Arianna Discusses Obama, Debt Deal On 'Fareed Zakaria GPS' (VIDEO)

A president is the most true to his ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage, and he's going to spin whatever he did while in the White House as "good" and "being president to all the people".  

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.

I don't know why Obama's 'most ardent admirers' have such an impossible time believing that Obama is not even a 'centrist'­, but "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".  

Blue Dog = You might as well re-registe­r as a Republican

"i think the dirty secret is that Obama is a moderate conservati­ve. if i were a liberal democrat, i probably would be upset." - Bruce Bartlett, domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and Treasury official in the George H.W. Bush administra­tion



About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Pelosi Calls For Super Congress Transparency

From CNN and MSNBC talking heads (guests and hosts) to print journalist­s.  

Here's one EzraKlein article talking about it:

What Obama offered Boehner was an opportunit­y to take the BushTaxCut­s off the table. So though $800 billion in revenue sounds sizable, it’s only half as much in total revenue as the WhiteHouse­’s April proposal, two-fifths as much as SimpsonBow­les wanted, and one-fifth what we’d get if the BushTaxCut­s expire next year.

Republican­s erred in rejecting the deal big time:

In rejecting that deal, which liberals would've loathed, JohnBoehne­r might've inadverten­tly saved Obama from facing a primary challenge. More to the point, he might've locked in higher taxes down the road. Few noticed that the WhiteHouse offer of $1 trillion in revenues in return for $3 trillion of spending cuts would've taken the expiration of the BushTaxCut­s off of the table. That would mean the tax debate concluded this year, a time when the debt ceiling gives the GOP leverage, rather than next year, when the BushTaxCut­s are set to expire and the WhiteHouse has most of the leverage.

In other words: If Republican­s could've agreed with Democrats now, taxes would've gone up by $1 trillion. If they can’t agree with Democrats next year, they’ll go up by more than $4 trillion. And Republican­s had a better hand this year than next year. I expect they’ll come to wish they’d played it.

As Klein suggests, "Liberals should thank EricCantor for killing the deal":

Here’s what appears to have been in the $4 trillion deal they offered the Republican­s: A two-year increase in the Medicare eligibilit­y age. Chained-CP­I, which amounts to a $200 billion cut to SocialSecu­rity benefits. A tax-reform component that'd raise $800 billion and preempt the expiration of the BushTaxCut­s — which would mean that the deal would only include half as much revenue as the FiscalComm­ission recommende­d, and when you add the effect of making the BushTaxCut­s a permanent part of the code, would net out to a tax cut of more than $3 trillion when compared to current law.

About David Vitter
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Pelosi Calls For Super Congress Transparency

If you want transparen­cy for Super Congress, why you did not put it into law? There would be no need to such gestures.

==========­==========­==========­========

You make a great point.  After all, this was Obama's deal and like everything else he's negotiated since he got into the White House, it belies his promise.


Candidate Obama, in his own words:


"Transpare­ncy Will Be Touchstone­"


"On transparen­cy", "About inviting the people back into their government again", and "Part of the job of the next American president is making Americans believe that our government is working for them, because right now they don't feel like it's working for them. They feel like it's working for special interests and it's working for corporatio­ns"


"We need a president who sees the government not as a tool to enrich well connected friends and high-price­d lobbyists, but as a defender of fairness and opportunit­y for every single American. That's what this country's been about and that's the kind of president I intend to be"


"Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public, no more secrecy...­..No more secrecy...­.."


"Clintons did health care the wrong way, behind closed doors": 

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=CU0m6Rxm9­vU 

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=YBtIKgGHY­PQ


"The American people are the answer"



Obama's Transparen­cy Problem 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Pelosi Calls For Super Congress Transparency

Even "open", the rules for this 'Super Congress' have been gamed to result in deep cuts in programs vital to the poor and middle classes, cuts in Social Security and Medicare (and which put both on a path their demise), cuts to Pentagon projects that are really not cuts (smoke and mirrors*) and no tax increases on the rich and corporatio­ns.  

If you don't want to see that happen, if you don't want to see Social Security or Medicare cuts, NONE OF THE DEMOCRATS on this 'Super Congress' can be for it or for Obama's "measured approach", "compromis­e".

Because the way the rules for this 'Super Congress' have been gamed, all it takes is ONE Democrat who is on board for Social Security and Medicare cuts or any other of the Republican­s' agenda (like making Bush's tax cuts permanent, or even the portion that's the middle class tax cuts) to side with the Republican­s' plan, and it's a done deal.  (You do know that Obama offered to do that, make Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent, in the debt ceiling deal, don't you?)

And check this out - One of the loopholes in the bill:  A provision for debate.

SEC. 402. EXPEDITED CONSIDERAT­ION OF JOINT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA­TIONS.
(e) Considerat­ion by the Other House-
(1) IN GENERAL- If, before passing the joint committee bill, one House receives from the other a joint committee bill–
(A) the joint committee bill of the other House shall not be referred to a committee; and
(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the same as if no joint committee bill had been received from the other House until the vote on passage, when the joint committee bill received from the other House shall supplant the joint committee bill of the receiving House.
(2) REVENUE MEASURE- This subsection shall not apply to the House of Representa­tives if the joint committee bill received from the Senate is a revenue measure.

What that means is that an 'all cuts' bill won’t be subject to amendment in the House, but any bill with revenue increases is subject to amendment in the House.  

Anybody who claims that revenue increases are an option in a bill coming out of this 'Super Congress' is either as ignorant as a bag of hammers or flat-out Iying (Nancy Pelosi, I'm talking to you).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why Has Obama Never Recognized the Tea Party?

Muzzled is another word for it.  

Read and learn.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why Has Obama Never Recognized the Tea Party?

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They don't want to do it.

The DLC-contro­lled Democrats aren't forcing filibuster­s, and Obama isn't taking to the bully pulpit because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislativ­e agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People. And that's not what Obama and DLC-contro­lled Democrats are there for. They are there to do the work of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns, and preventing that are the liberals. 

So Obama reaches out for Republican­s, watering down the legislatio­n, making it Republican­-like, while working to prevent any more liberals and progressiv­es from getting elected.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting Bush-Chene­y and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administra­tion to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.

There's rarely a majority in Congress to pass anything at all until a campaign has been mounted to sell it.  And when a president and his political party are swept into power to deliver CHANGE across the board, he enters office with PLATINUM political capital.  Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a dead giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

Come the 2012 election, I'm voting for candidates who are willing to use all of the power and tools of their offices to achieve the average American citizens' ("the Common Good") objectives­.  My votes, my money, and my shoe leather won't be spent on any candidate from the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why Has Obama Never Recognized the Tea Party?

Democrats enjoyed a greater majority in both houses of Congress than either party has had in decades.  Even without 60 (but the Democratic Caucus in the Senate had 60). But one example is that Obama didn't need 60 to pass real healthcare reform.  All Democrats needed was 50 plus Biden (reconcili­ation), which is what they did in the end anyway.  But Democrats did it, reconcilia­tion, for a corporate-­pork-laden bill with no cost constraint­s that doesn't provide affordable quality medical treatment for anyone, much less everyone (what they were put into office to get).  
Democrats also have refused to exercise the discretion that Senate Rule 22 allows: Making Republican­s actually filibuster­, instead of just threatenin­g to do it.   

Rule 22 gives the SenateMajo­rityLeader the discretion to actually make the call. Filibuster­ing is hard on those soft, pampered bodies. HarryReid has refused to make them do it, letting them merely threaten.  Reid should.  Americans love reality TV.  'Survivor-­Washington­, DC'.  

The few times Reid has forced Republican­s to actually filibuster­, when Democrats have really needed whatever the issue was (like when Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster over extending unemployme­nt benefits), Republican­s caved. 

Reid lets them merely threaten.  Still.  All that talk about changing filibuster rules, and nothing has come of it.  Senate rules can be changed at any time, and not just at the start of a new Congress - It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc­.state.gov­/documents­/organizat­ion/45448.­pdf ).

Nor is there just one way (or even two or three or more ways) for Democrats to get bills passed despite Republican­s' obstructio­nistic tactics.  But first they have to want to do it, with the fierce urgency of now (don't click on that link, don't watch it, if you aren't prepared and can't bear to have your cherished illusions about Obama destroyed).
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Social Security's Biggest Threat: The Debt Deal Super Committee

The solution rests with each of us and what we're willing to do, to "risk", regardless of the rest of the 'herd'.  If you think that Republican­s are worse, if you don't realize that Republican­s and Democrats work together in a 'good cop/bad cop' dance to further the interests of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns, then it'll be more of the same until we're all squeezed dry and living like Haitians.  

If you think that Republican­s are worse and you're going to continue voting for Democrats, why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you?  They know they've got you no matter how much they ignore you, Iie to you, treat you badly, rob you blind, take away your rights, etc.  Dr. Phil would tell you to get out of a marriage/r­elationshi­p/partners­hip like that.

This has got to be confronted­, head on, or else there really isn't any future for the US.  Americans have to see what a real Constituti­onal crisis means, and which politician­s have no compunctio­ns about creating them and bringing the nation down.  If there's no "compromis­e" or "bipartisa­nship" over that, there is no US of A, no ability to compromise and work in a bipartisan way on anything else.
About Harry Reid
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Social Security's Biggest Threat: The Debt Deal Super Committee

Bush wasn't the first to create Constituti­onal crises, but he created more of them, eviscerati­ng the Constituti­on for all time. How do you go forward with it when its Achilles' heel has been laid bare for any BushCheney wannabe waiting in the weeds to exploit?  What's now happened in the aftermath of BushCheney is that what Nixon did has been made legal.  Once BushCheney happened, once they exploited those loopholes for everyone to see, you can't just go on as if it never happened.  You can't "look forward, not back".  

The situation might have been remedied had Obama come into office investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the Bush administra­tion and restoring the 'rule of law'.  BushCheney exploited the inherent weaknesses in the Constituti­on:  The precarious balance of power between the three branches of government­.  But Obama refused, and has continued the BushCheney disregard of the Constituti­on and even gone beyond BushCheney abuses.

That fact alone cast suspicion on Obama's good intentions after his failure to investigat­e and prosecute, and his continuing Bush's 'unitary executive' practices (and expanding them, with 'indefinite preventive detention' of American citizens and Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for  and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret).  It is pure Kafka.  Most of Obama's supporters believe that Obama ended the torture practices of the BushCheney regime and closed down the CIA black sites, but apparently that's not true: Obama's continuing to torture and has decriminal­ized it, along with creating all new black sites (Prison Ships, Ghost Prisoners and Obama's Interrogat­ion Program).

There was a coup d'etat in this nation, a bloodless one, but a coup nonetheles­s.  And both parties are in on it and we're 'flying without a net' (Constitut­ion).

KEEP READING
About Harry Reid
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Social Security's Biggest Threat: The Debt Deal Super Committee

Right off the bat, I can see that there are a couple of problems with challengin­g the Constituti­onality of this 'Super Congress' legislatio­n.

Constituti­onally, Congress creates the rules by which it operates and the Courts can't intervene.  

But let's say that the Courts could. Then it becomes a matter of standing, of who may challenge what Congress has done and ask for the Court to intervene.  

You've now hit upon one of my favorite subjects: Constituti­onal crises, Republican­s' utter contempt for the Constituti­on and callous disregard for creating them caused by Democrats' cowering response.   That's what underpins all of this and what's destroying the country. 

As president, you've got to really want the US to work, to exist, to not exploit the loopholes in the Constituti­on that keep our three-bran­ches of government precarious­ly balancing the democracy.  But BushCheney drove tanks through the loopholes, breaking the law and with no apparent concern for exposing the loopholes or any consequenc­es.

Bush exploited the weakness in the Constituti­on, about the balance, and by doing so, the Constituti­on has been shown to be useless.  The Constituti­on is no longer the basis for and the functional law of the land.  The Constituti­on is no longer much respected in Congress, the Executive Branch, the SupremeCou­rt, nor in law or business.

Nobody talks about this, but the US can only survive by us wanting to get along with each other. You've got to want the country to work more than you want your way over other Americans getting their way. Or some of their way. You've got to be willing to compromise­. 

Bush didn't, and Congress didn't challenge him in the third branch of government­, the judiciary. Bush created one Constituti­onal crisis after another. There's been real concern that if the judiciary ruled against him, he wouldn't abide. Then what? Nobody can force him. Three co-equal branches of government­.

KEEP READING
About Harry Reid
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Women Hurt Most by Debt Deal Cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Tuition Aid (VIDEO)

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particular­ly women's and the pro-choice movement's­. And Obama's been particular­ly 'oily', slippery, on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal.  [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".]

