Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
President Obama was elected with a large enough mandate for fundamental change that he could forge a fresh social compact, lock in place a new set of mutual obligations and rewrite the relationship between the state and the populace.
Sasha Abramsky's comments in his book Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It
The need for change is obvious, and last November, the appetite for it became palpable. "President Barack Obama's election was an astounding transformative moment," writes Abramsky. "Tens of millions of voters, from the most liberal to the most conservative regions of the country, stood up and said no more to the divisive greed-driven policies and priorities of the recent past."
But then there's this, from today's news. Analysts report that the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, a major recipient of government cash, has earned a staggering $2 billion in the last three months. The bank's stock value has soared 68 percent and the Wall Street Journal predicts that it's on track to pay out as much as $20 billion this year, in compensation and benefits to its employees -- or about $700,000 per person.
As formerly homeless mom, Franceska Dillella told GRITtv today -- poor Americans, like those in her New York shelter, celebrated on election night. But well-connected Goldman didn't just get hugs or hope when they fell on hard times: Goldman received $13 billion from the Bush bailout of the failed insurance giant AIG and $28 billion more in low-interest loans -- plus insurance worth untold billions more -- thereafter. Now the bank's repaid that loan and bounced back: how? The Times says Goldman "Brilliantly" capitalized on chaos--making a fortune trading bonds and buying and selling volatile currencies in a shifting market, and making out from gambling on commodities like oil -- raising prices for everyone.
Back to Abramsky. In Breadline USA Sasha writes that if Obama rewrites the social contract and all the rest, he might be able contain the calamity of the 2008 economic collapse. "But if he fails that calamity will haunt the next several decades..."
What's more too big to fail: The banks or the country?
The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders, the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GritLaura on Twitter.com.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Ms Flanders, again...
despite the hopes of some of the Hard Left....and the proclamations of nearly all the Right...
Barack Obama is not a radical or socialist.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 09:34am
The country can fail, if that's what it takes for GoldmanSachs to rake in $3.44 billion profit a quarter as it has just done in Q2 '09.
This much is so painfully obvious, as obvious as GS & other banks having bought more than enough senators, congresspersons, presidential appointees to guarantee that the wealth of GS senior execs takes clear precedence over the welfare of the rest of the country.
But none dare call it treason.
How long will Obama's charm gull & lull?
Posted by sloper at 07/14/2009 @ 09:44am
Barack Obama is not a radical or socialist.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 09:34am
Mask, You are quite right. So far in his fledgling presidency, he's acting more as a moderate republican....as far from being a socialist as one can be really.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/14/2009 @ 09:45am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/14/2009 @ 09:45am
Which actually goes to show how fringey the "real" Republicans have become that they consider this "socialism".
And another indication that American people usually get what they want from their leaders, despite, not due to...the ideologues.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 10:19am
throughout the 90's and the junta years, and going back to the 80's as well, we have been outsourcing first gobs of manufacturing jobs, then service sector jobs to countries that pay their people a fraction of what we pay...
in return we have been expected to remain the world's consumer spendthrift...
now as this process was inching forward over 2-3 decades, a huge pile of pseudo-wealth was generated mostly for the investment class. pseudo-wealth is always present in capitalist systems - speculative and investment capitol produced in some part not by wealth generating activities, but by clever bookkeeping and accounting tricks...
and there is nothing wrong with this phenomenon - it is an essential element of a healthy economy, always padding the outer curb of real wealth generating (producing of goods and services consumed). the problem comes when such pseudo-wealth fails to be converted to real wealth after a certain amount of build-up time.
in order for this pseudo-wealth to be converted to real wealth it must be redistributed to some extent in order to maintain healthy consumer spending based upon earned wealth rather than lazy credit extension.
but as this mountain of ponzi bubble pseudo-wealth built up, the opposite occurred.
public social programs that might have softened the lessened earning power of the base consumer actually contracted. if as the earning power of the average schmuk contracted, social programs directed at asisting the average schmuk consumer can indeed create a situation where wealth is spread, countering the destructive loss of earning power of the consumer, and pseudo-wealth is converted into real wealth...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 10:44am
but in fact just the opposite occurred - as the consumer got increasingly pinched, so too the wealthy paid less and less to to support social programs that lightened the load on consumers, enabling them to spend disposable income without extending absurd lines of credit, thereby benefiting the investment class...
but no - the investment class kept their profits, many seeing social programs as "commernism", and somehow expected schmuks to go along spending beyond their means forever...
absurd.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 10:47am
Barack Obama is not a radical or socialist.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 09:34am
nope.
he's a goldman sacker.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 10:56am
And another indication that American people usually get what they want from their leaders, despite, not due to...the ideologues.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 10:19am
i hadn't realized the american people were into being sodomized.
interesting.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 10:57am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/14/2009 @ 10:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
you suffer from a form of tourette's syndrome, don't you?
i too question some of his ideas and policies as well, but am not sure his actions so far on this issue are much ore than an initial flailing attempt to "do something" quick to settle people down and stop a catastrophe...
i am hoping for some more long term ideas soon. still only half a year in office.
the real question is whether spoiled, ignorant, ADD infested americans will understand how profound this mess is and how profound the changes are we need to make for real sustainable prosperity.
we shall see.
by the way, from another thread...
the reason i "smeared" you as being an anti-semite was specifically your comment about sotomayor being another jew in control of the SC...as well as other quips like that.
makes you sound like a barely closeted anti-semite. you said you have never read "the protocols of zion" yet some of your commentary suggests you have indeed been influenced by such ideas...
i don't go here simply to shut you up or smear you personally as opposed to argue your points (despite the fact that you almost constantly engage in practically non-sequiter personal attacks on ALL AMERICANS) but because it suggests to me darker motivations behind your attacks with which i am made uncomfortable and which weaken your overall thesis of unbending utter condemnation of the united states and everything it does, which weakens your argument.
sure, vomiting up a foul mouthed tirade can be cleansing like an enema, but...
i hope for your sake its only one aspect of your personality lest you be one of those lifelong masochists who enjoy suffering (not THAT unwise considering the nature of this world i suppose).
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 11:08am
Hey IBBLEBLIBBLE,
I saw your comment to EMILE on the RACISM AT THE POOL blog. Was traveling that day and got in too late.
Anyway's don' be worryin none 'bout what Emile says.:) He still thinks Theodore Roosevelt was a racist. In fact, he thinks everyone is a racist who is not down on their knees asking God for forgiveness over the evils sins of our 150 year old ancestors, or who do not hang their heads in shame over it.
Try telling a racist or ethnic joke if you REALLY want his blood up (Heh Heh). He's really a nice guy but truly a victim of his times and his heritage.
Prester John Lives!
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 11:11am
"i hadn't realized the american people were into being sodomized."----Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 10:57am
Really!??!?!? By your definition of it, you had not yet realized that, FROSTY????
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 11:11am | ignore this person | warn this person
i still like EMILE, but it seems his logic circuits shut down at critical points and unfortunately he then resorts to cheap non sequiter, ad hominum assaults that go along with his ideology...sort of...
and he's not alone.
i may or may not be a "racist", and that's up to each individual to decide based on what i say, as indeed each individual seems to have at least subtly different ideas of what racism is, unless they ascribe to another's standardized ideological definition, of course. but it seemed to me he did not even read what i said!
simply positing a set of circumstances and conditions that suggest something (anything) other than the official mantra of pure irrational white perfidy and complete innocent black (brown) victimhood is...
RACISM!!! SO IT HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED!!!
sure, whatever. nobody REALLY wants to discuss race in this country unless they have an axe to grind, it seems...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 11:20am
In fact, government control of "the means of production" such as automobile companies is the very definition of socialist. I suppose, however, the spirit of socialism doesn't accept that the people in charge of those government-run companies get the big bucks. So perhaps it's a new variety of socialism. Any ideas on a name?
Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 11:22am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/14/2009 @ 11:44am
Ilya, why don't you tell them all how you're "not an anti-Semite" and how "all these Jews" at "TN" are in the pocket of AIPAC?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 11:46am
Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
unfortunately the very word "socialism" is a distraction and nearly meaningless shibboleth evoked by satano-aynrandos and "anti-communists" (often closet fascists) to end a discussion without really discussing.
many socialist ideas are indeed institutionalized in our system and their existance does not threaten capitalism - in fact a certain amount of "socialism" (thoughtful, purposeful redistribution of wealth) is ironically beneficial to the maintenance of a long term sustainable free market system.
i think of it as a form of social insurance for the wealty as well as what i pointed out above - the maintenance of a wealthy consumer class capable of transforming speculative pseudo-wealth into real wealth.
the principle choice hear ultimately boils down to less spectacular, steadier, sustainable, and yes, slower short term growth or no holds barred profiteering that also grows wealth in the long term, but with such disruptive and ever more profound adjustments that ultimately the very fabric of social cohesion is threatened.
the worst part of our satano-aynrando bender has been that it forced other, wiser, economic actors to ape our foolishness or fall behind and lose out - in the short term...
the short term success of our perversion of capitalism served to convince the already converted as well as those not well versed in economics and history that our system was superior - just look at the quarterly profits!!!!
but then it all came crashing down....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 11:48am
As someone who voted for Obama (or, more correctly, against McCain/Palin), I really don't see either the mandate for 'fundamental' change or 'transformative moment' in his successful election bid.
