You're a little confused. We've had tax breaks for the rich and corporations for 3 decades and it's caused America's decline and the elimination of the middle class.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Canada is north, and Canada is no Russia.
When deposits at banks are guaranteed by the US government, i.e., the US taxpayer, they don't merit being regarded as private:
Bailout Recipients:
We're tracking where taxpayer money has gone in the ongoing bailout of the financial system. Our database accounts for both the broader $700 billion bill and the separate bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
For each entity, we provide a “Net Outstanding” amount, which shows how deep taxpayers are in the hole after accounting for any revenue the government has received (usually through interest or dividends).
Companies that failed to repay the government and resulted in a loss are shaded red. You can see a list of those investments here. All other investments either returned a profit to the government or might still be repaid. Recipients of aid through TARP’s housing programs (such as mortgage servicers and state housing orgs) received subsidies that were never intended to be repaid, so we don’t mark those as losses..
Note: Subsidies are listed separately from the investment programs. So, for instance, Bank of America is listed twice – both as a mortgage servicer and as a bank.
Want just the numbers all in one place? See the detailed view here.
Americans' shared resources (oil, gas, water, minerals, etc.) are being given away to corporations for the profits of a few. There is no earthly reason why any private corporation should be stewards of and profit off of these limited and finite resources instead of the American people. Even Americans' roads and bridges and highways and railways and other modes of transportation (what being free really is all about, the freedom to move about), developed and built with American taxpayers' money and labor past, are being privatized - Only the rich will be able to use them.
Think, by the way, about other countries purchasing whole areas of Americans' roadways, privatizing them and populating those areas with their own nation's citizens. That's already being discussed in some corners. Do you want the Koch brothers owning them?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
After 2008, Obama and Democrats refused to use the political capital given by them when 10 million more voters went to the polls and voted for them.
In both 2010 and 2012, whether Democrats gained seats or lost control of the Congress, Obama said he was going to do more caving.
What was he hoping to achieve by doing that by announcing that before an election (along with Obama's flip-flopping on just about every pledge and continuing Bush-Cheney policies and putting Republican-like legislation through Congress), if not to discourage and suppress Democratic voter turnout in the midterms?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats. Some, but not all, examples:
BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter.
Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak.
Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland).
Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek.
Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.
Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades. You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich? Are Democrats just stupld?
Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLincoln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a PublicOption for healthcare. They didn't.
The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't.
Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (and doesn't).
The ProgressiveCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOption. They didn't.
Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said ACA was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the ProgressiveCaucus, for threatening to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
After the midterms, Obama assessed that the message of the election was that voters liked his efforts at bipartisanship, and wanted him to move even farther to the right (which he did):
Obama Urges Bipartisanship, Not Gridlock
Obama vows to ‘redouble’ efforts toward bipartisanship
Then there was Obama's signaling that he would extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich before the midterms, which he did after the midterms.
Do you know what Obama said he'd do if re-elected to a second term?:
Explaining this spring how he would manage to enact his agenda in a second term, Obama was still looking forward to sitting down and cutting deals. This time, he said, Republicans would be nicer because he’s not running for re-election.Obama's either corrupt or he's the very definition of 'insanity', "doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome". Or his supporters are.
Before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, more caving,, to Republicans, more Republican-like legislation, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress:
KEEP READING
Aides say that the president's been spending "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," brainstorming with administration officials about the best way to revamp the strategies & goals of the White House.
And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislating power, including perhaps control of the House & even Senate, Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that'll be marked with the same obstructive nature from the GOP.
"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, & so the strategy of just saying no to everything & sitting on the sidelines & throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals & work with me in a serious way."
DickDurbin says Obama's post-election agenda "will have to be limited & focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people." TomDaschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The keyword is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive."
I wrote this two years ago and was told by Obama's 'most ardent supporters' that I was mistaken:
The TeaParty is an effective nemesis for Obama and helps him and the DLC deliver to their (and Republicans') CorporateMasters. The TeaParty 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 TeaParty a threat, had they wanted to put the TeaParty down, the time to do it was during the healthcare debate when the TeaParty was coming to prominence. When Democratic members of Congress were cancelling TownHalls because of the threats 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 BigInsurance, PhRma, hospitals, the AMA, etc., and then he lied about it, all the while that the TeaParty grew and bullied at TownHalls.
What Obama also did during the same TownHall 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 RepublicanParty that controls the RepublicanParty (far rightwing extremists) and the rest of the RepublicanParty (plain old rightwing conservatives and moderate Republicans) for the purpose of trying to attract the latter (Republican politicians and their supporters) into the DemocraticParty. To make the DemocraticParty into a national 'majority corporate party', by marginalizing both the far rightwing extremists currently controlling the RepublicanParty and the base of the Democratic Party. In order "to govern, from the center, for 100 years".
The TeaParty 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.
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