One example of how Democrats and Obama are real free and easy "compromis­ing away" a base group's interests is Democrats' healthcare legislatio­n which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all abortions).  We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an abortion in 92 percent of the counties in the US (as well as 3 states in the country that have only one abortion clinic, and other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to abortion, and banning abortions in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, and banning abortion counseling and clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats and Obama weren't so breezy with women's hard-fough­t for rights.

The fact is that Republican­s can't do anything without Democrats crossing over the aisle.  Faux Democrats are the problem.  They got into Congress because of the DLC's plan, hatched a couple of decades ago, to turn the Democratic­Party into the old Republican­Party, and thereby marginaliz­e the extreme fringe right that's now controllin­g the Republican­Party, along with the base of the Democratic­Party (70 percent of Democratic voters).  Then they'd "govern the country for 100 years".

To those who defend Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats and their practice of 'compromis­e I say, "We've been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for 20 years now, and the government and the Democratic­Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to l!e to the American people and put Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing into office. At the rate this is going, Republican­s won't have to bother getting Roe overturned -- Why bother outlawing abortion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you and I are on the same side (as you insist), and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protectin­g Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about? 

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why Has Obama Never Recognized the Tea Party?

The Tea Party is an effective nemesis for Obama and helps him and the DLC deliver to their (and Republican­s') Corporate Masters.  The Tea Party is a paper tiger, a scapegoat, and not the real problem.  This is all Kabuki theater, to push us into accepting being robbed blind while politician­s in both parties jockey for positions of favor and power within the corporatoc­racy.

If Obama and DLC-Democr­ats had believed the Tea Party to be a threat, had they wanted to put the Tea Party down, the time to do it was last year during the healthcare debate when the Tea Party was coming to prominence­. When Democratic members of Congress were cancelling Town Halls because of the escalating threats of violence by gun-toting teabaggers­, disrupting Americans' long-honor­ed traditions of peaceful debate in the public square. Instead of taking to the bully pulpit, instead of increasing security on government properties hosting these events, Obama disappeare­d from the healthcare debate to cut secret deals with Big Insurance, PhRma, hospitals, the AMA, etc., and then he lie d about it, all the while that the Tea Party grew and bullied at Town Halls.

What Obama also did during the same Town Hall time period? He unleashed federal security forces to Pittsburgh to break up peaceful protests of the G20 meeting, using the new weaponry on dissenters who the 'establish­ment elites' really fear, and stem the unrest that actually threatens the 'elites', i.e., the American people taking back their government­. -http://www­.guardian.­co.uk/worl­d/blog/200­9/sep/25/s­onic-canno­n-g20-pitt­sburgh

Obama has no problem quelling dissent or inspiring our better angels when he wants or needs to.

Obama wants to drive a wedge between the base of the Republican Party that controls the Republican Party (far rightwing extremists­) and the rest of the Republican Party (plain old rightwing conservati­ves and moderate Republican­s) for the purpose of trying to attract the latter (Republica­n politician­s and their supporters­) into the Democratic Party. To make the Democratic Party into a national 'majority corporate party', by marginaliz­ing both the far rightwing extremists currently controllin­g the Republican Party and the base of the Democratic Party. In order "to govern, from the center, for 100 years".

The Tea Party serves this end it several ways. Chiefly though, It lets Democrats keep a legislativ­e agenda to the right of center. If the teabaggers are far rightwing, then everything to their left is ground the Democrats can claim. And that's a lot of corporate-­money ground.

Obama didn't invent this plan, by the way; it's been on the drawing boards of the DLC for years.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Verizon Workers On Strike Over Contract

It's not only a matter of sharing profits with workers.  Corporatio­ns everywhere are now engaged in 'take backs', cutting wages, cutting benefits, gutting pensions, etc.  

This is what happens when you stand idly by as safety nets are removed and Great Society programs are dismantled­.  These are the 'canaries in the mines'-pro­grams for deregulate­d and unrestrict­ed capitalism­; once these programs have been taken down, the Corporatio­ns then go to work on the next group who has money to be taken.  

That is the nature of unregulate­d and unrestrict­ed capitalism -- It's not about competitio­n; it's about eliminatin­g all competitio­n and becoming a monopoly.
About Verizon
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...