He's still in favor of 'market solutions' to our domestic problems from healthcare reform to the housing 'crisis'.
Has Ms. Flanders been watching Glenn Beck so long that she believes Obama is a socialist too?
The idea that he is Eugene Debs with soul has got to stop.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 11:57am
I find it hard to believe that the word "socialism" is nearly meaningless. Surely it either applies to the process of state control of the means of production, with extremely large salaries for those who run those "means of production" or it doesn't. Or there is some qualifier, such as "Soviet" socialism, "Maoist" socialism, "National" socialism, "Euro-" socialism or something similar.
Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
shit mistral, years ago i stared a chapter of the young dems at my conservative southern college...
a classmate and casual chum stopped me outside class one day and asked if it were true. i responded affirmatively, and he then asked me in horor and shock if i were a "liberal".
"Well, Tom, you tell me what a liberal is and I'll tell you if I'm a liberal.", i responded...
the discussion was over since he could not tell me what a liberal was beyond a vague notion of badness of some sort. he was a good, voting, "conservative republican".
the word "socialism" is similarly understood by many, and debated amongst those who understand certain concepts or self identify as socialists.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:06pm
"Try telling a racist or ethnic joke if you REALLY want his blood up "CHIPTHORTON
Or if you just want the world to know you are an asshole.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 12:08pm
nice post. agree with her or not, ms. harris-lacewell consistently contributes well thought out, interesting, in depth, and thought provoking posts.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:10pm
oops...wrong tread...damn!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:11pm
Assholes are in the eyes of the beholder, CRAB old boy. Racial and ethnic jokes are time honored American traditions to be maintained at all cost, and while I wouldn't consciously hurt someones feelings with one, I have to say, in general, that I don't really give a Red Rat's Ass whether anybody likes them or not.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 12:22pm
CHIP--if racist jokes are "time honored American traditions" then it's safe to assume Sotomayor's comment does not bother you?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/14/2009 @ 12:24pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah, just telling a racist joke is not tantamount to being a racist in my book, but telling one on the nation blog response pits will INEVITABLY elicit charges of racism and iniquity from at least someone here...
so how do you play the jewish defense in american football?
nickel and dime 'em til ya get the quarterback!!!!
jewish jokes seem to elicit less horror than black jokes. i get most of my jewish jokes (which is not a lot) from a jewish former student of mine who calls himself "jew boy" and who i regularly call "jew-boy", though the above was one i made up...which he immediately told to his jewish mom, who was a co-worker of mine. she found it funny too.
but sans a close personal relationship which includes edgy humor as one of its bases, again its always a minefield.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:31pm
"urely it either applies to the process of state control of the means of production, with extremely large salaries for those who run those "means of production" or it doesn't. "----Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 11:59am
So what were Stalin and Mao pulling down... after taxes?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:45pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 12:22pm
I behold one brown eye.
Most humor gets its power from the teller exhibiting superiority over the butt of the joke. When the superiority derives from an assumed inferiority of a WHOLE race, that enters the realm of asshole. The irony, of course, is that by telling such a "joke", one presents the world with your self admitted inferiority. If one were comfortable with oneself, one would not need to make a whole race the butt of a joke.
So, if you have an innate inadaquacy that you feel must be brought out in public, you go right ahead.
Why don't you wax eloquent about the place of black quarterbacks in the NFL?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
So what were Stalin and Mao pulling down... after taxes?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
an agreed upon set of terminology is a wonderful enabling tool in discussions and debates, but a word like "socialism" has so many individual definitions and as been so demonized by some (and lionized by others, of course) that the use of it in my experience is at least as likely to engender confusion and misunderstanding as it is to clear up and define.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
and that is the core plan of the celebrity entertainers and their puppets in the Halls of Power...to sow confusion and misunderstanding.
And fear
And hate.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 1:01pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 12:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
nobody is perfect, and though racist jokes are not my forte nor preference...
told amongst folks one trusts in private they CAN serve to air out frustration and ugly notions that sometimes creep into everyone's thoughts based on experiences and life.
sort of a form of a five minute hate or taming a monster by taking it out of its cage and staring it in the face rather than suppressing and denying it, which in my experience can actually nourish it...
but different folks have different notions of humor as well as different levels of sensitivity and respect for others' choices of expression.
as for me i generally avoid such, but my oppositional defiant side makes me want to sometimes engage in such nonetheless out of spite to those who would censor me, rather than hatred or disdain of the people represented by the but of the joke...
cruelty is an unavoidable aspect of most humor, although in some cases cruelty is a form of kindness and vice versa.
but again i generally find such humor distasteful and avoid it, especially in venues where many might misinterpret what it says or does not say about my core beliefs and values.
i mean geez...a black comedian can get up on stage and spew hours of racist musings about white folks, but very few white comedians can do the same without being accused of going all "michael richards" and worse...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 1:09pm
CRAB, You're getting way to technical (or philosophical) over man's need to simply laugh at himself. Drink some de-caf and open your other eye.
IBBLE. I like it!
URMYGYRO- Which comment are you referring to? The thing about making a better decision 'cause she's Latino?
If that's it, no I don't. Whether it will be a better decision or not will be subject to debate, but she'll think it is. I prefer they all follow the rule of law, but all of them, despite their experience, are still just people, with feelings and opinions and life experiences that color their decisions. Why else would there be so many interpretations and re-interpretations of the constitution?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
I just love that Mistral imagines "socialist bosses" as some kind of "Marxist Bill Gates or John Rockefeller"!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 1:58pm
So what were Stalin and Mao pulling down... after taxes?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And, from what I could see, a really crappy clothing allowance.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 3:09pm
So what were Stalin and Mao pulling down... after taxes? Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:45pm |
Stalin: dissident population count.
Mao: caloric intake of the Great Leapers.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:42pm
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:42pm
Mistral probably so "MiniTrue'ed" by the likes of Rush and Sean that he thinks corporatism/fascism is "democracy and freedom" and "socialism" is "rich guys oppressing the workers".
2+2=5 and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:53pm
"President Obama was elected with a large enough mandate for fundamental change that he could forge a fresh social compact, lock in place a new set of mutual obligations and rewrite the relationship between the state and the populace."
Uh, no. 52.9% to 45.7% is hardly a "large enough mandate".
But thanks for giving us a great demonstration of partisan disingenuousness. Your faith in Obama is sadly misguided. And the Kool-ade will stain your mind.
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:09pm
aid
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:11pm
Today's extreme version of welfare for the rich began with the idea that providing significant "tax breaks" to corporations would result in a massive increase of family-supporting jobs. Obviously, that didn't quite happen, as corporations used that money instead to move our jobs to foreign countries.
Want economic stimulus? Pass stimulus dollars along to mid- to low-income people (real welfare, for example); by necessity, this money is then immediately rolled back into local economies rather than stashed away in savings accounts. Invest in legitimate education and job skills training, and provide loans and funding to entrepreneurs who will use it exclusively (by legally-binding requirement) to build factories, workshops, etc. right here in the US. In short, un-do the "Reagan Revolution"/Newt Gingrinch economic model because, as we have seen, it doesn't work.
Posted by DHFabian at 07/14/2009 @ 5:22pm
Posted by DHFabian at 07/14/2009 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yes, but don't ignore the supply side either...
just because the supply siders from reagan onward have ignored half the overall basis of the study of economics (the demand side - keynesian notions) does not mean we should adopt hardcore demand side economics and ignore supply side wisdom.
for the short term i agree we need to concentrate a LOT more on the demand side and yes, this will mean pseudo-socialist government managed or overseen programs where we directly spurt money into the hands of consuming schmuks in exchange for work or something...reforming healthcare single-payer-ward, making higher education much more affordable, and much needed public works projects should help bolster the demand side.
but we should also remain open to using the tax code to allow folks to become wealthy by investing in areas which are needed for long term sustainable realistic prosperity. tax breaks targeted at desirable behavior and investment have great potential.
tax breaks for stupid ponzi-bubble gambling and wasteful sloth are absurd.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 5:49pm
ibble, if you want to make racist jokes in a private context you are free to do so. If CHIP wants to make them on a public blog site in order to yank emiles chain, he an ass.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 6:33pm
Anyway's don' be worryin none 'bout what Emile says.:) He still thinks Theodore Roosevelt was a racist.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 11:11am
Maybe not, but he wasn't above using the prevailing racism of the time to boost his own image.
"Under the strain the colored infantrymen (who had none of their white officers) began to get a little uneasy and drift to the rear… This I could not allow."
-"The Rough Riders"
Of course, now we know different...
A young Rough Rider, Frank Knox, wrote
"… in justice to the colored race, I must say that I never saw braver men anywhere! Some of those who rushed up the Hill will live in my memory forever."
Frank Knox, was to become Secretary of the Navy during WWII.
Posted by FLaim at 07/14/2009 @ 6:40pm
TR was probably "racist", certainly by today's standards. most white people of the past were, at least in this country, but in europe too.
white people did a lot of things great and awful and succumbed to pride, thus the current historically unique character of white racism. pride - sounds pretty human to me...
this topic gets wearisome after a while...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 6:58pm
We currently live in a Totalitarian Democracy that is fueled by unregulated capitalism. China and the United States have more in common than we might think. We both have corporate and military socialism. We both have a nation state whose citizens vote but have no real participation in any decision making process.
So in a way Obama is a Socialist, if you define Socialism as a top down totalitarian regime that hands out corporate and miltary welfare.
On the other hand there is what might be called a Liberal Democracy model. Some European countries which may be called Social Democracies tend towards this model. Which is a bottom up philosophy where the citizens recieve the majority of state benefits and have a real participation in government.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would rather live in a Liberal Democracy.
Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 06:59am
Obama is no Socialist by my definition.
Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 07:05am
Obama has a mandate alright, that is for fucking sure: to give away Trillions to the bankers, that's his fucking mandate. And he IS delivering.
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/14/2009 @ 10:48am
I empathize with your anger. You sound like I do after a few straight shots of Tequila.
Now tell us what you really think. :)
Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 07:19am
"Uh, no. 52.9% to 45.7% is hardly a "large enough mandate". "----Posted by freiheit1 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:09pm
Okay, FREI....what IS a "large enough mandate" and name a few Presidents that had one.
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 07:58am
There is not enough data to know what is going to happen. But, I am going to take a positive road of thought and say that the US economy helped by the Obama administration will improve.
Posted by SDUPolticsdotcom at 07/15/2009 @ 10:11am
Oh, good. Another opportunity to tout the
SPHSP program--because hunger kills. Or at least makes it difficult to concentrate.
Please contact your elected representatives and demand federally funded nutrition for all Americans.
(That was for you, Mask.)
Posted by plainbruce at 07/15/2009 @ 1:13pm
SPHSP?
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 1:57pm
....I am going to take a positive road of thought and say that the US economy helped by the Obama administration will improve.
Posted by SDUPolticsdotcom at 07/15/2009 @ 10:11am
The above should be posted above the entry door of every Unemployment Office across the land.......let them walk in in a "positive" frame of mind and a BIG smile on their faces mouthing "Hopey and Changey Forever! Long Live the Messiah!"
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:02pm
Hey, HAPP...what happened to unemployment FOR A YEAR ....AFTER Reagan passed his tax cuts?
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:50pm
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 1:57pm
Single-Payer Hunger Stress Prevention program
Posted by plainbruce at 07/15/2009 @ 4:08pm
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 07:58am
Hi Mask, Since it is the electoral college that counts really, the popular vote is just interesting to talk about.
To answer your question, I think a 60/40 majority in the popular vote could reasonably be considered a large enough "mandate" for, as Flanders pontificates, "fundamental change that he could forge a fresh social compact, lock in place a new set of mutual obligations and rewrite the relationship between the state and the populace."
Haven't really been even close to that since Reagan's second term, have we? And with Americans waking up more and more every day about what Obama is really doing, we likely won't have any stats on his second term victory to compare.
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/15/2009 @ 5:07pm
what happened to unemployment FOR A YEAR ....AFTER Reagan passed his tax cuts?
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:50pm
You were still sucking on your mamma's teats at the time when Reagan had to:
Deal with High inflation that reached 17%, high interest rates that reached (I believe) 21%, and rising unemployment that dated back to 1979.
Your Messiah has it pretty easy.....just UNemployment...and so far, he's proven he doesn't have a clue! Guess you're among the 13% who rates him "A" for performance....good for you, not so good for the 9.4% (& rising) Unemployed.....you need help...hehehe!
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 5:40pm
Long Live the Messiah!"
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:02pm
Reagans already dead.
Yep, blaming Obama for the recession that started Aug 2008. Better than accepting personal responsibility. PR is Olde School conservatism, like finishing a term of office.
So, HAP, how many jobs have you created?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2009 @ 5:44pm
The above should be posted above the entry door of every Unemployment Office across the land.......Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:02pm
I think that would be inappropriate Happ.
You must have a convenient lapse of memory. Obama has only been President for the last 5.8 months. If I remember correctly there was some guy named George who was President for about 8 years before.
Since economic policies usually have a lag time of at least 8 months to a year or more, I would not be so quick to lay this mess on the current moron.
Have some patience.
Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 5:49pm
So, HAP, what exactly can a president do to create jobs?
I know of two engineers that are continuing in their current jobs because stimulus money is paying for their work. If it were not for that, they would be on the dole .
So, Obamas stimulus is actually saving jobs as we speak.
Estimated job creation from the stimulus package
1. California--396,000
2. Texas--269,000
3. New York--215,000
4. Florida--206,000
5. Pennsylvania--143,000
How many jobs did Bushs $400,000,000,000 stimulus package create? And, how much did you gripe about that? Or, were you one of the people that claimed that was your money, even though it was borrowed?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2009 @ 5:58pm
The above should be posted above the entry door of every Unemployment Office across the land.......Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:02pm
Is there room for that AND the Ten Commandments?
Of interest to you would be:
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2009 @ 6:01pm
more Christians under attack
July 15, 2009 5:30 PM EDT
TEXARKANA, Ark. - A woman who says she was a child bride of evangelist Tony Alamo told jurors Wednesday that the minister had so many partners that he had to schedule when he would have sex with them.
The woman, now 30 and living in Florida, said she was a third-generation Alamo follower into adulthood - until the Arkansas-based pastor took an 8-year-old as his latest bride. At one point, the woman said, she objected when Alamo graphically described how he fondled the girl as she held a stuffed animal.
----
when will activist prosecutors leave these poor people alone?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2009 @ 6:04pm
"Estimated job creation from the stimulus package 1. California--396,000 2. Texas--269,000 3. New York--215,000 4. Florida--206,000 5. Pennsylvania--143,000 How many jobs did Bushs $400,000,000,000 stimulus package create? And, how much did you gripe about that? Or, were you one of the people that claimed that was your money, even though it was borrowed?" Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2009 @ 5:58pm
Oh, I love this. Where do these figures come? The White House? These are utterly fictional numbers.
"I know of two engineers that are continuing in their current jobs because stimulus money is paying for their work. If it were not for that, they would be on the dole ."
Uh, aren't they already on the dole if the government is paying their wages instead of their employer?
Posted by twillie at 07/15/2009 @ 7:37pm
when will activist prosecutors leave these poor people alone? Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2009 @ 6:04pm
A policeman pulls over a motorist in Arkansas. He walks up to the car and says to the male driver " Got an I.D.?" The man responds "'Bout what?"
Posted by ficheye at 07/15/2009 @ 8:05pm
Since economic policies usually have a lag time of at least 8 months to a year or more, I would not be so quick to lay this mess on the current moron.
Have some patience.
Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And the Demoncrats have been the power in congress for 2 years and 7 months? Coincidence, I think not! The national debt exploded during the last two Bush years under the Demoncrats spending, and the banking and financial crisis is courtesy of Barney and Dodd. Say who was that Demoncrat who got up and said "I believe every American has a right to own their own home!" Yea, that worked out well!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/15/2009 @ 11:00pm
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has insisted the Senate will deal with immigration and health reform separately. And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) told the Dallas Morning News in May, "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers. That's too politically explosive."
But it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap. Approximately 15–22 percent of the 46 million residents of the United States without health coverage are illegal aliens. That's about 9 or 10 million people. More generally, a third of the foreign-born are uninsured, Census data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies show. That means something like 12.6 million people, or more than a fourth of the total uninsured, are immigrants, both legal and illegal. Since 1989, immigration is responsible for 71 percent of the rise in those without health insurance. The fact is, the problem of the uninsured would be a more manageable one if the U.S. were not admitting millions of uninsured immigrants."
With the $1,000,000,000,000. explosion of national debt just this year and the $540 ,000,000,000. of new taxes the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats are about to lay on us all many will plead for the good old days when unemployment was 9.5 % and 9,000,000,000. are unemployed from jobs that will NEVER return! So what will the unemployed do when American business faces up to 8% penalties and fines for mont providing health insurance for employees?....Go out of business or offshore!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/15/2009 @ 11:05pm
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -H.L. Mencken
Posted by koroviev at 07/15/2009 @ 11:12pm
Uh, aren't they already on the dole if the government is paying their wages instead of their employer?
Posted by twillie at 07/15/2009 @ 7:37pm
Kind of like you when you cashed Bush "stimulus" checks, except they are doing necessary work.
How many jobs have you created Twill?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2009 @ 05:37am
"The national debt exploded during the last two Bush years under the Demoncrats spending, and the banking and financial crisis is courtesy of Barney and Dodd"IndependentKORESH
"Thursday, December 27, 2007
WACO, Tex., Dec. 26 -- President Bush signed a $555 billion domestic spending bill into law Wednesday"
"Jul 1, 2008 ... Bush signs $162 billion war spending bill"
"Feb 15, 2007 ... WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday signed a $464 billion spending bill..."
No vetoes on these congressional spending bills.
Mother Jones:
"Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure."
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2009 @ 05:50am
Barney/Dodd continued:
"Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited--at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms--setting off a wave of merger mania.
But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry--friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career--came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead--even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the b
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2009 @ 05:52am
Barney/Dodd Part III
...The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps--and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."
For starters, the legislation contained a provision--lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm--that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman, had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/
2008/05/foreclosure-phil
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2009 @ 05:55am
"Oh, I love this. Where do these figures come? The White House? These are utterly fictional numbers. Posted by twillie at 07/15/2009 @ 7:37pm
this new distrust of the White House is funny . For 8 years what came out of the administration was gospel to you TWIL
"Currently there are some 445,000 individuals on the payrolls of Iraq's Interior and Defense ministries. Based on recent decisions by Prime Minister Maliki, the number of Iraq security forces will grow further by the end of this year, possibly by as much as 40,000."
-- Gen. David H. Petraeus
The general's use of such a high number -- 445,000 -- and his phrasing -- "on the payroll" -- suggest he was including every person employed by the ministries in an effort to promote the size and capability of security forces that many experts say are plagued by absenteeism, attrition and sectarianism.
The State Department, for instance, tries not to count personnel with unauthorized absences. In its most recent weekly report, dated Aug. 29, the State Department reported a total of 359,700 trained and equipped forces at the ministries of Interior and Defense.
Separately, the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, in a report issued last week, used a slightly lower number, 358,000, as of July. It added that proposals by the Iraqi prime minister would boost that number only to 390,000, well below the figure Petraeus cited as the present size.
In a report to Congress in June, the Pentagon said the Interior Ministry does not have "accurate personnel accountability and reporting procedures, and it is unknown how many of the more than 320,000 employees on the ministry's payroll are present for duty on a given day."
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2009 @ 06:13am
TWIL, did you hop online and call Patreaus numbers "fiction"? did you complain about the trillion dollar cost of war? Any comments from you about using US tax payer money to build Iraqi infrastructure, pay Iraqi security forces, pay "Awakening Council" millions of US tax payer dollars and create jobs in Iraq with US tax payer dollars?
What I wonder is, someone as patriotic as you has no problem spending a trillion dollars in Iraq, but when less than that is spent in your own country you get your knickers all twisted up. Why is that?
why have you gone from supporting off-budget spending to prop up Iraq, but are opposed to spending money to prop up your own country?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2009 @ 06:18am
The irony & coincidences overflow, as the US plays the numbers game in Af/Pak & Iraq, just as MacNamara did in Nam, all those body counts of the dead + those who show up in uniforms on the side of the paymaster, all flaunted as proof of success, while merely hiding fraud & failure.
At this rate, flailing both at home & abroad, Obama, however eloquent & charming, may end up a one-term president like LBJ.
Then we got Nixon.
In '12, maybe a multibillionaire who'll have little trouble buying the GOP nomination & running as The Great Manager may displace Obama. Big Bucks Bloomberg as our next Nixon. Just what we deserve.
Posted by sloper at 07/16/2009 @ 07:53am
The article should be called "Breadlines and Liberals" The solution to hunger in America is not more food stamps and welfare. It is a vibrant free-market economy that produces real JOBS, not the dreck we have now that produces 10% unemployment (15% in Michigan and going up). Hows that 'Hope and Change' working for you? tick-tock, 2010.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/16/2009 @ 10:36am
Posted by pyeatte at 07/16/2009 @ 10:36am |
The party of "No" had their chance and blew it...do let us know when you've got something better than supply-side fairytales to bolster your position.
An article about the 8 years leading up to this disaster might aptly be named, "Bubbles and Bobbleheads".
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 1:08pm
tick-tock, 2010.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/16/2009 @ 10:36am
http://suicidehotlines.com/
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 2:10pm
The "special interests--lobbying groups" that have controlled this country for nearly 30 years have literally wasted out capital reserves for the future. With tremendous underfunding of our educational institutions, this country has been "dumbed down" to a point of crisis. Our failure to properly fund our educational institutions (ie., the major percentage increases in higher education beginng with Reagan, is a key factor in this country's markedly diminished economic competitiveness with the rest of the developed world).
Posted by mraymo5 at 07/16/2009 @ 5:06pm
"TWIL, did you hop online and call Patreaus numbers "fiction"? did you complain about the trillion dollar cost of war? Any comments from you about using US tax payer money to build Iraqi infrastructure, pay Iraqi security forces, pay "Awakening Council" millions of US tax payer dollars and create jobs in Iraq with US tax payer dollars? What I wonder is, someone as patriotic as you has no problem spending a trillion dollars in Iraq, but when less than that is spent in your own country you get your knickers all twisted up. Why is that? why have you gone from supporting off-budget spending to prop up Iraq, but are opposed to spending money to prop up your own country?" Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2009 @ 06:18am
CLEVER dodge, crab. The old sleight of hand. Now, again, where did those "job creation" numbers come from, eh?
"Kind of like you when you cashed Bush "stimulus" checks, except they are doing necessary work. How many jobs have you created Twill?" Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2009 @ 05:37am
Never got a check. And what "necessary" work are they doing, that they were about to be layed off from?
Give me a billion or so of the stimulus money. I promise I'll create 100,000 jobs in the next 3 years.
Posted by twillie at 07/16/2009 @ 7:07pm
Give me a billion or so of the stimulus money. I promise I'll create 100,000 jobs in the next 3 years.
Posted by twillie at 07/16/2009 @ 7:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The Demoncrat congress and Obamanation gave their friends $787,000,000,000. and they lost union jobs, closed plants all while creating "state owned" businesses just like thier marxist friends, so yea give an honest man or woman entreprenuar $1,000,000.000. and watch them eclipse marxist leftist!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/16/2009 @ 9:06pm
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 1:08pm:
Odd that you say "we" blew it.... You guys are making the last administration look like masters and your poll numbers are starting to tumble. You may think unemployment and deficit numbers don't matter but.....on the other hand, keep thinking that.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/16/2009 @ 9:11pm
The Demoncrat congress and Obamanation gave their friends $787,000,000,000. and they lost union jobs, closed plants all while creating "state owned" businesses just like thier marxist friends, so yea give an honest man or woman entreprenuar $1,000,000.000. and watch them eclipse marxist leftist!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/16/2009 @ 9:06pm
Rio, Go crawl back under the rock you came from. The bailouts were started under your man W's helm, not Obama's. Did you watch any of Henry Paulson's testimony in front of Congress recently?
Paulson is the one who lined the pockets of his banker buddies from Goldman Sachs, got tax payers to purchase their bad debt and in return had the largest business gains in the companies history.
Don't lecture about the dems being the crooks here Rio. Look at the Bush administration, deregulation and yes that includes the Clinton administration. The Clinton and Bush years are to blame for the mess we're in. Obama hasn't been president long enough to have caused the magnitude of problems that turning wallstreet and the banking industry to police themselves has caused.
Pull your head out of your ass Rio. Either you are as dumb as a fence post, or just won't admit that businessmen left unchecked will raid the cookie jar. Milton Friedman was full of crap and history has proven it. Pure greed is not good, it's just pure greed. Pure greed leads to breaking laws, lying, cheating, stealing etc. to further the appearance of upping the bottom line.
Under W's reign of terror, our government became a graft machine yielding bids to friends of the administration and allowing contracts to unworthy companies screwing the American taxpayer. Privatizing our government was the neocon aim and see what it produced? Mass chaos and corruption.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2009 @ 06:55am
Odd that you say "we" blew it.... You guys are making the last administration look like masters and your poll numbers are starting to tumble. You may think unemployment and deficit numbers don't matter but.....on the other hand, keep thinking that. Posted by pyeatte at 07/16/2009 @ 9:11pm |
The 'dreck' leading to 10% unemployment was implemented by Reagan, Gramm, Rubin, Greenspan, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Comrade Paulson...and 5 "too big to fail" banks.
If I ran the world, the economy wouldn't have been based on a bubblicious stack of lies, wouldn't have fallen on it's two-faces, or needed a SOCIALIST bailout to keep it from going asunder.
Attempting to pin this disaster on the current admin while abrogating any responsibility for causing the damage and not lifting a finger to prevent it during a decade of congressional majority is simply pathetic.
If you don't like the smell, quit crapping your own pants and then whining about how long it takes someone else to clean up your mess.
Keep that empty head bobbling with the rest of the supply-siders, Py.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 10:00am