Then we’re going to get entitlement “reform.” Since Obama is promising this to Blue Dogs, this isn’t going to be anything you’re going to like.
So you’re far more likely to see Medicare and Social Security gutted, than you are to see the military budget cut in a third or Medicare-for-all enacted.
(What is Obama?) A man who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Let me state the obvious, which we all know, one more time.
Obama intends to gut social security. Republicans failed, it requires Democrats.
The question about SS in the Villagers minds is not whether it should be cut, but how. That’s not to say it’s hopeless. The last attempt to cut SS failed, after all. But there wasn’t a Democratic president pushing for it that time. Obama has proven very adept at arm-twisting Democrats.
2011 – Bush’s tax cuts are extended. Social Security is slashed. This is done at Obama’s behest, so that Dems get blamed for it.
The blogosphere appears aflame about Obama being willing to cut SS. Oh please. Oh, and Obama still needs to be primaried, but by waiting this long, it’s become much more difficult to do, if not impossible. Everyone who is whining about SS who wasn’t willing to primary him, was complicit in this.
Adults don’t believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or Barack Obama being anything but a right winger whose legacy is institutionalizing Bush, then going even further to the right on many key issues. They don’t believe that Obama responds to anything from the left but pain and threats that are backed up with the sincere willingness and ability to see them through.
Nat Wilson Turner
The problem is, even if there had been a huge groundswell for a primary challenge, there were ZERO candidates willing to step up. No Dean. No Hillary. No Kuchinich. No One.
Ian Welsh
If there was a groundswell, someone would have stood up.
anon2525
Does this mean that you are cutting your ties with Pelosi? Let obama make his “bargain” and let the party kick him out, if there is any value to their existence. They should have done it back in ’09 over the military occupations, alone, never mind all that he has piled on since. Plenty of candidates would appear if they were to kick him out of the party. Make him run as an independent. See if he can get on the ballot (h/t Ralph Nader). Or, he can reveal his stripes and run as a republ, as if the loonies would have him.
The issue is no longer obama. It is the democratic party, or lack thereof.
Ian Welsh
I haven’t had any time for Pelosi for a couple years now.
anon2525
I haven’t had any time for Pelosi for a couple years now.
Ah. OK. My mistake.
anon2525
Oh, and Obama still needs to be primaried, but by waiting this long, it’s become much more difficult to do, if not impossible.
Moreover, unfortunately, it appears now to be too late for the left to bring down obama and to be seen as defeating him. If the democrats do decide that all of their losses since 2008 indicate that obama is leading many of them to defeat, then they might decide not to follow him over this cliff. But if they don’t, then they’ll be pulling him back (against his wishes), and it will be credited to “the center,” once again.
Given how the Ryan “plan” was received, it is amazing to me that anyone is considering what they are going to do. Once they do this, they need to be made terrified (literally, physically) of returning to their districts.
Randall Kohn
Actually, I don’t think he wants a second term, so even pain and threats won’t faze him.
.
anon2525
Actually, I don’t think he wants a second term, so even pain and threats won’t faze him.
All of his fundraising would appear to say otherwise. But if he doesn’t want a second term, then that is all the more reason for democrats to eject him from the party and reject his “bargain.”
Z
IMO, obama is not doing this to increase his chances of getting reelected; he’s partly doing it to establish the grounds for him NOT running for reelection (I can’t win, my base betrayed me after all I’ve done for them) so that he can get on with his lucrative … and relatively stress free … post-presidency speaking tour. First stop: petey peterson’s.
I’ve been through this before if anyone interested in my reasoning on this:
https://www.ianwelsh.net/obama-to-right/
https://www.ianwelsh.net/obamas-personality/
and here (before I get tossed off of fdl): http://my.firedoglake.com/zeabow/2011/04/11/obama-to-dems-please-primary-me/
Anyway, this will be the pivot point. Next will come the petulance; then the leaks that he wonders if dc is too partisan to this upstanding, well-intentioned man; then some noise that he’s considering not running in 2012; and then, finally, he’ll announce that he won’t. He’ll posture like he was the adult of adults who did what was best for the long-term interests of the country and then moved on to the private life as an under-appreciated hero. It’s all part of that 89-dimensional chess game that he’s been playing … against us.
Z
Z
pelosi is the kabuki queen … she essentially turned the house into rahm’s plaything.
Yeah. some threat she is to obama and some protector of ss is she. She snuck into a war bill a provision to force a vote, during the 2010 lame duck house session, for the catfood commission’s findings, which was stuffed with enemies of ss and hell bent on cutting ss benefits for future generations: http://firedoglake.com/2010/07/01/breaking-pelosi-sneaks-approval-of-vote-on-debt-commission-recommendations-into-rule-regarding-war-funding/
Z
anon2525
pelosi is the kabuki queen … she essentially turned the house into rahm’s plaything.
If she’s not willing to speak out, then what does it say about the rest of the democrats? Why aren’t they either forcing her to speak out or putting her into the same boat as obama? Or, to ask the question differently, why should people who support the democratic representatives support them unless those representatives are willing to draw a line here and now? He (and if necessary, she) needs to be told, “No, you’re not doing this. We don’t care what crackpot theories you have about it why you think it’s necessary, you’re not doing it. You try to do this, and we will throw you out of the party and you can run as a member of the Lieberman party. Oh, and don’t expect the democratic senate to protect you if the republs impeach you.”
The democrats in congress can either hang together (and tell him no), or they can hang separately (and get kicked out of office). Maybe they don’t care if they are not re-elected–they are looking forward to some private-sector sinecure. The elections of 2009 and 2010 have shown what following obama’s lead gets them.
Z
If obama truly wanted to get reelected, he’d wait until after his reelection to cut ss … just like the big corporate lap dawg clinton tried to do with his pal newt before the lewinsky situation blew up on him and he needed support from the same people that he was so anxious to sellout in order to “strengthen ss” … and, not so consequently, make himself more marketable to the petey petersons of the world.
Z
anon2525
IMO, obama is not doing this to increase his chances of getting reelected; he’s partly doing it to establish the grounds for him NOT running for reelection
Here’s hoping that’s not just wishful thinking. Still, the issue is the democratic party now, not obama. They have every tool they need to stop him, except possibly the desire. This is not 2005 when they couldn’t stop bush/cheney.
Z
anon2525 wrote this:
“Maybe they (democrats) don’t care if they are not re-elected–they are looking forward to some private-sector sinecure.”
I say B I N G O to that.
Z
Z
The dems had every tool … they had the majority in the senate and the house … to stop obama’s deplorable corporate health care bailout bill, but they didn’t do it. And they didn’t stop the extension of the bush tax cuts to the wealthy nor the concessions he made in the last budget battle. And they didn’t stop a whole lot of other damaging things he’s done to the country and the party. I don’t see much hope for them to find their principles now, but you never know …
Z
anon2525
If obama truly wanted to get reelected, he’d wait until after his reelection to cut ss…
I do not know him, obviously, but given what rahm said once to a representative (“good! it makes you look bipartisan”), it would not surprise me to learn that obama thinks that this is his “end welfare as we know it” moment that clinton decided was needed for his re-election.
(Someone wrote on the internet the other day (no link, sorry) that someone at the WH said that the best way to convince obama was to say “It’ll be unpopular, but it’s the right thing to do.”)
Z
clinton was riding the crest of a strong economy … though it was built on a very unhealthy foundation … with much lower unemployment, so he had a lot more latitude to do welfare reform to bolster his centrist credentials and still keep liberal voters in his camp than obama has to cut ss benefits right now in this terrible economy at a time in which a lot of seniors are struggling.
Z
anon2525
I don’t see much hope for them to find their principles now, but you never know …
I do not expect them to. I expect it to follow the path of those other bills–it’ll will be held up until the last minute, and then it will be the Protect America vote, or the FISA vote, or the TARP vote, or … all over again. It’s shock doctrine (“vote for this or the world will end”) over and over. And if it is defeated, it will be re-introduced within a week. obama is determined to do this, so it is a measure of the democrats whether they will allow him to.
But for everyone else who is not in gov’t., it should be time to draw a line–you don’t cross this. It should have happened back in 2009 over the continuations of the military occupations, but each time more people wake up. Will enough do so this time?
Z
When rahm says: “good! it makes you look bipartisan” he means “good! It’s pro-corporate/pro-wall street legislation”.
Z
Z
Yep, the shock doctrine rhetoric for this cutting ss operation is that it’s “a rare” “once a decade” “opportunity”.
Z
anon2525
“Maybe they (democrats) don’t care if they are not re-elected–they are looking forward to some private-sector sinecure.”
I say B I N G O to that.
All the more reason to make them (literally, physically) afraid to return to their districts. After they pass this, they need to face angry mobs each time they visit their districts. They’ll pass it, so they need to be told to reverse it. It’s been a while since this has happened, but there is precedent for it happening with medicare spending.
anon2525
Yep, the shock doctrine rhetoric for this cutting ss operation is that it’s “a rare” “once a decade” “opportunity”.
The Orwellian term being used is “strengthen.” “Weakening,” “cutting,” “stealing” are the forbidden words that “strengthen” replaces.
Notorious P.A.T.
“Adults don’t believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or Barack Obama being anything but a right winger whose legacy is institutionalizing Bush”
That’s totally unfair! They support Obama because there’s a scary boogeyman lurking in the darkness (Palin, Perry, Bachman, etc.) but that doesn’t mean they’re…..
Oh, wait.
Notorious P.A.T.
“The Orwellian term being used is “strengthen.””
At the rate we’re going, we’ll have to cut SS benefits in 30 years. So by cutting them now, we avoid cutting them then. Somehow, this counts as “strengthening”.
Joe Beese
The issue is no longer obama. It is the democratic party, or lack thereof.
The issue is no longer the two wings of the Republicrat Party. It is about the corporations that own them.
Eat The Rich!
Why the hell would republicans, the party of big business, want to cut SS? It makes no sense from and economic point of view. All that money that SS pays out goes directly back into the economy! It’s not invested, it’s not saved, most of it’s spent before it reached a geezer’s mailbox. And it goes directly to the pharmaceutical companies, the health care industry and pet food manufacturers! This creates jobs which creates more jobs and more tax revenues. It’s an added value system. In fact they should LOWER the age of eligibility for SS and Medicare to get baby boomers to retire sooner and make way for less costly and healthier younger job seekers. I would think a business owner would much rather have more customers, cheaper and healthier employees and less overhead, than a tax cut any day.
Karmadillo
So while it’s late in the day to take on Obama, we certainly have the issues (social security, endless war, trashing the constitution, no jobs policy, bankster bailouts, awol on global warming etc.) to mobilize a significant number of voters (union members (however many are left), the elderly or those who might one day be elderly, underwater homeowners, environmentalists, the longterm unemployed, the recently graduated soon to be longterm unemployed etc.). Is there no one we can get to run either as a Democrat, a Green, or a newly minted third party? It’s not like there’s anything to gain by sitting through more electoral mummery, and as the world seems to be approaching a decline that’s going to make 1984 look like a holiday camp, we have a fair amount to lose by doing nothing. A viable candidate gets us a movement to spread our ideas and build some confidence we can take back the country back from our Corporate Masters. The odds are obviously long and we stand an excellent chance of losing, but we’re certainly not going to revitalize the left by waiting for the center-right to lead us to the promised land. Any suggestions who we start petitioning to run?
anon2525
Why the hell would republicans, the party of big business, want to cut SS?
I’m sure that lots of reasons can be given, but one of them is that they fear that the tax cuts enacted over the past thirty years will eventually be reversed in order to reduce the deficit. So, they see a choice between paying higher taxes or cutting the pension of fat, lazy pensioners. This is the argument that they have been making when eliminating collective bargaining for public employees, which is really an intermediate step that they are taking in order to prevent new union contracts from replacing the expiring contracts.
It’s class warfare. Their class versus our class. And we are losing pretty badly.
Z
Brian Schweitzer – Governor of Montana – might be a viable candidate.
Z
anon2525
…they fear that the tax cuts enacted over the past thirty years will eventually be reversed in order to reduce the deficit.
They knew that when they cut those taxes on the wealthy while increasing military spending, this would lead to large deficits (especially when interest on the additional debt is included–oh, and they own most of the treasury bills). Now, they are working the other side of the ledger, using the increasing debt to create pressure for cuts to gov’t. services that they don’t use, mostly. What’s not being cut? Anything that they can get a gov’t. contract for a private company to provide (private prison, private schools, private military contracts, and so on). Private companies means private profits.
anon2525
Brian Schweitzer – Governor of Montana – might be a viable candidate.
Let him declare and start eviscerating obama’s policies. Better the devil we don’t know than rewarding the devil we do know with a second term. If he’s not willing to criticize obama publicly, then he should stay home. We really need the left to be seen to be taking down obama. Here he is using populist rhetoric to criticize the republs:
“Never in our history has the United States defaulted on its debt. The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.”
His failure will be the failure of the left unless the left pushes him out.
dandelion
Why do Republicans want to cut SS? Why does Obama want to cut SS? It has nothing to do with the deficit.
Remember: the banks are insolvent.
Cutting SS is going to force more people to buy annuities for retirement. Rents! Money flow to banks!
It’s the exact same reason we had to have the corporate health care reform bill passed — money must flow to banks (via insurance companies — remember: health insurance companies don’t make their money on the profit/loss of insurance, they make it via arbitrage.
This is the central core of Obama: he is the prism through which all our money passes to the banks. It’s exactly why they found him, funded him, fluffed him and foisted him on a very gullible bunch of progressive voters who neglected to conduct basic due diligence and threw money and votes to him like roses at his feet, without making one concrete demand in return.
anon2525
So while it’s late in the day to take on Obama, we certainly have the issues (social security, endless war, trashing the constitution, no jobs policy, bankster bailouts, awol on global warming etc.) to mobilize a significant number of voters
Also, keep in mind Plan B, if Plan A (primary-ing obama) does not work: We should have a campaign to have a write-in candidate pair, for example, Chomsky/Nader or Nader/Chomsky. I’m open to suggestions. Even if they cannot realistically win, getting a significant percentage of the vote would prevent the corporate media from presenting whomever wins as the choice of the country (“It’s a center-right population”).
The odds are obviously long and we stand an excellent chance of losing,…
As the economist James Galbraith said, we’re going to lose–get used to it:
A speech worth reading and re-reading
anon2525
Cutting SS is going to force more people to buy annuities for retirement. Rents! Money flow to banks!
I cannot say that this is wrong–some people will do this. But recall that the median wage in the u.s. in 2009, was about $26,200. Half of the population gets by on less than that median wage. More than half of the population lives paycheck-to-paycheck, with very little left over to buy annuities or any other retirement saving.
I hope that you’ll keep making this case with specific examples and statistics in the future.
anon2525
Any suggestions who we start petitioning to run?
Just checked: Warren Mosler has ended his campaign because he is running for the senate, http://mosler2012.com/.
—
guest
Alan Grayson, where are you? Run, even if you can’t win! I’m voting for Bernie Sanders, whether he runs or not. Maybe a write in/draft campaign via the internet to vote for a real lefty in the D primaries (even if it means getting a bunch of Rs to vote in open primary states).
I didn’t vote for Obama last time around and I sure as hell won’t next time, now that he’s turned out worse than my worst expectations.
anon2525
There’s this “sense of the senate” by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, opposing any cuts to Soc. Sec. or Medicare.
http://www.whitehouseforsenate.com/cuts-petition?utm_source=sp4003067&utm_medium=e&sc=sp4003067&refcode=sp4003067
The real sense is 40 senators will oppose any such bill. Oh, I forgot, the 40-vote “veto” only applies to those bills that would benefit us. For those bills that we oppose, we require a 51-vote “veto.”
anon2525
I didn’t vote for Obama last time around and I sure as hell won’t next time, now that he’s turned out worse than my worst expectations.
I would vote for crazy Bachman/Palin first. obama can’t be rewarded with a second term. Better than a republ vote would be some write-in that makes clear what we would prefer. Not voting just lets the non-vote be ignored and interpreted how the winner wants to.
Randall Kohn
Hopefully you’re right, but part of his mission may be to damage the Democratic party as much as he can, in which case he would fight for the renomination so as to badly lose the election.
I know this is tinfoily, but I’ve never been cynical enough about this guy yet.
Z
Randall,
In regards to him basically having a contract with some powerful entity to destroy everything the democratic party purports to stand for, I don’t dismiss those possibilities. Just as you said: I’ve never been cynical enough about this guy yet.
Z
Morocco Bama
Are we backtracking, once again? I thought it was established that the political route has been so utterly corrupted, debased and hijacked, that to spend your time and energy attempting to enact change through that System, amounts to nothing more than futility. The President is not The Decider, as Shrubya was fond of calling himself, knowing full well he was merely an illusion.
Morocco Bama
I’m voting for Bernie Sanders, whether he runs or not.
Ah yes, Bernie and his sell-out on the recent Finance Legislation. Will people ever learn? Apparently not. Hope springs eternal.
Jean Paul Marat
Bachman/ Rand 2012 — ’cause a crazy thrust to the throat is faster than a death by a thousand cuts.
God has always been hard on the poor.
–Jean-Paul Marat
Z
And as far as obama supposedly thinking that cutting ss will HELP his reelection chances, what a bunch of fucking nonsense. Poll after poll after poll show the majority of americans … including republicans … want to keep ss as is. And the ryan plan fallout showed that cutting medicare was not popular with the public and bush’s plan to mess with ss also was unpopular. And we’re supposed to believe that there is some huge sweet spot of independent voters that are going to be so enamored with the fact that the deficit is going to be decreased … “wow, I’m sure glad that the deficit is being taken care of, it makes me feel a lot better” … and they’re going to overlook the cuts to ss and THE LACKLUSTER ECONOMY that will only be hurt further from his austerity plans? Nah, this doesn’t help his reeelection chances at all … there’s not one poll that indicates that it would … becoz this hurts too many people. Except the rich, of course … the ones he’ll be giving 6 figure speeches to once he leaves office.
His austerity plans will only hurt his chances in 2012 and he damn well knows it. So, again, if he was interested in getting reelected, he’d wait until after the election to pull this shit, but here he is front-and-center … and not hiding that he’s the one driving this unpopular measure, like he usually deceitfully does … taking full credit for throwing ss cuts on the table. It just may make his candidacy untenable. And wouldn’t that be a shame. I guess that he’d just have to move on to his lucrative post-presidency life and leave someone else to preside over the mess that he helped to create and not be sitting in the hot seat as his austerity policies play out.
Z
anon2525
I thought it was established that the political route has been so utterly corrupted, debased and hijacked, that to spend your time and energy attempting to enact change through that System, amounts to nothing more than futility.
These proposed cuts add to the “tinder pile” (as Nader calls it), or might be the spark that lights it:
Ralph Nader is Tired of Running for President
Z
Obama Threatens Veto – Of Any Debt Limit Deal Under $2 Trillion
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/07/08/obama-threatens-veto-of-any-debt-limit-deal-under-2-trillion/
“In his meeting with congressional leaders today, President Obama said he would veto any deficit reduction bill that doesn’t raise the debt ceiling until after the November 2012 election, sources tell ABC News.
The president argued that this was a time to think big, sources said, and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, agreed. Though how to get there is another matter.”
….
“Congress is being pushed into a proposal nobody very much likes by the President, who is using the debt limit to get this done. That’s really the dynamic.
And we’re now hearing that the tax changes, the “sweetener” for Democrats to sign onto the deal, may be theoretical.”
….
“Symbolic gestures and agreements in principle, but not substantive reforms, are likely to be the main tax policy result of urgent talks about raising the U.S. debt ceiling.
….
“We haven’t even started the car yet, let alone get it out of the garage,” said a top congressional aide on the tax reform project, which most aides and analysts expect will have to wait until late 2012 and into 2013, after presidential and congressional elections in November next year.”
….
“In other words, cut $3 trillion in spending now, including to cherished safety net programs, in exchange for… a promise of getting to tax reform later. And to let the committees sort that out.
I don’t know that you could try to come up with a worse deal from the liberal perspective.”
Me: So, let’s see here …. he wants to put off hashing out the tax increases … if they are any … until after the election, giving the republicans a nice platform to run on in 2012: we won’t increase taxes while a vote for the democrats and their presidential candidate will lead to tax increases.
He wants out … he would love to be primaried … and he doesn’t give a fuck about how many folks he brings down to do it.
Z
Karmadillo
I thought it was established that the political route has been so utterly corrupted, debased and hijacked, that to spend your time and energy attempting to enact change through that System, amounts to nothing more than futility.
The political route sure doesn’t look ideal with the current Corporate Thing 1 and Corporate Thing 2 nightmare, but until a general strike or a revolution seems more likely, running someone against Obama and giving the left and other unhappy Americans at least a chance to expand the universe of acceptable discourse, it seems like all we have in the near future. I’m way open to effective alternatives, but I’m not real bright on knowing what they are.
Karmadillo
Yikes! My first paragraph is quoting Morocco Bama’s post above, but I’m an XHTML idiot. Apologies.
anon2525
He wants out … he would love to be primaried … and he doesn’t give a fuck about how many folks he brings down to do it.
OK. It’s an interesting theory about obama’s psychology and motivation. Would the same analysis apply to, say, Herbert Hoover?
anon2525
The political route sure doesn’t look ideal with the current Corporate Thing 1 and Corporate Thing 2 nightmare, but until a general strike or a revolution seems more likely,…
I would like to see a general strike, but there is no organization to make it happen. Quoting Ralph Nader from the link in my post above, again:
“There is a tremendous asymmetry,” Nader said. “Seven hundred thousand people demonstrated in London. But where are they the next day? And where are their adversaries? The next day their adversaries are on the job. Where are the 700,000 people? They are out of there. How many organizers are on the ground in the 435 districts? Could labor unions have been organized without organizers? Could the suffragist movement have been organized without organizers? Could the anti-slavery movement or the civil rights movement been organized without organizers? If you don’t have organizers on the ground you know ipso facto that your demonstration is going nowhere.”
Karmadillo
In case I screw up again, I’m quoting anon2525 above.
[div class=”excerpt”] Also, keep in mind Plan B, if Plan A (primary-ing obama) does not work: We should have a campaign to have a write-in candidate pair, for example, Chomsky/Nader or Nader/Chomsky. I’m open to suggestions. Even if they cannot realistically win, getting a significant percentage of the vote would prevent the corporate media from presenting whomever wins as the choice of the country [/div]
Given the current absence of any Democrat willing to take on Obama despite his excruciatingly terrible performance (terrible unless you’re a plutocrat), your suggestion makes sense. There are an awful lot of Americans who wouldn’t identify themselves as being on the left (having been starved of the ideas that might help them better identify where their true interests lie), but they are so upset with the current situation they might be convinced to vote for a protest candidate with a nice ten point plan designed to shift the focus of the government from the powers to the people.
How does one link up all this discontent to get something started? Committees of Correspondence?
P.S. Thanks for the link to the Galbraith speech. Great stuff.
anon2525
He wants out … he would love to be primaried … and he doesn’t give a fuck about how many folks he brings down to do it.
Also, this brings me back to my original point: This is no longer about what obama wants. It is about what the democratic party wants. Tie themselves to this anchor, or cut their ties to him.
Z
anon2525,
The comparison of hoover’s psychology and motivations to obama’s is irrelevant … it’s two different people in two different eras. hoover didn’t have the lucrative post-presidency opportunities that the whores on the hill have now.
Z
anon2525
How does one link up all this discontent to get something started? Committees of Correspondence?
Lots of people are trying, but it is not easy, and there are lots of cross-purpose efforts. And many existing organizations have been co-opted by the democratic party and corporate money.
anon2525
The comparison of hoover’s psychology and motivations to obama’s is irrelevant…
OK. We’ll have to wait and see whether the democratic party wants to inflict this wound on itself.
anon2525
[div class=”excerpt”]
This website uses WordPress, so the valid HTML codes are a limited subset of the available codes.
A simple way to quote text is to use the “emphasize” tag: < em > the quoted text < /em >
Of course, there are no spaces between the < or > and the tag that they enclosed. Don’t forget the closing tag, or you will be cursing the lack of a “preview” feature.
HTML Tags allowed by WordPress
anon2525
Correction: < /em > should have been < /em >
Z
anon2525 wrote:
“OK. We’ll have to wait and see whether the democratic party wants to inflict this wound on itself.”
It’s a tough economy right now and jobs certainly are scarce, but if they do right by corporate amerika while they’re in office, I’m sure that they’ll manage to find something if they happen to get voted out.
Z
Notorious P.A.T.
“Why the hell would republicans, the party of big business, want to cut SS? It makes no sense from and economic point of view. All that money that SS pays out goes directly back into the economy!”
Don’t underestimate how the consumer spending portion of the economy has been shrinking these past years. What is the financial services’ percentage of GDP, 30 or 40%, something like that. Wall Street wants the money in Social Security to take a go ’round on the wheel of fortune, with them taking a big cut for shepherding it, of course.
anon2525
What is the financial services’ percentage of GDP, 30 or 40%, something like that.
I’m not sure that’s correct. It’s not 30 to 40% of GDP. It’s 30 to 40% of corporate profits.
Randall Kohn
Obama has (and we all have) the benefit of hindsight. The New Deal worked; austerity flopped.
It’s 78 years old. We could call it The Old Deal. Which would then lead to a campaign slogan: “I want the Old Deal back.”
anon2525
Obama has (and we all have) the benefit of hindsight.
Yes, we do, and yet the politicians continue to state, without contradiction from the corporate media, “we must balance our budget!” Roosevelt even campaigned on it during the year before the election, and even after abandoning it, went back to it for a time in 1937. The siren song of budget surpluses. Even Rep. Barbara Lee was saying on the radio this week that the fed. gov’t. needs to reduce the deficit.
Z
It’s not just about balancing the budget, it’s about HOW the budget is balanced.
Z
jcapan
63 comments, 30 of them by anon.
Dude, I value your voice, but can you maybe bunch up your responses, replying to various commenters at one time? Less is more. Anyone and I mean anyone who comments that much tends to be skim-fodder.
anon2525
Dude, I value your voice, but can you maybe bunch up your responses, replying to various commenters at one time? Less is more. Anyone and I mean anyone who comments that much tends to be skim-fodder.
The problem with replying to these types of meta-comments is that it almost invariably launches a long, boring (to me, anyway) thread of additional meta-comments, no longer discussing the topic of the post. There is much to argue with in your comment, but I’m just going to say that it is arguable, and hope that the topic of Social Security cuts remains the topic of further posts.
Celsius 233
Not to beg the obvious, but America, aka the U.S., is fractured/broken; the people are fractured; society is fractured; the government is fractured; the military/police are fractured; politics are a dirty joke; the entire educational/social system is fractured and our ability to think, act, fix, repair and or heal is non-existent.
As bad as that is; the most intolerable of all the pathological behavior, is a complete collapse of the justice system and any subsequent, meaningful realization of just what that means for the future.
IMHO, day-to-day existence is tolerable; but not the thought of tomorrow…
Misaki
Get rid of unemployment and reduce income inequality, and government welfare is no longer financed by “taxing the rich” but rather by “taxing everyone equally”, and Republican objections disappear in the face of majority opinion. Anyone who does not support those goals, given Republican attitudes towards the deficit, by definition does not care about those affected by Social Security or other welfare cuts.
Anyway:
What does “low consumer demand” really mean?
From http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/more-employment-return-of-teen-and.html : ‘That is why so many companies identify their number one problem as “lack of customers”.’
But as helpfully pointed out to me,
“of course that is utterly and 100% meaningless and stupid.
It is like sayng the number one problem of cancer researchers is they have not found the cure. It is a given that no business has too many customers and no researchers have too many cures for cancer. OMG!!!!”
More specifically, this means businesses would not increase profits by lowering their prices, because the slight increase in sales would not make up for the loss in per-unit profit, even if their product is significantly cheaper than others on the market.
Decreasing the cost of a car from $35k to $25k will not make a rich person buy it instead of a $200k luxury car, because they don’t care about saving $10k. In other words, companies that are NOT profitable enough are the ones who feel like they have problems from lack of customers.
Companies that are profitable don’t feel like they have a lack of customers because they are profitable, even if they could make more profit for every new customer.
This lack of competition is the same as described [here]: http:/pastebin.com/Q86Zhgs9 and derives from the very slightly higher amounts of utility of the more expensive goods, even if the utility is only “having a brand that people will recognize”. This is what lack of customers really means, that the low-end companies have problems not the high-end ones, and is exactly what changing the wage system would fix by lowering profits for the high-end companies and increasing demand for products of the low-end ones.
*It has come to my attention that many people think the reason that there aren’t more jobs is that companies are not doing well.*
This is one of the main oppositions to increasing wage for lower amounts of work. It therefore follows that people should support a DECREASE in the average wage for permanent employees working full time, if they are given the option of instead working part-time at the original wage rate (or even a higher wage rate if full-time employees get the reduced rate). Wages would eventually equalize anyway, but apparently people don’t realize that. http://pastebin.com/Q86Zhgs9
Please contact the White House via the contact form http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ to encourage this policy to reduce unemployment, if doing so is in your interests.
S.O.S.
I just read through all of these comments and I did not once mind the many contributions by anon2525 or Z or anyone else. Just the opposite: I found their comments to be well-informed and right-on!
I would like to see Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren “drafted” to run in 2012 or 2016. But I remember how the vote for Nader in 2000 (who I strongly preferred over Gore) played a part in Shrub stealing the presidency for eight long, catastrophic years. So, like many progressives, while I do not want to vote for Obama, I fear that a write-in vote for Sanders (or any other progressive) could result (once again) in eight more catastrophic years of a Repugnant Tea-Party plutocrat-puppet.
The core problems, as I see it, are that 1) big corporate money has captured and corrupted both the Democratic and Republican parties, and 2) this duopoly has combined to write rules and laws that make third-parties and their candidates incapable of overthrowing the duopoly and plutocracy in America. Likewise, the corporate-corrupted Supreme Court ruling “Citizen United” has already severely damaged our dying democracy, and it will get far worse with every election cycle. I profoundly fear for our beloved nation and the common people.
In my thinking (which is not omniscient), I see no hope in Obama, the Democratic party, or even third-party heroes like Chomsky, Nader, Sanders, and Warren, etc. until and unless the American people can get all private money out of every election and out of all lobbying, and instead establish 100% public financing (and low spending limits) in all elections. If we fail to achieve this essential foundation for fair elections, corporate big money will increasingly make all candidates and all elected officials right-wing, regressive, plutocratic-puppets.
I do not feel optimistic. The hour is late and the game is nearly over. The left in America is fragmented, unfocussed, and ineffective, while the right is highly organized, super-well-funded, and very focussed and effective. The right is also not bound by truth or fair-play.
So, to even have a chance in this final life-struggle, I think the left should turn away from all other issues and distractions for the next 5 to 10 years (if need be) and CONCENTRATE all resources on achieving 100% public financing of elections and getting all private money out of elections. Otherwise, big corporate money will increasingly make progressive candidates, officials, and third-parties impotent, marginalized, and eventually extinct in America.
I wish that the “big brains” on the left, like Chomsky and Nader, would realize that time is rapidly running out, and therefore focus ALL of their efforts on HOW exactly the left can 1) achieve 100% public financing of all elections, 2) develop a Progressive party that can win against the Democrats and Republicans, and 3) develop candidates and policies that appeal to the American people’s basic needs and desires (like JOBS!) far more than the scraps and crumbs the Dems and Repugs dish out (or rather, fail to dish out).
anon2525
I do not feel optimistic. The hour is late and the game is nearly over. The left in America is fragmented, unfocussed, and ineffective, while the right is highly organized, super-well-funded, and very focussed and effective. The right is also not bound by truth or fair-play.
The money that the right-wing has is the key element. There is no Tea Party without the Koch money. Their party would be in the same position as the rest of the non-wealthy in the country: a bundle of concerns and issues, but with no organization (organizers are key, Nader argues). And even with the money they have, their performance in most elections has been poor and their performance (“counter-protests”) in Wisconsin was pathetic, especially when compared with the mass of people who protested Walker and the republs.
But I’m not sure that the right-wing is highly organized, at least not as evidenced by their presidential candidates. Also, look at what happened when they acted this year: the vote for the Ryan plan. This was a disaster for them.
Most importantly, their success, such as it is, is largely due to obama. He has continued bush/cheney’s incompetence and demonstrably wrong ideas about economics, foreign policy, and so on. As many people have pointed out, the republ party was dead by 2008, and it is only because of obama’s assistance–through his failures–that the republ party has been revived. The election of 2010 was plainly a referendum on his failures, and, because they followed him, the democratic party’s failures.
None of this is intended to imply that the left or progressive policies are going to be put in place, despite their popularity. But I don’t think that the (largest) problem is the right-wing and its money–the (largest) problem is that the left has not yet managed to get organized. One of the first steps, it seems to me*, is the repudiation of obama. He is blocking all efforts to get the left’s ideas implemented**, and preventing many people who would support them from even considering them because they think that obama is on their side, so whatever he says is what they think needs to be done or is the best that can be done at the point, politically.
Time or money: The right-wing has money, but few people/votes, so naturally they use money to make up for their minority status in the country, hiring lobbyists and funding campaigns and parties. The left has many people/votes, but those people have little money for campaigns, so they will need to spend time–organizing and protesting. When obama succeeds at cutting gov’t. programs that favor the majority, people need to show up when representatives show up in their districts and demand that the legislation be reversed. (This is what happened after the Ryan plan vote.) We cannot afford to hire lobbyists (and would be out-spent), so we’ll have to spend time and have bodies show up. If this isn’t done, then obama will have been (politically) correct–he can screw people and use a few words to convince them that he did not.
*Of course, I’m not alone. Ian Welsh, among others, has argued that obama needs to be defeated and seen to be defeated by the left. Until this happens, he will be portrayed as a liberal and will hurt the ideas that the left proposes because they will be seen to have failed.
**Back in the summer of 2009, Bruce Dixon of Black Agenda Report argued that as a matter of deliberate strategy, obama&co worked to create the perception that the left-most ideas were their ideas, that is, there were no legitimate ideas to the left of them. (obama confirmed this with his remark in autumn 2010 that his critics on the left are “sanctimonious purists.”) The primary method for doing this was to see to it that no ideas to the left of them were heard or seen in the corporate media.
anon2525
So, like many progressives, while I do not want to vote for Obama, I fear that a write-in vote for Sanders (or any other progressive) could result (once again) in eight more catastrophic years of a Repugnant Tea-Party plutocrat-puppet.
It is our failure, the majority’s, not to have responded through any method other than responding to pollsters and voting. We (quite reasonably) believed in representative democracy. Short of a revolution or a civil war, we have no influence on what legislation is passed by the duopoly. We’re much like Greece, where the ruling class ignores the population and passes what it thinks is best for itself first, before it considers what might be good for the majority.
But, at this point in our history, we’re being played by the duopoly. We can no longer simply elect them and then send them off to the capital. We’re going to have to directly confront them when they return to their districts and demand that they change the legislation. Spontaneous uprisings that bring angry mobs to confront them will be useful for getting them to reverse bad legislation, but we’ll also need education of organized people to promote legislation with good ideas, not just “undo the bad legislation!”
S.O.S.
Thanks for your immediate replies, anon. I agree with almost all of what you say.
My central concern is that unless the left concentrates its resources and efforts on passing a constitutional amendment that bans all private money from elections and lobbying, and instead establishes 100% public financing and low spending limits on all elections, right-wing, regressive, corporate big money will steadily take over the election process, and replace our already corrupted and broken democracy with a completed plutocracy.
Even now, many if not most of our supposed-to-be “elected representatives” are financially dependent on big corporate donors, and therefore enact the demands of the elite who put them in power and keep them in power. Many if not most elected representatives only pretend to listen to what the common people say they need and want, and our reps only listen to tell if the common people are angry enough yet that we need to be pacified with a token crumb or two. But mostly our elected representatives ignore us and do NOT represent our needs and demands.
Getting private money (especially big money) out of elections is the essential action to get our elected representatives to do what the vast majority of the common people want and need — because if elected officials are not dependent on big money to obtain and retain power, these reps will have to depend on the common people for their votes instead of on big donors for big money.
I agree with you that “angry mobs confronting” our elected reps (in town hall meetings, in state and federal capitols, in the streets, and in general strikes, etc.) are necessary, and are often effective recourses for an ignored, neglected, and abused populace in any country, including in the U.S. But such actions, while essential short-term, are not as effective as having fair elections and fair officials that truly represent the vast majority of common people. Also, popular uprisings that have to react to each new injustice are like “trying to put out fires” that keep being started by an army of pyromaniacs — instead of attacking and eliminating the root-cause of all of our continual crises by banning the corrupting and usurping influence of big money from all elections and all government.
Escoffier
Obama sold himself to Wall St when first in the Senate to do their bidding. He was always going to NYC to hang around and schmooze. He did the same thing in Chicago. The last big pot of gold is the trust funds for workers and they wanted it and he said they could have it. The tax cuts starting with Reagan, jingoistic wars, corporate bailouts etc were funded with cheap bonds from the trust funds for workers. Now Obama is going to propose stiffing workers, the little people, the great unwashed, the disabled, widows and orphans with a cut in benefits. This will also be accomplished with inflation of energy, food, housing , medical care and every other thing that keeps us alive to devalue the debt that was run up to benefit Obama’s dear friends. I am not exaggerating when I say that I think he is a monster.
anon2525
My central concern is that unless the left concentrates its resources and efforts on passing a constitutional amendment that bans all private money from elections and lobbying, and instead establishes 100% public financing and low spending limits on all elections, right-wing, regressive, corporate big money will steadily take over the election process, and replace our already corrupted and broken democracy with a completed plutocracy.
You might find this recent panel discussion interesting, particular Darcy Burner’s introductory remarks (her remarks are about twenty minutes long). Video: Structural Barriers to Progressive Success Burner was a candidate for congress back in 2008. One interesting detail from her talk is the small number, age, and wage of congressional staff. This is important because it explains in no small part why congress members can be influenced so much by lobbyists.
Although I would like to see campaign finance reform and a majority of the population thinks it is needed, it is abstract, meaning that people do not see that it directly benefits them or that they are directly hurt when it is not passed. In the case of Social Security and Medicare, it is not abstract–many people see that cuts to these programs would directly and immediately affect them after the law went into effect. This means, at least in part, that there is a natural community of people with like interests. This, in turn, means that they are more likely to be able to be organized (messages among the community) to show up to protest the new legislature when representatives return to their districts.
Z
Instead of trying to talk the republicans out of “entitlement” cuts, obama holds them to their word:
From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-debt-talks-20110712,0,3461992.story):
“On Monday, the two sides were still sniping at each other, even in private.
During the afternoon meeting at the White House, Boehner took issue with suggestions from Democrats that cutting Medicare and other entitlements would be an easy vote for Republicans, according to one GOP aide familiar with the talks.
When Boehner said Republican lawmakers weren’t “cheerleading” about cutting entitlements, the aide said, Obama pointed out that they had already voted for Medicare cuts when they approved a recent budget proposal by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).
“Excuse us for trying to lead,” came the retort, the aide said.”
Z
anon2525
When Boehner said Republican lawmakers weren’t “cheerleading” about cutting entitlements, the aide said, Obama pointed out that they had already voted for Medicare cuts when they approved a recent budget proposal by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).
I’m pretty confident that if cuts were not what obama wanted, he never would have mentioned this.
Budgetary actions that obama won’t mention in the “negotiations” or at press conferences:
1) cuts to military contracts, ending the military operations
2) shutting down most of the dept. of “homeland” “security”
3) eliminating the insurance companies and moving to medicare for all
4) progressive taxation
5) putting the largest banks into receivership, auditing them, breaking them up, and prosecuting the massive fraud
Note that he won’t argue against these possible actions. He just won’t mention them. He only mentions those actions that he wants to take, hence, his comment to boehner.
If the democrats want to keep their seats (and some have argued that they don’t care), then they should shut this down and tell obama that he’ll have to find some other solution (or none), and tell him that if he wants to run for re-election on the platform of “vote for me–i’ll cut your medicare and social security!”, then he can do it. but not as a democrat.
Z
Yeah, the whole demo-zombie belief that obama is weak and doesn’t fight hard enough is bullshit. Oh, he’ll fight all right. He fought to keep the public option and a bunch of other non-corporate servile legislation out of the health care bill … not to mention he suffocated any hopes for medicare-for-all/single payer from the outset, never even allowing it into the debate … and he fought for extending the bush tax cuts and the the fiscal cuts on the budget deal. He led his party on all those issues. And now he’s basically holding boehner to his word when boehner is at lest feigning that he’s not anxious to make those cuts.
Yep, he’ll fight all right. He’ll fight against the vast majority of the American people’s interests.
Z
Formerly T-Bear
It’s probably a good time to cut the losses with the national Democrat (sic) party. Withdraw consent from the lot of them, the servicing the public gets from the Washington party is exactly the same servicing a bull does a cow, the results most likely an abortion, nothing the national party does has any possibility of viability, it has been that way since Pelosi took impeachment off the table indicating the corrupt absence of intent to follow constitutional law. It is time to abandon this Democrat Party in the same manner it has abandoned both its vows to uphold the constitution and law in addition to its political base. Pay no further attention to Democrat propaganda, it is self-serving and most likely deceitful, the brand is demonstrably false and has been for now going on four decades; shows part of the public to be slow-learners better than any poll. Withdraw consent, its the only way. Prepare to replace with some other form of conducting the public business; what that form may be needs to be explored and discussed. If nothing is done, the results will still be the public’s responsibility. Beware of demagogues!
Formerly T-Bear
Addendum:
FWIW, get a grip on history, history itself not opinions about history. Get to know history as it applies to others, from other perspectives, from other interests, from other backgrounds; build from these an understanding of the historical relationships that existed, that continue to exist, that will exist in times to come. Don’t waist good effort listening to those who propose that some behaviour which was not portrayed in a child’s entertainment cartoon of pure fantasy indicates that some behaviour did not transpire historically; beware of such ‘teachers’, where they lead is not where history actually is. If history is no more than a fog, nothing that fog hides will be known. Those who haven’t an idea from whence they came, have no landmarks of where they presently are, and become incapable of mapping their future.
In addition to know history, a parallel knowledge is also required, knowing and understanding power, what it is, how it is used, to what ends, the economies of power and its use, the limits of power or the use of power, and where abuse of power leads to the loss of power. Power is the fundamental ingredient of all politics, of almost every social interaction. If one does not understand power, one does not understand anything connected with the human condition.
The failure to know and understand power incapacitates any ability to know reality, or that reality of mature functioning adults and leaves those so incapacitated only able to function as jejune adolescents, however brilliantly sophomoric they present themselves.
anon2525
[Adults] don’t believe that Obama responds to anything from the left but pain and threats that are backed up with the sincere willingness and ability to see them through.
Here is a two-minute video of Scott Walker attempting to give a speech at a college in Wisconsin: video link
This is part of the reason that obama does not want an extension past the Aug. 2nd “deadline”–congress goes on vacation, they visit their districts, and instead of hearing from lobbyists and reading wapo, they’ll be hearing from their constituents.
Speaking of a sincere willingness and ability to see threats through, there are the 6,600 prisoners on hunger strike in California.
anon2525
If there is a European event between now and Aug. 2nd, how will that effect the possibility of obama’s cuts to Social Security and Medicare? Will the event break through the “austerity über alles” mentality, or does shock doctrine get used to double-down with “we must balance our budget!”?
Diana Prince
anon2525 PERMALINK
July 7, 2011
If obama truly wanted to get reelected, he’d wait until after his reelection to cut ss…
I do not know him, obviously, but given what rahm said once to a representative (“good! it makes you look bipartisan”), it would not surprise me to learn that obama thinks that this is his “end welfare as we know it” moment that clinton decided was needed for his re-election.
Z PERMALINK
July 7, 2011
If obama truly wanted to get reelected, he’d wait until after his reelection to cut ss … just like the big corporate lap dawg clinton tried to do with his pal newt before the lewinsky situation blew up on him and he needed support from the same people that he was so anxious to sellout in order to “strengthen ss” … and, not so consequently, make himself more marketable to the petey petersons of the world.
Z
Z PERMALINK
July 7, 2011
clinton was riding the crest of a strong economy … though it was built on a very unhealthy foundation … with much lower unemployment, so he had a lot more latitude to do welfare reform to bolster his centrist credentials and still keep liberal voters in his camp than obama has to cut ss benefits right now in this terrible economy at a time in which a lot of seniors are struggling.
Z
This is complete and utter bullshit – I’m sorry but it just is and both Z and anon2525 constant make similar claims about Bill Clinton in almost every single thread. There are many valid things you can criticize Clinton about – but this isn’t one of them. I’m calling bullshit – because it is and I’m sick of it.
http://articles.cnn.com/1999-01-19/politics/sotu.post_1_social-security-budget-surpluses-tobacco-companies?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
January 19, 1999
Clinton observed that for the first time in three decades, the budget is balanced. Predicting that the nation would have budget surpluses for the next 25 years, the president said the primary use of the surplus should be protecting the Social Security system.
By 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032 the trust fund will be exhausted, he said.
Clinton proposed committing 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years an estimated 2.7 trillion to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector, just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years, he said.
Last year, we wisely reserved all of the surplus until we knew what it would take to save Social Security. Again, I say, we should not spend any of it until after Social Security is truly saved. First things first, the president added.
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011010210/getting-beyond-sound-bite-wars-urge-daley-and-sperling-help-obama-lead-clinton
But while some reporters patiently listened to me, they all went with my more obvious “lefty” sound bite: “I’d be happier if one of these top appointees was closer to main street than to Wall Street.” Clearly, the reporters were all calling for the same quote, one that substantiated the “Outraged Progressives” story they had already written in their heads. (Another problem: many of these reporters were too young to remember Bill Clinton’s successful and very popular public refusal to cooperate with the dismantling of Medicare, Medicaid, Education and the Environment — and his popular “Save Social Security First declaration in the State of the Union.) Surely this stuff is in textbooks, right? Here’s one, Congress From the Inside, written by US Senator Sherrod Brown. See page 177.
http://archives.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/?u=012798-speech-by-president-sotu-address.htm
But whether the issue is tax cuts or spending, I ask all of you to meet this test: Approve only those priorities that can actually be accomplished without adding a dime to the deficit. (Applause.)
Now, if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we’ll then have a sizeable surplus in the years that immediately follow. What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first. (Applause.) Thank you.
Tonight, I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus — that’s every penny of any surplus — until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century. (Applause.) Let us say to all Americans watching tonight — whether you’re 70 or 50, or whether you just started paying into the system — Social Security will be there when you need it. (Applause.) Let us make this commitment: Social Security first. Let’s do that together. (Applause.)
I also want to say that all the American people who are watching us tonight should be invited to join in this discussion, in facing these issues squarely, and forming a true consensus on how we should proceed. We’ll start by conducting nonpartisan forums in every region of the country — and I hope that lawmakers of both parties will participate. We’ll hold a White House Conference on Social Security in December. And one year from now I will convene the leaders of Congress to craft historic, bipartisan legislation to achieve a landmark for our generation — a Social Security system that is strong in the 21st century. (Applause.) Thank you.
His is the only President since FDR to raise taxes on the rich. There is a reason is was public enemy number one – target by Republicans and constantly by his on fucking party – who never defended him because they didn’t want to be targeted by the Republican party and mainstream news. btw – you also probably don’t remember how they mocked Al Gore about the Social Security “lockbox”, environment/green energy/global warming and of course the “information superhighway”. Again by his own party. This is exactly the kind of revisionist history that Somerby has been writing about for over a decade.
You can argue that Clinton deregulated too much or “triangulated” but personally I think that’s just the same bullshit people repeat over and over because if they defend Clinton they are accused of not being “lefty” enough. Remember all the liberals who cynically declared over and over that Gore and Bush were the same?
The details matter. I’m sorry but both of you constantly peddle this bullshit – which are literally the exactly talking points that were used to attack the Clintons in the 1990s. I don’t know if you just are too young to know better, ill-informed or just intellectually dishonest – but I am calling bullshit.
Diana Prince
Just to clarify – Obama actually is everything people claim to despise about Bill Clinton. The fact is that Clinton and Gore anticipated our current problems and tried to prevent them. Gore saw the potential of the internet and was mocked. Both he and Clinton were very concerned about global warming and were mocked. Clinton went nuts about the Cole bombing and tried to go after Osama bin Laden – but was mocked and accused of wagging the dog. I remember this very clearly because I didn’t understand why he was so freaked about it – but that’s because I didn’t get it. The significance was that there was no nation state to go after. Also – the WTC had been bombed once already so I couldn’t understand why everyone was so shocked. However, Clinton did actually deal with it as a domestic crime. The guy responsible was put on trial and went to jail. It was actually Fitzgerald that handled the case. And healthcare – Hillary and Bill Clinton tried to give us real universal health care – and were attacked viciously. The plan Obama is claiming to be such a win is actually the same crap right wing plan proposed by the infamous Heritage foundation 20 years ago. During the primaries Obama attacked Hillary Clinton using nearly the exact same ad that the right used against her twenty years ago (“Harry and Louise”).
The Republicans have always been crazy and pushing the same bad ideas they always have. This isn’t Bill Clinton’s fault – there are all the same problems from the 80s (Reagan/Bush). The reason they are out of control is that the left stood by or actively participated in attacking Bill Clinton because they were afraid of the Republicans and it was what all the “kewl kids” did. That was the real lesson about Gore and the election in 2000. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t seem to remember just how vicious and out of control everyone was in the 90s. They give Obama a pass on all of this stuff or claim this is somehow different and more toxic. None of this is new. None of it. When you use these talking points about Clinton, you are just propagating the same bullshit narrative. It is the same bullshit Obama used to attack both Clinton’s during the primaries – so now everyone thinks it’s true because Obama said so. He is normalizing the Republican narrative and now it’s “bi-partison”.
I don’t like everything Bill Clinton did – but give the Clinton’s credit for the things they actually did – or tried to do – just to get mocked and derided by the press and their own party and giving the Republicans a pass. They suck and have always sucked – for the same reasons they do now. They tanked the country in the 80s and Clinton actually rolled back a lot of it. The economy was in the shitcan when he got elected – but he turned it around and that’s why he had a surplus that he and Gore wanted to use to actually protect Social Security so it couldn’t be raided by the Republicans.
I’m sorry for ranting on you blog Mr. Welsh – it is very rude of me. This all just makes me feel like a fucking crazy person.
Z
diana: You can argue that Clinton deregulated too much or “triangulated” but personally I think that’s just the same bullshit people repeat over and over because if they defend Clinton they are accused of not being “lefty” enough.
Z: You don’t think that clinton deregulated too much? OOOOOOkay …
Z
Z
diana,
I got a bigger comment that I think is going thru moderator’s approval right now that has some reading material for you … if you’d like to open your mind a bit to some facts.
Z
Z
diana,
Z: clinton was riding the crest of a strong economy … though it was built on a very unhealthy foundation … with much lower unemployment, so he had a lot more latitude to do welfare reform to bolster his centrist credentials and still keep liberal voters in his camp than obama has to cut ss benefits right now in this terrible economy at a time in which a lot of seniors are struggling.
diana: This is complete and utter bullshit –
Z: You don’t think that the clinton economy … much of it built on free trade agreements that ultimately sent a hell of a lot of jobs overseas, a credit/stock market bubble, a lot of financial deregulation, a strong dollar policy that worked well for wall street but not so well for blue collar workers, etc. … wasn’t built on an unhealthy foundation?
Anyway, if you’re interested in confronting your delusions:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/10/obama-white-house-useconomy
http://my.firedoglake.com/deanbaker/2010/12/11/president-obama-gets-leading-proponent-of-social-security-privatization-and-bubble-economy-to-tout-budget-deal/
http://my.firedoglake.com/deanbaker/2011/06/20/president-clinton-the-economy-started-losing-manufacturing-jobs-while-you-were-in-office/
http://www.alternet.org/story/149509/the_progressive_case_against_obama%27s_new_oval_office_team/
Z
Z
Z: If obama truly wanted to get reelected, he’d wait until after his reelection to cut ss … just like the big corporate lap dawg clinton tried to do with his pal newt before the lewinsky situation blew up on him and he needed support from the same people that he was so anxious to sellout in order to “strengthen ss” … and, not so consequently, make himself more marketable to the petey petersons of the world.
diana: This is complete and utter bullshit –
Z: Read: http://firedoglake.com/2010/05/18/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security-clinton-gingrich-bowles-and-the-pact/
Z
Diana Prince
z:
I’ve already read all of those articles – every single one of them. Personally, I do think Clinton deregulated too much and there are many other things about him that I don’t agree with. However, in my opinion Monika Lewinsky did not save Social Security. All of that stuff has been repeated over and over since the 90s – verbatim – and it has become “lefty” convention wisdom. I remember it and it pisses me off now just like it did then – and that was the exact point I was making. To suggest that Newt and Clinton were pals is absurd. I’m not deluded or uninformed. I don’t agree with all of the analysis on firedoglake, alternet, truthout, truthdig, crooksandliars etc. I find it interesting, but I don’t always agree with it. Again – that was the point I was making.
I’m not going to get in a flame fest with you about it because it’s pointless. You always think you know better than everyone else.
Z
diana,
I definitely think I know better than you on this subject. And I think Dean Baker does too in regards to clinton’s overall economic legacy … much, much more. I’m not surprised that all you can retort back is that you read all the things that I posted and don’t believe them. That’s so persuasive of you as is you citing clinton’s speeches as proof of his intentions when he so frequently … like obama … did the exact opposite of what he said. I’m also not surprised that you wait until almost no one is involved in the discussion to jump into it. That way you don’t get challenged on your nonsense.
And by the way, this situation regarding the ss cut talks between clinton, bowles and gingrich wasn’t commonly known back in the 90s. To use your favorite argument: that “is complete and utter bullshit”. newt and bill weren’t necessarily pals, but they were willing to put aside their personal disagreements to work on cutting ss. And I don’t think that erskine bowles is someone that is going to lie to hurt clinton … he’d be much more likely to lie for the opposite purpose.
Oh, the facts are so unfair to folks like you that begin with a belief and then contort your logic back from there to defend it.
Z
Z
diana,
diana: “I don’t agree with all of the analysis on firedoglake, alternet, truthout, truthdig, crooksandliars etc. I find it interesting, but I don’t always agree with it.”
Z: Do you happen, by chance, to only agree with the analysis on firedoglake, alternet, truthout, truthdig, crooksandliars etc. that supports your beliefs about bill clinton?
Z
Z
diana,
And as far as your fallacy that clinton was “the only President since FDR to raise taxes on the rich”, it appears it appears that the tax rates on the highest tax brackets were raised in 1950, 1952, 1968 and 1969 (http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html). fdr died in 1945.
Z
Diana Prince
You know what – I really don’t care. I don’t agree or disagree with everything on those blogs. That’s not what I said at all. Again, that is the exact point I was trying to make. A lot of the stuff about SS was being said in the 90s – maybe you just don’t remember, but I do. You talk about this stuff as if it’s not common knowledge and is somehow new edgy criticism, but it’s actually not. I could go through point by point and quote articles just like you, but honestly I don’t want to. It’s too much work and you don’t listen to anyone else.
“I definitely think I know better than you on this subject” says it all. Who says something like that yet constant accuses everyone else of being delusional and close-minded. For the millionth time – I don’t agree with everything Clinton did or said – but I think a lot of it was misinterpreted and still is – and I think he should get credit for the things he did do. The stuff that you are saying is not as new and edgy as you think it is. That was the point. I’m done.
Z
diana,
Hey, you started this online discussion by saying that I’m peddling bullshit and that I’m either “too young to know better, ill-informed or just intellectually dishonest” and yet all you can do to support your point of view is to quote bill clinton’s speeches and tell me that I’m wrong but that you don’t have the time to disprove it … after spewing out two long posts to begin this exchange. All right … I’m not surprised in the slightest, this what you true cdsers often do when confronted with inconvenient facts.
Z
Diana Prince
Yup Z – you are right. I’ve never heard or read about any of the things you mentioned and I don’t have the facts to back up what I say. You know more than everyone else and have opened my eyes to things I’ve never considered and that haven’t been already been debated over and over already for the past two decades. Thank you for schooling me with your superior knowledge and wisdom. You know much more than I do or every will. I’m sure I just didn’t understand those articles because they were way over my head. Thank you for explaining them to me.
Z
diana,
No one can open your eyes but yourself, mate. It won’t matter how many times anyone shows you those articles if you’ve already pre-determined that you’re right and you’re not willing to reexamine your beliefs.
Z
Z
diana,
First of all, you dismissed those that “argue that Clinton deregulated too much or “triangulated” as spewing “the same bullshit people repeat over and over because if they defend Clinton they are accused of not being “lefty” enough”. and then you walked that back and now agree that clinton did deregulate too much.
Next you imply that you are a better judge of the totality of clinton’s economics policies than Dean Baker … ha ha ha.
Then you declare that my statement that “the big corporate lap dawg clinton tried to do with his pal newt before the lewinsky situation blew up on him and he needed support from the same people that he was so anxious to sellout in order to “strengthen ss” was complete and utter bullshit. Then you sidestep that by contending that was all common knowledge and walk it back that you meant that monica lewinsky didn’t save ss … which was irrelevant to what I wrote.
And then when I confront you with proof that your nonsense that clinton was the first president to raise taxes on the rich since fdr was incorrect, you completely ignore it.
Can you see why I don’t defer to your opinion on these matters?
Z
Diana Prince
You are right Z. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were pals and had a secret plan to destroy Social Security because Bill Clinton is nothing but a corporate shill. Hillary Clinton never wanted universal healthcare either. I just remember it that way because I want to. Clearly I didn’t see that for myself because I’m not willing to question my own beliefs and can’t handle the truth. It is obvious that you have superior knowledge, intellectual prowess and critical thinking.
Z
diana,
My claim that bill clinton and newt gingrich were pals was untrue … it was hyperbolic … but they got along well enough that bill was willing to work with him to cut ss … which would have made clinton more marketable to the petey petersons of the world during his post-presidency and was against the wishes of the vast majority of his base. I never said that they both planned on “destroying” ss, but that clinton was willing to cut its benefits. I think it is well established that their meetings on this matter were secret … unless, again, you think erskine bowles would lie to harm bill clinton.
bill clinton didn’t fight for universal healthcare nearly as hard as he did for nafta … in fact, I don’t think he fought hard at all on it.
I think that bill clinton is very much a corporate shill. Hell, he was just out recently promoting the government’s proposed settlement with b of a regarding their foreclosure fraud that had everything imo to do with helping b of a and nothing to do with helping out the poor and middle class that he purports to care so much about.
I strongly believe that I have superior critical thinking on matters regarding bill clinton than you do becoz I am a hell of a lot more objective on the subject than you are.
Z
Z
diana,
By the way, I voted for bill clinton. And that was the last presidential candidate from the two major parties that I ever voted for.
Z
Diana Prince
Yes – you are right Z. When you make hyperbolic statements it doesn’t matter – but because I made a mistake that Bill Clinton was the only person to raise taxes on the rich since FDR, that invalidates everything I say and everything he did. The stuff you are saying is not lefty conventional wisdom – you are the first person to call Clinton a corporate shill or criticize Nafta. Absolutely no one was saying that constantly in the 90s. And because he was wrong about that stuff, he was obviously wrong about everything – and a corporate shill. He knows nothing about blue collar workers and growing up in poverty and has no empathy. Sure he grew up dirt poor in Arkansas with an abusive father – but you know he just cynically uses that as propaganda. And they never fought for national healthcare. They weren’t constantly criticized for spending political capital on something that wasn’t impossible. That stuff about Hillary being viciously attacked for even trying – no one wasn’t talking about it at the time. That’s all in my head because I am not able to be objective like you. Bill Clinton as a former president is free to speak out and challenge the current administration. No one would attack him for criticizing Obama. Ex-presidents do that all the time. He doesn’t have to be diplomatic and careful about what he says – because no one will take it out of context. That never happens to the Clintons. Oh – and you are right – who am I to think I know anything that Dean Baker doesn’t know – or you. Clearly you are both right about everything and as a good critical objective thinker, I should not question what Dean Baker thinks. Clinton wasn’t trying to be reasonable and work with Gingrich despite the fact that Gingrich was spouting crazy bullshit and trying to destroy him at the time. Clinton deserves no credit for that – it was obvious that they both wanted cuts in Social Security. Clearly Al Gore did too and all that lockbox stuff was bullshit. That’s why everyone laughed at him. Oh and the housing bubble is Clinton’s fault. Bush and the Republicans were not responsible for that at all. Of course I don’t think anyone would lie or misrepresent things to hurt Bill Clinton because that’s never happened before. It’s crazy to think that former colleagues would stab him in the back later to advance their own careers. It’s impossible that maybe people are twisting what Bowles said to make their own case – even with the best intentions – because that never happens. You are right, I should always agree with every point in every book I’ve ever read. It can’t be possible to agree with some of it and not everything someone said. It’s absurd that I could think sometimes people make really insightful points about something and still come to big picture conclusions that I don’t agree with. And all that stuff with the bombing of the Cole and Al Quaeda – that was Bill Clinton wagging the dog – just like Social Security. He wasn’t sincerely freaked out by it. He wasn’t bitterly criticized and mocked. Everyone knew at the time (particularly by the left) that he was using it as a cynical ploy to distract everyone from Monica Lewinsky.
Thank you for educating me. I never would have known any of that stuff if you didn’t tell me to go and read about it. Sure there are literally thousands of articles and numerous books that have made the same points as you in the past two decades – but I wouldn’t have known that if you didn’t tell me. You are so much more objective than me and you know so much more than everyone else. And honestly why won’t Somerby STFU about Gore. Why does he think it is so important? He’s clearly a rube. It’s not like he’s been writing about it literally every day since the 1990s. He is wrong to question the conventional wisdom of his own tribe. Gore was a corporate shill like Bush – and everybody knew it. All that stuff about the internets, global warming, social security – that was all posturing to win over the liberal base. Certainly he wasn’t accused of pandering to win an election. And we all know that he was wrong about everything – srsly! it was the conventional wisdom of the left at the time. Everyone knew that.
Thank you for setting me straight about all of this stuff. I had never really thought about it before. I just read all of those articles so I could say that I did – not because I found it interesting and wanted to know more or challenge my own assumptions. It was just so that I could get in a pissing fight on a blog so that everyone would recognize how superior I am.
And when someone states their complete confidence in their superior critical thinking in a patronizing way – no one thinks they are a douchebag. People who are sure of their intellectual ability are using the best critical thinkers.
Okay – I’m really done know. but in all honestly, I shouldn’t have ranted and I usually don’t. And I should back of my facts with links – but it really would take forever – and I’ve had this conversation so many times, I just can’t do it. I’m not being sarcastic – I do agree with you about that. I shouldn’t have unloaded if I wasn’t will to take the time and effort to back it up. Fair enough.
Z
diana,
I didn’t intend to set you off on a long rant that primarily has very little to do with what I wrote so I’m not going to waste my time dealing with all the straw you’ve strewn on my positions.
The one thing that I saw in your post that I thought worthy of commenting on is that you are correct … when you sift thru your sarcasm … that no one should automatically defer to a supposed higher authority such as Dean Baker and assume that he knows everything and not think for yourself. And I was wrong for implying that you should. What Dean Baker says … or anyone says … is not automatically the truth and shouldn’t be assumed as such. Personally, I came to many of those same conclusions that Dean Baker did independently … as have many others.
I will end with this, it’s not necessarily a matter of superior intellect as to why I strongly believe that I have clearer thinking on matters regarding bill clinton than you do. I’m sure that there are plenty of things that you know better that I do. I simply believe that you are not very objective at all about the clintons. And, as I’ve said before, if I had to rate the last three presidents … who I think were/are all poor presidents that have done a ton of damage to the working class of this country … bill clinton would undoubtedly be on top with bush and obama fighting for last place … and I thought at one time that it was damn near impossible to be worse than bush. And I if someone put me in a time capsule and placed a gun to my head and forced me to choose between obama and hillary clinton as democratic nominee/president (neither who I actually voted for), I would undoubtedly vote for hillary clinton on the belief that I have an extremely difficult time imagining that she could be worse than obama. I’d bet big money on that.
Z
Diana Prince
Thank you Z. I think that was very fair criticism – and I’m sorry for the rant. Clearly I need to get out more 😉
Z
Me too. I’ve been stuck at my desk all day trying to install anti-virus software. Anyway, have a good weekend, Diana.
Z
anon2525
Me: …it would not surprise me to learn that obama thinks that this is his “end welfare as we know it” moment that clinton decided was needed for his re-election.
DP: This is complete and utter bullshit – I’m sorry but it just is and both Z and anon2525 constant make similar claims about Bill Clinton in almost every single thread.
This sort of criticism of yours is invalid. A specific point can be argued, but a broad generalization is meaningless. You might just as well have written “I disagree.”
There are many valid things you can criticize Clinton about – but this isn’t one of them.
Clinton’s decision to sign that bill to “end welfare as we know” certainly is one of his actions that can be criticized. He cannot justify it either on policy or political grounds. Bob Dole’s campaign was extremely weak, and Clinton was in no significant danger of losing the election if he had not signed the bill.
The arguable point is whether or not Clinton’s decision to end this social safety net for the poor is analogous to obama’s decision to consider cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is bad policy, and yet obama appears to me to think that it would be good politics for his reelection campaign, (just as Clinton thought his decision to sign that bill in 1996 would help him get reelected). Some disagree and think that obama thinks that it will get him defeated but that obama does not care.
… you also probably don’t remember how they mocked Al Gore…
This is a declaration that you cannot possibly know. That you would write it makes me think that you have not read or have read but have not apprehended what I have written.
Diana Prince
Z – Thank you. Believe it or not, I actually agree with many of your comments. I’m sorry for ranting. Clearly I need to get out more 😉 And thank you Mr. Welsh – I’m sorry to be so rude. Believe it or not, I’m actually more of a lurker.
Diana Prince
anon2525 – First of all – I have read your comments on this thread and many others – I just don’t post so it is fair for you to assume that I haven’t. but I’m not sure what you mean – calling bullshit on the internet is generally understood to be a hyperbolic version of saying that you disagree.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=calling+bullshit
The act of calling bullshit: When one person says something that another person is not in agreement with, that second person may “call bullshit” on whatever the first person said. By doing this, they are expressing their disagreement with what the person said in a humorous and yet serious way.
Broad generalizations are useless and only specific points are valid? My basic understanding of debate is that you base your big picture generalizations on specific points. You can agree on what happened factually but still come to different conclusions and interpretations. Isn’t that what a debate is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
“Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn’t the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior “context” and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.”
Though to be fair – I may have misinterpreted what you meant. And you are right – I should have been more specific but I knew doing it properly would require a really long post. I had already written too much and thought wasn’t worth boring everyone by repeating this stuff as there have already been thousands of articles written about it in the past two decades.
Also, “welfare reform” and Social Security were two separate issues. No one was particularly happy about the welfare reform (nor am I) – but that was in 1996 and aggressively pursued by Gingrich and the Republicans. Clinton had already used his veto twice and using it a third time was considered a political risk as it was only about two months before the election in November (the billed passed in late August). “Welfare reform” was what the Republicans (particularly Gingrich) wanted. It’s what they always want. Clinton tried repeatedly to kill it. This was all in the midst of various fictional scandals that people still claim are true even though they have been debunked – White Water, Travelgate etc. – and of course, the murder of Vince Foster. He didn’t use welfare reform to win the election. Again – it was about using the veto for the third time right before the election. It was not an idea that he was pushing because it would help him win – quite the opposite – it would antagonize his base. It’s shitty policy, but you can’t polish a turd which is why everyone was so pissed off about it. I think “welfare reform” was his attempt to reframe the debate so that when the Republicans used the talking point they always use, he could present his own alternative policy that wasn’t evil (or at least, a lot less evil) – and the Republicans would have to actually make their case based on facts instead of the standard divisive hysteria.
The Clinton “Save Social Security First” campaign to use the surplus for Social Security was in 1998-1999 at the end of his presidency and later advocated by Al Gore whose use of the term “lockbox” was widely ridiculed by everyone. The reason I assumed you didn’t remember is because I was surprised you didn’t mention it as it’s such well known moment in the 2000 presidential debate – and I think very relevant when discussing Clinton,the Democrats and Social Security –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pqmW-D14I
It was even a skit on SNL. –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BAx6Ib81Y4
btw – the Heritage Foundation hated it –
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/10/clintons-newest-social-security-plan-from-bad-to-worse
which is basically confirmation that it was very liberal, very progressive and not evil. If they don’t like it – it’s probably good as they are the poster child for “fascist whore” –
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascist%20whore&defid=580289
fascist whore –
“1. One who compromises the ideals of tolerance or justice either for personal gain or for the acceptance of others.
Did you hear that that lawyer stopped working for the NAACP? He works at the Heritage Foundation and gets paid twice as much. What a fascist whore!”
Unlike Clinton, I think Obama is using the Republicans for cover – to win the election and because he actually thinks it’s good policy – and it’s how he’s handled every major issue so far. He’s actually not progressive at all – he’s essentially a Republican – even using the talking point that Gingrich used to describe the Republicans as the “party of ideas” – and not it a way to reframe the debate or debunk the term. This was rather shocking as Gingrich is notorious for being a total douchebag – thus the slang “Gingrich” –
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gingrich
Gingrich
A person who accuses someone of doing something immoral while doing the same thing him or herself; as in, Newt Gingrich accusing Bill Clinton of immorality while he was boinking his mistress. AKA: GIGANTIC hypocrite.
My boss called me to make sure I wasn’t goofing off – but he was calling from the golf course – what a Gingrich!
hypocrite moralizer phony snake cheat
2. Gingrich 138 thumbs up
Verb/Adjective, the act of abandoning your extremely sick wife on her hospital bed while you fuck the shit out of your mistress, whom you later marry and cheat on with a third woman. Coined after serial adulterer/giant hypocrite Republican Newt Gingrich.
Person 1: Man, did you hear that Larry Gingriched his wife Cindy?
Person 2: Wait, you mean he cheated on her, married the mistress, then cheated on the mistress with a third woman?
Person 1: Yup. And poor Cindy was dying from brain cancer, too!
Douchebag: woman, if you don’t lose some weight and get a face lift, I’m gonna go Gingrich on your ass!
That’s why I couldn’t understand why anyone would claim that Clinton and Gingrich were pals conspiring to gut Social Security.
This is also why people were so pissed off that Obama would use the infamous Harry and Louise ad against Hillary Clinton as it was used by the Republicans (again, led by Gingrich) to tank any possibility of universal healthcare that was strongly advocated by both Hillary and Bill Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_and_Louise
“Harry and Louise” was a $14 to $20 million year-long television advertising campaign funded by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA)—a predecessor of the current America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)—a health insurance industry lobby group, that ran intermittently from September 8, 1993 to September 1994 in opposition to President Bill Clinton’s proposed health care plan in 1993–1994 and Congressional health care reform proposals in 1994.
It was a particularly nasty fight at the time – far worse than the kabuki that resulted in the Democrats passing what was basically what the Heritage Foundation (aka “fascist whores”) wanted in the 90s.
The point I was trying to make is that claiming Obama is corporate shill just like Clinton isn’t fair or accurate at all. For example, Obama was reading Gingrich’s biography recently – that’s bad enough – but he did it in public?!? wtf? That’s like someone you know seeing you read the NY Post in public on the subway – thus the saying “I read it for the sports”. Similar to the claim of reading Playboy for the “articles”. 😉 Obama wanted to make a show of being “bi-partisan”, “post-partisan “and “reasonable” (as usual) – but giving Gingrich credibility as a serious thinker is actually embarrassing and offensive – again, because he is such a notorious douchebag – and it was an obvious dig at Bill Clinton (and Hillary Clinton) both personally – and the legacy/policy of his administration. I also think it’s kind of stupid to trash the legacy and undermine the only two-term Democratic president since FDR who is still very popular. I don’t think it’s a particularly smart way to “win the future”. btw – great slogan with the acronym wtf – nobody is going to think that’s not funny.
I generalized because I thought all of this was common knowledge – and because I feel bad for poor Ian as I am being very rude and hijacking this thread.
Sorry Ian 🙁 I won’t post again. I prefer to lurk – because I’m a bit of a coward and generally I don’t feel I have anything worthwhile to say. I guess I’m really not objective about all this – because it does really still piss me off.
Diana Prince
Sorry – one more thing. I am baffled as to why Obama would agree to extend the Bush tax cuts without making it conditional that they pass the debt ceiling without being whiny bitches. Obviously they were going to use it to hold the country hostage until they get their way. That’s what they do. Krugman mentioned this several times. The fact that anyone is actually even talking about downgrading the credit rating of the United States is a big deal. They should have never let it get this far especially as it just gives credibility to a fictional crisis that manufactured by the Republicans (and one that they use over and over) – so now it is actually a problem and Social Security is on the table when it used to be the “third rail” of politics. Even Bush was afraid to really go after it as it is politically risky for anyone.
Sorry again 🙁
Diana Prince
For example, Obama was reading Gingrich’s biography recently –
The above was wrong – I meant to say Reagan’s biography – worshipped by all Republicans – but srsly! not in public 😉
The “party of ideas” was a Gingrich talking point about his “Contract with America”- which was the same Reagan/Bush stuff- “welfare reform”, “tougher on crime”, tax cuts and “balance the budget” by of course cutting social programs. Obama agreed with Gingrich that the Republicans were the “party of ideas” for the past 10-15 years because they were the party who were “challenging conventional wisdom” when in fact they were talking about the same things they always talk about. Again, dissing the Clinton administration and his own party using Gingrich talking points to reenforce the Republican narrative
Sorry if that didn’t make sense – I’m falling asleep…
🙁
Z
IMO, obama wanted to create this crisis to pressure congress to jam cuts to social programs thru. To deploy the shock doctrine, you need a crisis and they’ve created one. So, essentially this is all kabuki between obama and the republican party. mcconnell has already come out and said that an increase to the debt limit is going to happen … and I can’t imagine that the republican party’s owners on wall street and corporate amerika are going to allow them to damage their interests. Sure, I guess we are supposed to believe that tea partiers are so “out of control” that they can’t be trusted not to throw the country into default. And I guess we are supposed to believe that the tea partiers in congress believe that throwing the country into default will help them in their reelection chances, or in their post-congressional career, or maybe that they just believe in this shit. But really, are they that powerful, are their members in congress so large that obama/mcconnel-reid/boehner can’t get a debt limit increase through? … something that has almost always …. maybe always … been a routine stand alone measure? I don’t believe it … it’s all bullshit … a manufactured crisis that they are going to use to try … and will probably be successful, unfortunately … to do some radical deconstruction of the social safety net.
Now, moody’s is in on kabuki too threatening to downgrade u.s. gov’t debt if the magical $4T decrease in the debt that obama wants is not done within a year. What a coincidence: that’s precisely the same amount that obama proposes to cut the debt by. moody’s … as do all the rating agencies … basically represents wall street; that’s the way wall street has structured it and it came in real handy for them during the rape and pillage of the u.s. economy during the preposterous housing bubble they blew. Those rating agencies are paid by wall street to rate wall street’s securities and they were rating mortgage backed securities that were backed by risky mortages as AAA securities, which was really the linchpin to all the fraud that went on partly becoz it allowed wall street to dump these highly overrated securities on the public and financial institutions as well as allow wall street to use these securities as collateral to jack up their balance sheets and gain … and deploy … an irresponsible amount of leverage in the markets. And then it all came down … on us. And it’s still coming down on us.
Z
Diana Prince
Z : “IMO, obama wanted to create this crisis to pressure congress to jam cuts to social programs thru. To deploy the shock doctrine,”
I completely agree – about Moody’s too. He’s a Republican 😉
Otherwise it just makes no sense. Just like everything else – it’s not 11 dimensional chess – or trying to manipulate the discourse to trap the Republicans. I cannot believe anyone is still trying to make that argument. It’s clearly not some brilliant strategy or real attempt to strengthen SS or prevent it from being gutted – quite the opposite – and that’s been obvious for a long time. And the overt collusion with Moody’s etc in the midst of the massive still ongoing foreclosure fraud after huge bailouts – is mindblowingly evil. Every time he talks about “shared sacrifice”, I feel like my head it going to explode. Actually, that might be partially due to horrible insomnia – thus my petulant ranty posts… 😉
Z
That’s another reason that I think obama wants out: you just can’t keep running the same game over and over and over like he has for another 4 years. It was especially hard to do when the dems had control of both the house and the senate, but fortunately, for him he had a cos, the despicable emanual, that was skilled at directing the kabuki and had tight ties to the house (pelosi basically allowed him to run the joint from oval office). And I think that obama wanted the dems to lose the mid-terms to at least narrow the dem’s strength in congress to make his corporate servile game easier to play. It’s hard for me to believe that he doesn’t understand that doing nothing for your base for 2 years and then calling them a bunch unappreciative retards is not a good strategy for maximizing dem turnout in mid-terms.
No, he wanted to lose the mid-terms to make the kabuki direction an easier task. And now he’s got the reps to “compromise” with and doesn’t have to call in lieberman, or nelson, or baucus, etc. from the dem bullpen to start a fire and provide him a reason to “back down” from what he purportedly wants. Even with a weakened hand in 2012, his games are too stale … and the pain to the public too severe … to last another 4 years w/o him being called out on them in a major way. If he stays for another term, he’s risking the loss of his celebrity appeal and that’s mega-important to a narcissist like obama whose ego craves him being celebrated. Fuck, that’s what drove him to being in the oval office to begin with …
Z
Z
Actually, it was standard and poors that threatened to downgrade u.s. gov’t debt if it didn’t meet that magical $4T reduction.
Z