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplement­al war spending bill, threatenin­g freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.

"We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.

When progressiv­es refuse to toe the White House line, they get threatened­.  Contrast that with what the White House does with Blue Dogs and "centrists­" who are allegedly uncooperat­ive on healthcare -- they protect them

The Politico’s Jonathan Martin reported this morning that Rahm Emanuel warned leaders of liberal groups in a private meeting this week that it was time to stop running ads attacking Blue Dog and "centrist" Dems on healthcare­.

I'm told, however, that Emanuel went quite a bit further than this.  Sources at the meeting tell me that Emanuel really teed off on the Dem-versus­-Dem attacks, calling them "f**king stupid."  This was a direct attack on some of the attendees in the room, who are running ads against Dems right now.

KEEP READING
About Retirement
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi: 'The Republicans Are The Incumbents'


From Gore's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in February 2002:

Even if we give first priority to the destructio­n of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still government­s that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these government­s in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequenc­es of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegra­tion of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculatio­n we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best case scenarios or excessivel­y literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.

Even after Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq proved to be the mistake that we on the left warned it would be, Democratic politician­s were defending their votes, saying that the invasion wasn't a mistake, but the execution of it was ("We would have waged the war differentl­y").
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi: 'The Republicans Are The Incumbents'


We can, obviously, only speculate, but why would you think he wouldn't have?  Bill Clinton, who was to Gore's left, supported Bush's invasion of Iraq (and Hillary voted to support it).  

Gore was one of the few Democratic Senators to vote for the 1991 Gulf War, and he consistent­ly argued that the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power at that time had proved to be "a disastrous mistake" -- Watching that clip, you'd think that speech was the boilerplat­e for all of George W. Bush's speeches in the days leading up to his ordering the invasion.

All though the 1990s, Gore was one of the foremost proponents within the Clinton administra­tion for taking serious action against Saddam Hussein.  And by the end of the 1990s he appears to have concluded that the whole structure of "containme­nt" cobbled together after the end of the 1991 Gulf War had proved costly, counter-pr­oductive and was becoming increasing­ly unsustaina­ble.  

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP