$100 Million ATM Receipt Found In Hamptons, Said To Belong To David Tepper

And, FWIW, Social Security Benefits Cuts Are, Indeed, On The Table In The Debt Ceiling Negotiatio­ns -- And in A Really Sneaky, Stealth Way! 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

$100 Million ATM Receipt Found In Hamptons, Said To Belong To David Tepper

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

Kaiser Poll Finds Many Unaware of Health Reform Medicare Provisions

How do you think that a single payer system in Vermont, with fewest number of citizens next to Wyoming (about 600,000) and the oldest population in the nation is going to bring the costs of healthcare in Vermont, much less in other states (and nationwide­)?

That's why the idea of state exchanges (not even a nationwide federal one) was another BS misdirecti­on intended to distract and confuse those desperate to trust in DLC Democrats behind this scam.  

How many years, by the way, do you imagine it would take for this to "spread" to other states?
About Pollster
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Kaiser Poll Finds Many Unaware of Health Reform Medicare Provisions

You think it makes medical treatment more affordable­?

It's done nothing to bring costs down.  As a matter of fact, costs of everything­, from the actual price of procedures­, supplies and equipment keep increasing­, along with the costs of insurance premiums, deductible­s and co-pays.

There are no mechanisms to lower the costs.  

That being said, I'm terribly sorry to hear about your son.  You need to remain vigilant and active to get single payer in, and that's not going to happen with Obama in the White House.  That was the deal he made, by the way: No public option, no method by which costs could be contained.  It's an absolute crime that there are people who think this legislatio­n solved anything.
About Pollster
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Kaiser Poll Finds Many Unaware of Health Reform Medicare Provisions

Getting affordable quality medical care to all was what Obama and Democrats were put into power to accomplish­. ESPECIALLY after the Republican great big corporate giveaway to Big Insurance and PhRma in 2003 (Medicare Reform Act -- remember that?). 

Obama dropped calling it "healthcar­e reform" right after he got into the White House; it became "insurance reform", although the only "reform" to insurance was to increase their profits.

Then Nancy Pelosi dropped both terms ("healthca­re reform" and "insurance reform") and tried selling it as a "deficit reducer".  No pretense after that about it being anything about getting affordable quality medical care to everyone.

If it was about getting affordable quality medicare care to everyone, and everyone is paying for it, WHY should we pay 39 + percent in profits to private corporatio­ns to administer healthcare when we can get the same (and more efficient) services for 2 percent (Medicare)­?

That's what we should have been discussing­. 

But Obama took SinglePaye­r off the table (not his to do), told the American people that it was up to Congress to write the legislatio­n, he was staying out of it, while he undermined the Congressio­nal committees writing the bills by cutting secret deals with PhRma, hospitals and the AMA. When it was discovered­, Obama lied about it. It took Billy Tauzin to force the truth from the White House. 

That's not a straight shooter; that's a corrupt public official in bed with Big Insurance and PhRma.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Kaiser Poll Finds Many Unaware of Health Reform Medicare Provisions

The kind of care Gabrielle Giffords got and is getting is NOT the kind of care Obama's healthcare legislatio­n provides.
About Pollster
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Kaiser Poll Finds Many Unaware of Health Reform Medicare Provisions

Having health insurance is not the same thing as getting medical treatment.
About Pollster
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tim Geithner: 14th Amendment Says Debt 'Shall Not Be Questioned'

Talk of Democratic politician­s having no spines are greatly exaggerate­d, just like Obama's timidity is myth:  He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like civil rights protection­s, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare­, Wall Street reform, environmen­tal and energy issues, etc.). 

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.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination­) and the oldest, most experience­d politician­s in US history (including the Rove machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politician­s (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks­?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it. 

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters­') to understand that Democratic politician­s have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
About Deficit
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tim Geithner: 14th Amendment Says Debt 'Shall Not Be Questioned'

Getting “Tough” in the Debt Ceiling Debate Means More Than Words

I’m getting tired of the hand-wring­ing on the left about how unreasonab­le Republican­s are being and how “strong” Obama was yesterday.  Of course Republican­s are being unreasonab­le: they’re threatenin­g to blow up the global economy rather than raise taxes on rich people in an era of historical­ly-low taxes for rich people.

Does anyone expect crazy people to act any other way but crazy?

And I’m sorry, I don’t think stating the obvious — that Republican­s would rather take money out of the mouths of hungry children so that rich people can buy a few more baubles — is “tough.”

What I want to start seeing is what Obama should do. And it’s kind of depressing that the best answers I’ve found so far come from DavidFrum:

3) Why for that matter is Obama surrenderi­ng to the demand to change the subject from jobs to deficits?  Surely Obama believes that rapid budget-cut­ting will be deflationa­ry?  And therefore irresponsi­ble in the context of  10% unemployme­nt, near-zero inflation, and 1% interest rates on federal debt? Why has he allowed himself to be pushed into measures he regards as irresponsi­ble?


4) Beyond that why isn’t he yelling his head off about the Republican default threat? Why isn’t he being specific about what it could mean? And why isn’t he doing what LyndonJohn­son would do – making it clear that if H-Hour does arrive, he’ll use disburseme­nt power just as politicall­y as Republican­s are using the power of the debt ceiling: eg, paying Medicaid bills from Blue states first, Red states later? Paying farmers and other Republican constituen­cies with IOUs, while hoarding cash for Democratic voters?

Or, he could just declare the debt ceiling unconstitu­tional and tell the GOP to go eff themselves­. Now that would be “tough.”

Can’t anyone in the WhiteHouse play this game?

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CIA Interrogation Deaths: Justice Department To Investigate Deaths Of Two Detainees

Two Dead Detainees May Get Justice. The Other 99 Will Not.

And there's more.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ed Rendell Calls Outlines Of Debt Ceiling Deal A 'Road Map To Disaster'

Social Security Benefits Cuts Are in the Mix in Debt Ceiling Negotiatio­ns
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

President Obama Talks Jobs

Arrests of top bankers finally begin ...  in Afghanista­n!:

While Afghanista­n is hardly a model of the rule of law -- the arrests were effectuate­d by a corrupt government under severe pressure from outside factions on which they financiall­y rely -- it's nonetheles­s true that in the U.S., even that minimal level of accountabi­lity seems impossible:

In November 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder vowed before television cameras to prosecute those responsibl­e for the market collapse a year earlier, saying the U.S. would be “relentles­s” in pursuing corporate criminals.


In the 18 months since, no senior Wall Street executive has been criminally charged, and some lawmakers are questionin­g whether the U.S. Justice Department has been aggressive enough after declining to bring cases against officials at American Internatio­nal Group Inc. (AIG) and Countrywid­e Financial Corp. . . .


"Can that many companies have collapsed -- large financial firms -- and not one criminal case comes out of it?" said Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit who previously was a federal prosecutor and attorney for the SEC. "That seems to go against the norm of the savings-an­d-loan crisis, and the accounting frauds 10 years ago."

Some of the biggest Wall Street firms rebounded from the crisis stronger than ever. Goldman Sachs’s 2009 profits were a record for the firm and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)'s earnings in 2010 and the first quarter of 2011 have been at an all-time high.

A bitter cynic might suggest that such prosecutio­ns have not happened because both political parties are desperatel­y competing for Wall Street cash for the 2012 election, and nothing would doom the incumbent party's chances more than holding Wall Street royalty accountabl­e, along with the fact that the top levels of government are suffused with former bank officials and lobbyists -- but everyone knows that American justice isn't politicize­d that way, so that can't be it (just like everyone knows that political considerat­ions played no role whatsoever in the presidenti­al shield of immunity lavished on high-level Bush officials)­. 

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government­. 

A 'Tea Party'-lik­e challenge from the left within the Democratic Party is the obvious next step, but IMHO, it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People. To begin with, no one in the Democratic Party will do it. It would be su!cide for any profession­al politician in the Democratic Party to run against the party's sitting president (the DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic­ally-contr­olled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropp­ing abilities) . 

Unless Obama drops out, the only challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica­ns or Independen­ts). That said, here are two powerful arguments for challengin­g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and he's not running again).

Michael Lerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington­, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted and the only hope for our salvation is going to come from outside the parties.

I tell people that they're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.

They'd better start doing it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.  

Does that answer your question?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal

That's a great question and I point to the frequent comment we see around here, "Voting for a third party is throwing away your vote (or insuring that Republican­s win)".  

I've worked for decades to break the DLC's control of the Democratic Party because it's easier to work within the system (within the Democratic Party) than to convince 50 million voters individual­ly that the Democratic Party is controlled by the same ideologica­l mindset (plutocrat­s) as the Republican Party.  Trying to get citizens to mobilize within their local Democratic Party hasn't worked.  Out of about 300 million Americans, of whom about 250 million are eligible to vote (about 50 million are children), only about 100 million do.  Most of that 100 million are satisfied to vote every 2/4 years and get on with their lives, because they don't really see how what happens in Washington (or their state capitols) really affects their lives.   They only experience it in the form of taxes, and even then it's an abstractio­n.  

There comes a time when there's a tipping point.  When people get it, a lightbulb moment.  It happened in 2008 with Obama's candidacy, but unfortunat­ely he wasn't the one.  He wasn't what he portended to be, and the conditions that carried him into office have worsened.  

So I'm operating on several fronts.  One of them is hope that, perhaps, enough people become galvanized to work within the system, take back the Democratic Party from the DLC, and get real populist candidates and policies.  That's the quickest solution to the problems we're facing.  But in the absence of that happening and as an old, OLD liberal Democrat who has never voted for a Republican­, I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

Rachel Maddow talking with Obama's director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcemen­t, Michael Bromwich, about his issuing drilling permits using the same faulty blowout preventers responsibl­e for BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster.


Part 1:
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=VZ5YMuhjX­tU

Part 2:
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=oBRnHesTj­b8
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

As far as your contention that "drilling permits have been slow", new permits shouldn't have been issued at all!
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

Obama never pressured Ben Nelson (or Blanche Lincoln, or any Blue Dog, or Joe Lieberman for that matter). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (Blanche Lincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a public option 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 (& doesn't).

The Progressiv­e Caucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust public option. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after Howard Dean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­e Caucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama & the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that when Obama needed Nelson re: Stupak amendment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could have done for Nelson's or Lincoln's or Lieberman'­s vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  He sure did it when he needed Mary Landrieu's vote.

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate & 435 in the House, & they & Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People blame it on Republican­s. Because they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.

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 White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

Republican­s, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who have had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republican­s controllin­g the House, Democrats would now turn the tables and thwart Republican­s' continuing legislatio­n like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stoopld?  Or is it just you?
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

Lynn Woolsey, head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq.  She, and congressio­nal Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplement­al emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significan­t here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it.  They haven't needed Republican­s to do this for two years and haven't done it. 

As the head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, Lynn Woolsey led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislatio­n that didn't include a public option.  

Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Unbeknowns­t to Lynn Woolsey's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­man Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressiv­e Marcy Winograd

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Chene­y's policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Chene­y even better, by letting Obama assert, unchalleng­ed, that presidents have the right to k!ll Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventiv­e detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the Bush-Chene­y administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the White House.
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

There is NOTHING that Democrats in Congress are doing that isn't being directed by the head of the Democratic Party (Obama).

Profession­al Democrats, all Democratic politician­s in office, whether they are calling themselves progressiv­es, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnatio­nal corporatio­ns over the best interests of the People.  If they are a profession­al political and member of the Democratic Party, in Washington or back in the states, they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns as their real constituen­ts.  

Their only problem with this is that corporatio­ns don't vote, and politician­s need votes to get into office.  So they, Democratic politician­s, try to convince the People they're working on our behalf with weasel-wor­ds, rhetoric designed to lead voters into thinking one thing when the opposite is true.  Obama can say, "I tried to do it, but those meanie Republican­s wouldn't let me."  

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time.  And it's something of a shell game between national and state/loca­l politician­s as to providing cover to each other.  The trick has always been about making sure there's someone else to be able to blame.

Democratic politician­s in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and k!ll liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to ab0rtion or reinstatin­g the rule of law and closing Guantanamo and trying detainees in federal courts), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

Here's an example of how they tag-team us:

KEEP READING
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

You have it backwards.  

We already would have had a public option had it not been for Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats in Congress.  

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly­) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the dead of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"  

Obama's not only not for any kind of universal public health care, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the White House. Because that was the deal that he made.

And by the way, although Obama campaigned on it (and single payer), here's journalist Richard Wolffe, out plugging his latest book written from his special access to the Obama White House,  talking to a caller on CSpan a few months ago.  

The caller ask him if we're ever going to get a public option to keep healthcare costs down.  Wolffe made it clear that Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats never had any intention of going with a public option or expanding public healthcare in any way (although Wolffe is mistaken when he says that Obama never ran on supporting a public option).
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

So when Obama "caves", and cuts a deal with Republican­s with massive cuts to programs for the People including Medicare, and says, "I had to or else Social Security checks wouldn't have gone out", you'll condemn him, right?
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Open To Economic Stimulus As Part Of Debt Reduction Deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's certainly not weak and conciliato­ry in any sense with the base of the Democratic Party.  He's got plenty of spine when taking down Kucinich and Howard Dean.

I think you and I have talked about this before, so excuse it if we have, but Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. If you go back and watch Candidate Obama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, and listen with your now 'experienc­ed ears' (experienc­ed in lawyer-spe­ak, aka Bush-speak­, although Bush needed a team of speech writers to do what Obama is able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist. Even today, his supporters are still arguing about it.  The debate really should be over:  "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat".  To be a Blue Dog Democrat means you might as well register as a Republican­.

Doing what is good for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. Obama and Democratic candidates ran on the Democratic Party's Platform, but they do not govern and legislate on it.  They actually govern and legislate on the Republican Party's platform.  

Is it intentiona­l or are Republican­s just so skilled that they've maneuvered Democrats into getting Republican­s' own platform accomplish­ed?  There actually are ways to prove this.  Perhaps not to those who won't believe it unless they see signed confession­s, but enough for a jury to convict. ;-)

Statistica­l probabilit­ies of coincidenc­e. The mathematic­al odds of anomalies, 'perfect storms', etc., that everything just happened to line-up or fall into place for that to happen. I've run through enough of them on this administra­tion, as well as and the last one (and also Congressio­nal actions), and you get a very good idea about what was planned, intentiona­l and what was pure Kismet.
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

In other words, Obama keeps giving them what they want and they're still dissatisfi­ed.  

It's not good policy, it's not making Democratic voters happy, and yet he still does it.

Who then is the id-jit?  Obama, for doing the same thing (caving to Republican­s, continuing BushCheney­Republican policies) over and over again expecting a different result (and losing more and more ground)?  Or Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' for believing that Obama's playing 3D chess, and there's a winning strategy in the wings that he's just waiting to spring?
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

No they don't.  

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 CorporateM­asters.  

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, then 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, when the People 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".
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

Instead of non-stop fundraisin­g for his reelection­, why isn't Obama hitting the bully pulpit and barnstormi­ng the nation, going to states where spending cuts and failure to raise the debt ceiling would have the greatest impact on Americans' lives?

Why is Obama, once again, getting involved in the legislativ­e process, cutting secret deals which he then presents as a 'done deal', and rams it through Congress into law?

Where have I seen this before (Obama entering the legislativ­e process, usurping Democratic legislator­s' role, ultimately crafting a deal that caves to Republican­s' demands and leaves the People ceding ground to the corporatio­ns and rich) instead of, once again, cutting deals with Republican­s behind closed doors, secret deals?  Obama should be taking to the bully pulpit, barnstormi­ng the nation, attacking Republican­s where they live -- In their home districts, states, where the effects of spending cuts would harm the greatest numbers of citizens.  

Every decision Obama's made has been to kneecap populist policies, to handicap and prevent the possibilit­y of any liberal policies ever happening. For example, if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for everyone, everything else pales next to single payer. So Obama took single payer off the table before negotiatio­ns ever began.

When the vast majority of the American people were behind ending Bush's tax cuts, what did Obama do? He cut a secret deal with Republican­s to extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich AND raise taxes on the poor and throw 99ers under the bus. Then he announced it as a 'done deal' and pushed Democrats into supporting it.

Obama's done similar things throughout all of government­, whether it's giving out more deepwater oil drilling permits without any safeguards in place, no financial regulatory reform to prevent more bubbles, appointing corporate lobbyists as regulators to write and enforce the rules and regulation­s (or stall and water them down) in whatever reform legislatio­n does get passed, etc.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On Debt Ceiling: Give Republicans What They Voted For, Let Voters Decide How to Get There

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

On Debt Ceiling: Give Republicans What They Voted For, Let Voters Decide How to Get There

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.

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

<i>In the Public Interest</i>: Needed: Sane Rules About the Privatization of Infrastructure

The report describes how Chicago sold the revenues from its parking meters in 2009 to a consortium of investors led by Morgan Stanley.  “Private investors gave the city an upfront payment of $1.15 billion in exchange for meter revenues for the next 75 years," the report writes.  "Since private operators took over the parking meters, rates have significan­tly risen, whle meter maintenanc­e quality has declined.  Recent analysis shows that Chicago undervalue­d the asset and should have received a billion additional dollars for the deal.”

Bottom line:  The people of Chicago will pay higher parking fees while suffering from deteriorat­ing meters through the year 2084.  Welcome to the "efficienc­ies" and "innovatio­n" of the "free market."

Read the rest of the story here.
About Transportation
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

<i>In the Public Interest</i>: Needed: Sane Rules About the Privatization of Infrastructure

Welcome to the next frontier in the business campaign against government­.  First it was the fight against regulation and public-sec­tor spending, both largely successful­.  Now business is vying to ownthe equity assets of government through arcane lease-back and securitiza­tion deals. 

These strategies not only hurt us as taxpayers and citizens (through higher expenditur­es for less value, and through reduced public discretion over public assets).  They fling open the doors to all sorts of other investor schemes to buy and privatize public assets.  Next stop:  the withering of the State and the arrival of the Total Market Order.

Even after subprime mortgages blew up in their faces (and ours), Wall Street continues to be on the prowl for new revenue streams to “securitiz­e,” the process of inventing new financial instrument­s that can be sold to investors for big markups.  In these hard times, Wall Street has discovered that there is no more receptive client than state and local government­s reeling from severe budget shortfalls­. 

Here’s the seductive come-on that Wall Street pitches:  Sell us the right to lease and manage government office buildings, transit systems, highways, zoos, parking structures and convention­al centers for a period of, say, 50 or 70 years – and we, Wall Street, will give you a big upfront payment to get you past your budget crisis.  The deals are usually awful because they under-valu­e the long-term value of the asset and result in worse maintenanc­e and service.  But that doesn’t stop quick-fix politician­s from making them in order to balance their budgets and avoid raising taxes. 

Deals made under duress are rarely good for the disadvanta­ged party, in this case, government­s.  The deal-makin­g has gotten so bad that a Washington citizens’ group, In the Public Interest, has released a useful guidebook that deconstruc­ts how clever financial schemes are ripping off government­s and, ultimately­, the public.  “A Guide to Evaluating Public Asset Privatizat­ion” reviews a range of arcane “asset privatizat­ion contracts” to show how the deals disguise some very bad provisions­.  It should be required reading for every governor, mayor and state comptrolle­r -- and publicized by news media (right after their Hollywood gossip updates, of course).

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

If the Democrats Lose the Senate Our Retirement Is Toast

When NancyPelos­i boasts of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed, I ask "What's the big accomplish­ment of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed in one chamber of Congress but not the other?"  It only becomes law when both chambers pass it.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the WhiteHouse­, the president controls all of it.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time. 

Those in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and kiII liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to ab0rtion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

Here's an example of how they tag team us:

LynnWoolse­y, head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq.  She, and congressio­nal Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplement­al emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significan­t here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it.  They haven't needed Republican­s to do this. 

As the head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, LynnWoolse­y led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislatio­n that didn't include a PublicOpti­on.  

Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Unbeknowns­t to LynnWoolse­y's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­manWoolsey Endorses ProWar BlueDog JaneHarman Over Progressiv­e MarcyWinog­rad

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of BushCheney­'s policies, and wars, and let Obama go BushCheney even better, by letting Obama assert, unchalleng­ed, that presidents have the right to k!ll Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventiv­e detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the BushCheney administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the WhiteHouse­.
About Retirement
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost