Spintested: 09/24/12

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Monday, September 24, 2012

So what's your answer? Anarchy!

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

Chris Hedges, one of the most interesting, thoughtful, intelligent (in addition to being well educated), complex journalists in our history. 'War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning' (which should be required reading in every high school, before any young American is of age to join the military or vote) is but one of several of Hedges's books.

A few weeks ago I wrote:

Speaking Chris Hedges, the most important read of the day...perhaps of the year:

Power and the Tiny Acts of Rebellion
By Chris Hedges

Afterwards, Hedges wrote this. Hedges was validated within a couple of days when this happened, on air, for all to see and hear:

"The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll, and we can be grateful for that."

-Larry Kudlow, elite

After hearing reports today that Obama is not deterred by the events taking place at Japan's nuclear power plants and is moving full speed ahead with plans to license and build more plants in the US, I think Power and the Tiny Acts of Rebellion by Chris Hedges may be the most important read of our time.

In case you haven't read it, I've laid out what the options are in some detail here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

So what's your answer? Anarchy!

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

I have an answer for me. You'll have to come to your own answer. I can share some of what went into my decision and hope that it helps you to come to the same conclusion.

Read John Cusack's Interview of Law Professor Jonathan Turley About the Obama Administration's War on the Constitution and journalist Russell Mokhiber's Ten Reasons I'm Not With Barack Obama.

Then read/listen to A Great Silence is Spreading Over the Natural World.

And Chris Hedges' Life Is Sacred (no, it's not about abortion).

Then consider all of it against the backdrop of this, AfterTheWarming.

Then vote as if your life depends on it. Because it does.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner Says Mitt Romney Campaign Not Dead Yet, Jokes 'I Just Hope I Survive'

What do you think of Romney?(In less than 2000 words please).I know it's a loaded question.

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

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters, running to the left of Hillary Clinton. 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, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word, in the sense of choosing his words very carefully (lawyer-speak) during the campaign, giving people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote. Like Bush-speak, which utilized oxymorons like Clear Skies Initiative and No Child Left Behind (for legislation that were friendly to the environment or children's education).

It's why even his most ardent admirers still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican. The debate about what Obama is is over: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat" - Blue Dog = (might as well be registered as a) Republican

Ideologically, Obama's a Republican -- More precisely he's a neoliberal (no relationship to liberal at all). Doing what's good 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 snowjob on everybody.

At this point, I would argue that Obama and Democrats are worse than Romney and Republicans. Bush-Cheney-Romney-Ryan-Republicans make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better.

So, "lesser of two evils"? No, Obama's the more effective of the two evils. More effective on behalf of the corporate elites. We the People didn't see it coming from our own.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner Says Mitt Romney Campaign Not Dead Yet, Jokes 'I Just Hope I Survive'

One other question. What do you think of Romney (In less than 2000 words please)? I know it's a loaded question.

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

It's only a loaded question if your intention is to make this a "lesser of two evils" argument.

The 'likability' question is an irrelevant one to me - I don't want to have a beer with either of them. I don't intend to vote for either of them. What's relevant to me is trustworthiness, in how they would govern, and the only difference is in their rhetoric. Neither one is trustworthy.

In secret budget talks, Obama left EVERYTHING on the table, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Just as Obama ran on SinglePayer, then backed down, then said he wouldn't sign any legislation that didn't include a public option, and then reneged, in the weeks after the election he's going to be cutting another secret budget deal with Republicans (he'll push SimpsonBowles, the 'CatfoodCommission's' report), just like the one he cut on the lousy health insurance legislation and Bush's (now Obama's) tax cuts for the rich, that ends Great Society programs. And then there's the KeystonePipeline - Obama already put the land-grab for the southern route on the fast track.

If you're voting for Obama out of fear over what Romney would do if elected, Romney's record as governor isn't all that dissimilar from Obama's in the White House. There were even moments of liberalism to Romney's record (gun control, state co-pays for abortion, etc.) - Certainly more progressive than Obama. Even the Boston Globe admitted Romney's judicial picks "have generally not been is overtly partisan".

Both men say one thing when they're running for office and then do something entirely different once they're in the job. So the talk of Romney pandering to the rightwing now really means nothing. Romney wasn't the Tea Party's pick. He's the Republican establishment's pick.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner Says Mitt Romney Campaign Not Dead Yet, Jokes 'I Just Hope I Survive'

One question that comes to mind is If the Republican and Democratic plans are the same why do the Republicans want to destoy the OBama plan. Wouldn't it be easier to just get on with it. since they are the same?

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

When teabaggers say (on the one hand), "Get government out of my health care" and in their next breath, "don't you dare touch my Medicare!", it's not as if they are the brightest colors in the Crayola box.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

There are a few things that I do not agree with that the administration has done. Like extend the Bush tax cuts. But I refuse to agree to go back to the polices that got us buried in this situation.

=========================
Obama has no interest in slowing the corporate steamroller. His only interest is in making you think so.

Democratic and Republican poIiticians are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be. Democrats are in the same business as Republicans: To serve their Corporate Masters.

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufacturing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tailored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's smirk-worthy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude, like that's somehow "a good thing".

When it comes to achieving corporations' business, Democrats are remarkably competent. Obama is even more competent in that he's been able to give himself some distance from policies that displease Democratic voters ('plausible deniability') in a variety of ways that keep his favorable ratings high. Whether it's renaming Republican legislation ("Romney healthcare " to "Affordable Health Insurance Act") to getting other legislators like Joe Lieberman to actually do the heavy lifting legislatively, Obama's 'most ardent admirers' lay themselves on the line for him out of their ignorance of what he's actually doing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Obviously you don't know what the veto threat was in reaction to:

Obama’s veto threat was never about substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill. He was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.

Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The White House’s complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.

Even the one substantive objection the White House expressed to the bill — mandatory military detention for accused American terrorists captured on US soil — was about Executive power, not due process or core liberties. The proof of that — the definitive, conclusive proof — is that Senator Carl Levin has several times disclosed that it was the WhiteHouse which demanded removal of a provision in his original draft that would have exempted US citizens from military detention. In other words, this was an example of the White House demanding greater detention powers in the bill by insisting on the removal of one of its few constraints (the prohibition on military detention for Americans captured on US soil). That’s because the White House’s North Star on this bill — as they repeatedly made clear — was Presidential discretion: they were going to veto the bill if it contained any limits on the President’s detention powers, regardless of whether those limits forced him to put people in military prison or barred him from doing so.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

That's not what a "lame duck session" means.

You can believe whatever you care to believe about my party affiliation, but you seem to be new to the concept that Democratic voters aren't happy with Obama and haven't been happy with the DLC/Third Way/No Labels-controlled Democratic Party for a great many years. Expecting blind obedience from the base while dealing away hard-fought for policies and programs, losing ground over 3 decades, has brought us to this moment in history where the people are hanging on by our fingernails. Putting your head in the sand isn't going to save us, the poor and middle classes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Firstly, I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat. I've never voted for a Republican in my life (and never will), and I can say at this point that I can't imagine ever voting for another Democrat either.

Secondly, this article is about what Obama's going to do in the lame duck session of Congress - That's after the election, and before the next session, before those who were voted into office in November take their seats in January 2013. It's not what Obama's going to do now.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits:

“I find this reprehensible,” said (lawyer) Kristen Breitweiser, another family member whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, said at the time. “One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

What Obama's done with that finance reform - Meet Obama's regulator of that legislation, GaryGensler.

One Year After DoddFrank, More Rules Get Delayed Or Weakened

If you can't openly stop the move for reform, then put up as many roadblocks as possible, stall as long as possible to keep the status of no regulations going. Until your replacement, either through a new administration or the usual 2nd term shuffling of players, can "study it all again before implementing", i.e., never. Ever try to put mittens on a kid who doesn't want to wear them? Think OJ and the glove.

GaryGensler spent 18 years at GoldmanSachs, making partner when he was 30. Gensler was UndersecretaryOfTheTreasury (1999-2001) and AssistantSecretaryOfTheTreasury (1997-1999) in the UnitedStates. BarackObama selected him to lead the CommodityFuturesTradingCommission, which has jurisdiction over $5 trillion in trades. Gensler was sworn in on May 26, 2009. Gensler was also a senior adviser to the HillaryClinton campaign and, after the DemocraticPrimary, the ObamaCampaign.

Questions as to whether there are ConflictsOfInterests relating to Gensler's former employment have been raised, as has been the case in any number of former Goldman employees that go on to hold pivotal positions in the USTreasury, FederalReserve, or as regulators. Gensler has the reputation in the market though as a politically ambitious man who is more likely to squash than accommodate speculation.

As the TreasuryDepartment’s undersecretary for domestic finance in the last two years of the ClintonAdministration, Gensler found himself in the position of overseeing policies in the areas of US financial markets, debt management, financial services, and community development. Gensler advocated the passage of the CommodityFuturesModernizationAct of 2000, which exempted CreditDefaultSwaps and other derivatives from regulation. The Senate was expected to examine his views on derivatives regulation during the Senate confirmation hearings.

In March 2009, SenatorBernieSanders attempted to block his nomination to head the CommodityFuturesTradingCommission. A statement from Sanders’ office said that Gensler “had worked with SenPhilGramm and AlanGreenspan to exempt CreditDefaultSwaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of AIG and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in US history.” He also accused Gensler of working to deregulate electronic energy trading, which led to the downfall of Enron, and supporting the GrammLeachBlileyAct, which allowed American banks to become “too big to fail.”

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

In claims against big business, Sotomayor (herself a former corporate lawyer) wrote the dissent in a 2-1 decision that ultimately favored victims' families. This was concerning the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 off of LongIsland. Sotomayor wrote, "The crash hadn't occurred in US territorial waters, therefore victims' families shouldn't have had the right to sue for extra damages." She wrote that the judges who disagreed with her were ignoring legislative history and earlier case law," saying "their decision was a legislative policy choice which shouldn't be made by the courts".

That's conservative talk.

In 2002, on the issue of abortion, Sotomayor upheld Bush's 'Global Gag Rule' (the policy of withholding funds for international groups that offer family planning information and services, including abortion).

On the issue of discrimination, she frequently rules against plaintiffs. For example, in 2004, she ruled against African-American corrections' officers who said they were retaliated against for filing discrimination complaints.

Sotomayor certainly doesn't look at the law through the prism of how it serves the interests of the People.

And Sotomayor was with the Scalia-Thomas-Alito faction that boycotted the SOTU - Sotomayor was in Guam, addressing a group of students and swearing in new members of the Guam Bar Association, a first for a US Supreme Court Justice (are you kidding, Sonia, missing the most public showing of US democracy and the 3 branches of government by leaving the US for a 5 day trip to Guam?).

We need more Earl Warrens. What we don't need are politicians looking to avoid a fight, and want to work "in a bipartisan manner". Republicans declared war on Democrats years and years ago, while Democrats keep trying to "make nice". Democratic politicians have gotten fat and lazy, feathering their own nests while Republicans have made long inroads into furthering corporate interests.

Whether Democrats are inept or corrupt, the result is the same: They have failed to protect the interests of the 99%. And all that they're putting out this campaign season is warmed-over Republican-like policies when drastic populist steps need to be taken.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Obama's picks for the Supreme Court are nothing to crow about. Both Sotomayor and Kagan are to the right of the justices that they replaced (Souter and Stevens).

See here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

ElenaKagan is the GoldmanSacks seat, not to mention that she was the 5th vote in rolling back Miranda a few weeks ago, and she joined the conservatives on the Medicare portion of ACA (that states may opt out) a couple of weeks ago.

Obama's spin when trying to get both Kagan and Sotomayor (a lackluster intellect if ever there was one) confirmed was that they'd be effective at countering the conservatives arguments when it came to trying to pull Kennedy over. It hasn't happened; Roberts, Alito, and Scalia wield far greater political warfare skills. And it was Kennedy who worked on Roberts for weeks, to bring Roberts over to the conservative side on ACA??

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Lily Ledbetter has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' lists of his "accomplishments" and has gone unchallenged because to explain the ridiculousness of it as an "Obama accomplishment" can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.

To begin with, claiming Lily Ledbetter as Obama's achievement is like the driver of the winning car in this year's Le Mans race (Mike Rockenfeller) picking up a hitch-hiking Obama right before he crossed the finish line and saying Obama won the Le Mans. It's even more deceitful than that, for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke. But even that doesn't quite explain it.

Obama and Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to attempt it:

By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislation, the problem the legislation is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislation would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressional efforts. Or, something else.

With Lily Ledbetter, it took 45 years to have the legislature address a problem (statute of limitations for filing equal pay discrimination lawsuits in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in what never should've been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. Lily Ledbetter really had nothing to do with "landmark sex discrimination". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For the filing of an equal-pay lawsuit.

And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the Supreme Court's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporations to women, and Democrats work for corporations just as Republicans do).

If you want to tout passage of Lily Ledbetter then you're going to have to take the blame for not following it up immediately with legislation for transparency in pay. Being able to find out what everyone else is getting paid. It's a joke without it. It's like taking you to a Michelin star restaurant, blowing the aromas from the kitchen in your face, but not letting you eat anything at all.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

The ridiculous list that, if you knew anything at all about legislation, isn't populist at all.

He didn't get us healthcare reform - He didn't even call it that. He got the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries a windfall. Obama and Democrats weren't put into power to get Americans insurance - We put them into power to get affordable, quality medical treatment. ACA doesn't do that.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

By the way, SinglePayerUniversalHealthcare was the compromise.

SinglePayer wasn't our first, best proposal. We've already have been denied our first best proposal: A level playing field where we all could rise and share in the obscene corporate profits that come at the expense of so many people's lives. We've lost to a corporate mentality that it's a 'dog eat dog'-world, where making a living isn't enough (or even possible); only 'making a kiIIing'.

Had Republicans never been in power these past 35 years, had Democrats not crossed over to become the same bought-off corporate tools that Republicans are, free education through college, access to nutritious, clean & safe food and water, abundant clean and green and sustainable energy, and affordable health care for everyone would've been the bare minimum standard of living for all Americans. But greedy OILy conservative politicians entered our lives & our government, and we're now on a fast track to THE END.

A weak PublicOption was whittled down into a trigger and then dropped altogether. There are no cost controls in the healthcare legislation, but plenty of protections for continued gouging by insurance and drug industries.

And then the Democratic caving over the budget.

When the budget process began, Republican congressman PaulRyan came out with the first number that Republicans wanted to cut ($32 billion). Then there was a TeaParty revolt in the House, and Republicans in the House said "Fine, you win, $64 billion."

At $64 billion and Democrats moved all the way over to where PaulRyan was when the process began. So even if Democrats got that number (which in Washington would be considered a "win" for Democrats), Democrats went all the way over to where the Republican leadership thought their opening bid would be. Ultimately the cuts are going to be very dramatic, more so than anyone in either party thought was wise months ago -- NOBODY is representing the interests of the poor and middle classes. The 'People's Budget' is nowhere to be found.

Nothing's going to change until and unless Obama and Democratic politicians make the decision to engage. Democratic voters thought they'd made the decision in 2006 and in 2008 when they put Obama and Democrats in power. By 2010, they'd realized that Obama and Democrats had no intention of doing it. And should Obama get reelected, expect Simpson-Bowles to be his raison d'etre. He's already setting the stage with his "austerity budget".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

With Bush's 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 and increases taxes on the poor. The payroll tax holiday sets Social Security and Medicare up for destruction -- There were and are better ways to get money to the poor and middle classes.

The left comes to the table already having compromised our positions. On everything. All the time. We have 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 isthe Capps amendment. That was the compromise AGREEMENT on abortion in Obama's healthcare legislation.

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

Read this, too.

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.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Jeff, it's not Obama who has a short memory; it's his 'most ardent supporters'. They're the ones with the power to hold his feet to the fire, by crashing his numbers, but they don't. They wring their hands over Republicans who do the exact same thing that Obama will do if reelected.

To the ObamaZombies:

If you want Obama to be the liberal you believe that he secretly is, then crash his approval numbers NOW. Make him work for your vote. Make him talk the talk of a liberal, and start walking the walk - There are so many things that he could do to prove good faith. Here's one great example of what's within his ability to do, without Congress - Have the IRS enforce tax laws in the mortgage-industrial-complex.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Way too late, "the day after his re-election".
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

I guess you didn't watch Obama's speech at the convention. He said it there. Nancy Pelosi said it, too, and it was reported here on HP. And Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said it, too.

The defense of ObamaZombies here is just like the wife who caught her husband in bed with another woman and said, "Are you going to believe me or your own lyin' eyes?"
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

We're back to the old Obama "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"-talking point, are we?

[Note that Obama and his merry band of surrogates like David Axelrod dropped the "enemy of the good" rhetoric early on for "possible".]

To those like you who spew rhetoric like, "Let him get reelected first, then we'll worry", and "Look at how impatient they are. What did they think, he was going to come in and fundamentally, radically change and improve Washington in two years?", I don't think anybody thought that. I certainly didn't. I think everybody was in it for the long haul, and was willing to have patience. As long as it was going in the correct direction. But it's not.

The reason people are disappointed isn't because Obama hasn't succeeded. He's succeeded just fine for the banks, Wall Street, Big PhRma, the insurance industry. People are disappointed because he's because he's not trying on our behalf, the people's. He's doing the opposite. Everything he accomplishes is by stuffing his administration with the architects of the economic meltdown and meeting in secret with the very Iobbyists that he was going to disempower, continuing to have them write the legislation that is destroying the poor and middle classes.

Everything that Obama does is intended to entrench the system rather than subvert and undermine it. So if he were actually fighting, everyone would have all the patience in the world and say,"We're behind you", etc. The disappointment is that he's not trying; he's doing the opposite.

The proof of that is evident on a daily basis.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

I've been asking for weeks: If Obama wins, what do you think he will say he has a mandate to do?

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told Andrea Mitchell that Obama’s going to use Simpson-Bowles as the template for budget talks.

Simpson-Bowles (Catfood Commission) plan cuts Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (Social Security wasn't even on their plate to be considered) and puts the burden on the poor and middle classes, and lets the rich keep their ill-gotten booty.

At the Democratic Convention three weeks ago, Bill Clinton and Obama embraced Simpson-Bowles and not long ago Nancy Pelosi said she will support it.

Today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans.

There should be tax HIKES on corporations and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationalization unless they begin lending to small businesses. There have been more than 3.5 million home foreclosures but there are 11 million more in the pipeline — There must be principal write-downs.

Democratic politicians should be beating this drum, loudly, constantly, and pushing the People’s Budget instead of working off of a set of corporate lobbyists’ plans.

Why aren’t Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Democrats talking about the Progressive Caucus’s budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama’s AND Republicans’ plans.

As Krugman has said, the Progressives’ budget:

“balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security’s solvency forever)... and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense.”

But Obama takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power. He’s the grifter leading off the second half of the con game, which is to squeeze the rest of the dimes from the poor and middle classes. It began with part 2 of Bush’s Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (high-priced junk health insurance that has no cost controls), continues with more *AFTA treaties (outsourcing more Americans’ jobs) and “payroll tax ‘holidays’” that lead to the end of Social Security.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

So they're holding Obama hostage in the residence while they (and every other member of Obama's administration and cabinet) do the bidding of transnational corporations and establishment elites?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Why? Why trust? Why are you not demanding guarantees?

I'll bet that after Obama flip-flopped on FISA in July 2008, you were among his fans who said, "Shhhhh, he can't come out and vote against FISA, or else he won't get the crossover Republican and Independent votes."
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner Says Mitt Romney Campaign Not Dead Yet, Jokes 'I Just Hope I Survive'

Do you find nothing wrong with the do nothing conservative congress with the 12% favoarable rating?

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

It was the same when Democrats controlled the House. Lower even (11%).

Everybody complains about Congress, but it's not their own representatives they have a problem with, but the other guys' representatives.

Do I find nothing wrong with it?

Of course it's a problem, but do I want my representatives caving to Republican policies (as they've been doing for many years now) just to get something done?

NO!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner Says Mitt Romney Campaign Not Dead Yet, Jokes 'I Just Hope I Survive'

The American taxpayer has been subsidizing pharmaceutical companies for decades with the promise that the R&D we were paying for would result in lower prices and breakthrough cures. Instead, we've been stuck with higher prices (twice as much as other industrialized countries) while the pharmaceutical companies try to snag new markets overseas with what were to be our discounts.

Not only did Obama break his campaign pledge (of the government, PhRma biggest customer, negotiating for lower priced drugs, and reimporting pharmaceuticals), he gave PhRma a huge gift. The deal that Obama made with PhRma wasn't for PhRma to go up against Big Insurance; it was for PhRma to help sell a plan that makes more profits for Big Insurance.

PhRma paid chump change ($80 billion over 10 years, plus $150 million for ads to support a plan that had NO public option) so that they could keep massive profits and k!II public healthcare. Obama (who had dropped the public option and the universal requirement) let the pharmaceutical industry continue to make obscene profits, and gave the insurance industry a clear field and new customers, all paid for with taxpayers' money.

Oh, and by the way, $80 billion over 10 years is less than 1% of the profits PhRma makes a year.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner Says Mitt Romney Campaign Not Dead Yet, Jokes 'I Just Hope I Survive'

ACA, an invention of the Heritage Foundation, is Part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003.

If Republicans succeed in repealing it, the reason is so that they can reintroduce it with a few minor changes to throw off the dumber of their constituents and collect their share of booty from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

If you don't want to believe that the parties work in tandem, build upon each other's 'successes' (on behalf of corporations), just look at Bush's 2003MedicareReformAct and RomneyCare, both of which mirror ACA, and keep the problem in place (insurance companies as the gatekeepers to Americans getting medical treatment and employment-provided insurance, both of which EVERYBODY wanted ended, skyrocketing costs of medical care, no cost controls and not universal)?

Fercrissakes, look at the donut hole!

The 'donut-hole' that never should have existed in the first place, and that the DLC-controlled Democrats created as a "compromise" for Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (another massive corporate giveaway package).

The whole of Medicare Part D was a scam and a scheme by both pro-corporate parties, a "first step" (as Obama's 'most ardent supporters' like to say) towards privatizing public healthcare.

In 2003, PhRMA lobbied hard and got Congress to insert language into the bill that created a Medicare drug benefit that prohibits Medicare from using its market clout to negotiate with manufacturers for lower drug prices and making sure the drug benefit was only available through private insurance plans.

The result was that Medicare members can only get drug coverage by joining a private insurance plan. People who have both Medicare and Medicaid (dual-eligibles) were switched from Medicaid prescription drug coverage to a private Medicare drug plan. Prescription drugs for this population cost 30% more under the new private Medicare drug plans than they did under Medicaid, increasing pharmaceutical companies' profits by at least $3.7 billion dollars in just the first two years of the program. For example, Bristol Myers earned a windfall of almost $400 million, thanks to higher prices for the stroke medication Plavix.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner Says Mitt Romney Campaign Not Dead Yet, Jokes 'I Just Hope I Survive'

Health~~care~~ INSURANCE.

Health insurance ≠ Medical treatment

Obama's healthcare legislation doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it). Insurance companies are not required to cover anyone's preexisting condition gratis. And between increased premium costs, deductibles and co-pays, ACA Unlikely to Stem Medical Bankruptcies

People who voted for Obama/Democrats voted to get affordable, quality medical treatment. That was NOT a vote to protect and further enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Voters didn't send Obama and Democrats into power to entrench the insurance industry as the gatekeepers to being able to get medical treatment. Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats to Washington to continue tying insurance benefits to their employment.

Yet that is precisely what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats did.

Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:

Pity Wall Street's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay. One example is Joel Gemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98 million.

Obama's healthcare legislation is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry. It is one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation ever enacted by our government.

The health insurance industry provides no real service. All it does is take money out of the system. It's nothing more than a blood-sucking middleman.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Here is what I speculate - that Axelrod doesn't know. Again, I emphasize, I am speculating. So, I am willing to listen to what O has to say - it should come from his mouth and not someone else.

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

And you did hear it come out of Obama's mouth.

Firstly, there is nothing that Axelrod or any other of Obama's spokespersons say that isn't Obama-approved.

But, as you don't know how it works (politics in Washington, White House communications, etc.), if you listened to Obama's speech at the convention, you'd have heard it. Not just from him, but from Bill Clinton, and from Nancy Pelosi, and from Dick Durbin. They've been doing the slow and steady drip-drip-drip of softening up the People for a few months now. So that if and when they win reelection, they'll say, "That's what the election was about". Just as Pelosi said about "taking impeachment off the table" in the 3 weeks prior to the 2006 midterm elections", and what Obama said about "looking forward, not back" about not prosecuting torturers or investigating Bush-Cheney.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

You're not limited to voting for Democrats or Republicans.

Here's a list of all of the candidates running for president.

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument reeks of denial. 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 kill 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? As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.

If Republicans are such scvm (and I believe they are, and you must, too, as a democrat) 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?

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.

How do Obama's 'most ardent supporters' explain his putting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, et al, on the table for benefits' cuts?

And then there's the escalation of wars, continued occupation of Afghanistan, NDAA, and Obama's atrocious environmental record.

You defend Obama at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporations and establishment elites.

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republicans?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Presidents regularly write legislation and walk it over to the Congress to get it passed.

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 death for your time in office, not to mention your overall career in politics.

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: It hasn't. Because pols like JoeLieberman & BlueDogs (& Republicans) provide cover to Obama & the DLC-controlled DemocraticParty, to let them continue to serve corporate interests over the interests of the People.

Obama insisted JoeLieberman 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?

If Obama got nothing for that concession, why didn't he? Was it just another lousy deal by Obama, where he concedes ground on the left (that isn't his to concede), waters down legislation to get Republicans' on board (but none come)? Was it another giveaway to big business, another selling out of the People, like the hundreds of billions to banks and insurance companies and PhRma?

Stop with the St. Obama BS. He's just another politician.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Please, let's not go through this id!otic BS again -- Presidents write legislation all the time, then walk it over to the Capitol and have someone in the Senate introduce it. Who do you think just wrote the American Jobs Act?

And who do you think wrote the tax cut legislation preserving Bush's tax cuts for the richest?

ACA was Obama's baby, as was NDAA.

During the healthcare legislation debacle, Obama (and his 'most ardent admirers') excused his failure to lead the fight for single payer/public option with, "Writing the legislation is Congress's job -- I'm staying out of it". We learned later that Obama had been undercutting the congressional committees working on the legislation by crafting secret deals with the insurance & pharmaceutical industries that Congress would be locked into.

How many comments did you write on HP, defending Obama with "Presidents don't write legislation! That's congress's job!", only to have egg all over your face when the news of this deal came out?

There wasn't a peep out of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' about his interfering with Congress's job and plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then introduce clean bills with middle class tax cuts alone, etc.

Obama's job in this and all issues, any president's job, is to ratchet up support/opposition to pressure members of Congress into doing the president's bidding. It's to shape opinion in the public, intercede directly with the American people, to get them to bring pressure to bear on their elected representatives in Congress.

Obama didn't do that. Obama only uses that power to beat down them that brung 'im: The Democratic base.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

When politicians say that "Social Security is the third rail of politics", they mean it with a hostility that should be reserved for their Corporate Masters. You don't see politicians putting campaign finance and election reform on their agenda from year to year as you do their continuing assaults on social safety net programs for the People.

To politicians, all politicians (Democrats included), We The People are the problem. If only they didn't have to deal with making us happy to get our votes that keep them employed. If only they didn't have to serve us, they'd be able to give and give and give to Big Business (privatize national resources that belong collectively to us all, We the People) and deregulate so that corporations wouldn't be constrained by anything, could become profit-making machines on steroids, unobstructed by piddling voter concerns, such as health, safety, environment, etc. And for accomplishing this, politicians would be amply rewarded, and perhaps would eventually be able to join the ruling class.

You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politicians, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corporate branch), and that Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate (Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constitutionally-required role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administrations -- What little regulating they've put in legislation the last 2 years is ineffective for a whole array of very sneaky moves). As a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractors stealing us blind, insurance companies don't have to comply with healthcare reform laws, banks can continue as huge-profit-making machines for their officers and lead the nation into one bubble and crash after another.

You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy. What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past two years has been in the People's and not the Corporations' interests.

What's gotten lost in the news cycle the past few months are Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties which mean more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas. And then there's the 'Super Congress' (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the Dream Act ticking along (which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages).

We The People are being transformed, from sheep to sacrificial lambs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

How do we get Democratic politicians to behave like Democrats? How do we get Democratic policies and legislation passed?

I've laid out solutions, beginning with "Stop voting for DLC-controlled Democrats". All roads (to campaign finance reform, Social Security and Medicare protection, clean and green energy, ending corporate personhood, strong banking/environmental/etc. regulations, JOBS, education, no more resource wars, gay rights, civil rights restoration, affordable quality medical treatment for everyone, and so on) begin with that.

Everything that has been done these past 30 years has been done with Democrats' compliance -- Couldn't have happened without Democrats signing on.

Neither party is interested in ending corporate control over our government. It feathers their nests now and will take care of them once they've left office. Unless and until the money is out of politics, we're all just wasting our time, flapping our gums.

Obama isn't interested in reforming that. He's not interested in reforming anything. He's only interested in making it look like he's reformed government. He's not alone -- All professional politicians has 'reform' as their campaign's centerpiece. A lot of promises to reform, and when it's time to get reelected and whatever happened in the previous 2 or 4 years is spun to try to convince voters (and more importantly, about 10% of the voters, Independents who see themselves as centrists) that the reform that they wanted they got with their side of the D&R equation.

Both parties generally take their bases for granted, but there is something to the adage, "Republicans fear their base and Democrats loathe their base".

So we're back to the question that has kept this farce going for so many election cycles now, moving the parties and the government farther to right while the people, when informed of the issues, tend to agree with and want liberal solutions):

Why should Obama-Democrats do anything for you if they know you're going to vote for them no matter what?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

So what is the president's proposal, asked Time magazine's Mark Halperin.

"Mark, I'll tell you what: When you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table -- this is not the time," replied Axelrod.

This is actually funny coming from David Axelrod.

Here's what Axelrod tweeted about Mitt Romney's refusal to discuss issues:

David Axelrod ‏@davidaxelrod Tax returns. Bundlers. Bain. MA records & now key docs from Olympics. When it comes to secrecy, Mitt takes the gold! http://abcn.ws/NrkDBu

That was the first negative tweet (yes, tweet) from an adviser to either candidate since the horrific shootings. We'll see what the candidates themselves say later, and it's not like the negative ads came down by either side in other states. But this marked a clear move to resume.

Before that tweet and since, the Obama campaign and the media has been pressing Romney (rightly, too) on Republicans' refusal to talk about their plans.

Not just on this issue, but on a whole host of issues, the media had better start pushing both candidates and not just wait until one disgruntled senator (Sanders) takes it up with one journalist. Like, let's hear what Obama's going to do with the Keystone can that he kicked down the road, to after the election.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP