Obama Says Income Gap Is Fraying U.S. Social Fabric

[ProSense]

Obama Says Income Gap Is Fraying U.S. Social Fabric

By JACKIE CALMES and MICHAEL D. SHEAR

GALESBURG, Ill. — In a week when he tried to focus attention on the struggles of the middle class, President Obama said in an interview that he was worried that years of widening income inequality and the lingering effects of the financial crisis had frayed the country’s social fabric and undermined Americans’ belief in opportunity.

Upward mobility, Mr. Obama said in a 40-minute interview with The New York Times, “was part and parcel of who we were as Americans.”

“And that’s what’s been eroding over the last 20, 30 years, well before the financial crisis,” he added.

“If we don’t do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be. Unemployment will not go down as fast as it should. Income inequality will continue to rise,” he said. “That’s not a future that we should accept.”

A few days after the acquittal in the Trayvon Martin case prompted him to speak about being a black man in America, Mr. Obama said the country’s struggle over race would not be eased until the political process in Washington began addressing the fear of many people that financial stability is unattainable.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/obama-says-income-gap-is-fraying-us-social-fabric.html

[chimpymustgo]

1. Too bad Obama played such a big part in exacerbating it by thowing money at the banks and not

people who need a fairer economy.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Too bad DUers wanted to throw people off of unemployment.

Pretty sad.

[John2]

188. No, DUers

have a smarter view than that. The Republican Party wanted to throw people off unemployment, just like they wanted to get Obama to cut Social Security. Compromising with the Republicans didn't do much good in North Carolina did it? They threw people off anyway in that state. You don't compromise with Terrorists. Pain in the short term,will make people realize the real enemy in the long Term. That is the fight peoople are up against in this country with these extremists in the Republican party.


That was only one battle but this is a War with them. The Democratic Party is not without power in Government. They need the guts to use it, with a stronger leader. Obama shouldn't be afraid of the Republicans trying to impeach him, because they don't have the power to convict him if the Democratic Party stands behind him, including the majority of the country. The Republicans have asked for it.

I would be investigating them on Voter's Rights and War crimes, which would put their entire cabal in disarray, just like President Lincoln did with the South. I also think what certain Supreme Court Justices did was unConstitutional. I think these Republican Justices continue to do so, when they stole the 2000 Presidential Election by deciding the state of Florida. They have already made the United States look bad to the entire World, so why don't we just go the whole mile. And if any one of them try to secede, it is illegal. That is stipulated in the North Carolina State Constitution because of the Civil War. So if politicians or citizens in North Carolina called for seccession, that should be seen as treason. It is probably the same in these other Southern State Constitution, because they all had to make agreements to the Federal government after their defeat in the Civil War. I remember they were under occupation.

So if that is in their Constitutions, people petitioning to secede or any politician suggesting it should amount to Treason. I see no reason why not and many of these people belong to the Republican Party.

[FreakinDJ]

3. +10000 ^^^This Guy Gets It ! ^^^

[stillwaiting]

5. And too bad he's aggressively pushing for a fast tracked TPP.

Obama says a lot of things. He often does things (i.e. appoints individuals with completely opposite stated objectives and past histories) that are opposite of what he says.

[ProSense]

7. Actually,

"Too bad Obama played such a big part in exacerbating it by thowing money at the banks and not"

...that's not the case. It's going to take time to reverse a decades-old trend.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html

Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304

Also as the health care becomes more accessible and affordable, and the effects will become even more noticeable.

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2011.

• In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty.
  
  
• After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statisti¬cally different from the 2010 estimates1
  
  
• The 2011 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from their 2010 rates. Poverty rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for six groups: Hispanics, males, the foreign-born, nonciti¬zens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropol¬itan statistical areas but outside principal cities. Poverty rates went up between 2010 and 2011 for naturalized citizens.
  
  
• For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty decreased for noncitizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities between 2010 and 2011. The number of naturalized citizens in poverty increased.
  
  
• The poverty rate in 2011 for chil¬dren under age 18 was 21.9 per-cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 8.7 percent. None of the rates for these age groups were statistically different from their 2010 estimates.2

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

Go to the "Publications" tab for more information.

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Sex

• The poverty rate for males decreased between 2010 and 2011, from 14.0 percent to 13.6 percent, while the poverty rate for females was 16.3 percent, not statistically different from the 2010 estimate.

<...>

Health Insurance Coverage

• The number of people with health insurance increased to 260.2 million in 2011 from 256.6 million in 2010, as did the percentage of people with health insurance (84.3 percent in 2011, 83.7 percent in 2010).
  
  
• The percentage of people covered by private health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 63.9 percent. This was the first time in the last 10 years that the rate of private health insurance coverage has not decreased. The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 55.1 percent.
  
  
• The percentage of people covered by government health insurance increased from 31.2 percent to 32.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid increased from 15.8 percent in 2010 to 16.5 percent in 2011. The percentage covered by Medicare also rose over the period, from 14.6 percent to 15.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid in 2011 was higher than the percentage covered by Medicare.
  
  
• In 2011, 9.7 percent of children under 19 (7.6 million) were without health insurance. Neither estimate is significantly different from the corresponding 2010 estimate. The uninsured rate also remained statistically unchanged for those age 26 to 34 and people age 45 to 64. It declined, however, for people age 19 to 25, age 35 to 44 and those age 65 and older.
  
  
• The uninsured rate for children in poverty (13.8 percent) was higher than the rate for all children (9.4 percent).
  
  
• In 2011, the uninsured rates decreased as household income increased from 25.4 percent for those in households with annual income less than $25,000 to 7.8 percent in households with income of $75,000 or more.
  
  <...>

- more -

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Dire information, but I would say a decrease in the poverty rate among most groups between 2010 and 2011 is big news, as is the information on health insurance coverage.

[hfojvt]

65. too bad Krugman is such a tool

and claims that ATRA, which INCREASES inequality, reduces inequality.

But you knew that didn't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304#post5

But I am confident you will respond and tell me that my "round earth hypothesis" is just nonsense.

[dkf]

78. If he is doing such a great job then don't we just need more of the same?

Why address this at all?

[ProSense]

79. Yes,

"If he is doing such a great job then don't we just need more of the same?"

...another stimulus, like the $400 billion jobs bill, would do.

[dkf]

80. He needs a new congress for that.

Maybe if he had Howard Dean running the congressional campaign...but Nooooo he wanted his own buddy.

[SunSeeker]

83. Of course. EVERYTHING is Obama's fault.

Even when it's not his fault, it's his fault that it's not his fault.

[dkf]

86. Replacing Howard Dean is Obama's fault.

How is it not?

[SunSeeker]

96. Dean did not want to stay anyway, but that isn't why we lost the House in 2010.

When your party is in power, the chairman of the corresponding national committee is a figurehead at best because the party's real leader is the President. Dean had no interest in being a figurehead, so he left.

Regardless, Dean would not have been able to salvage 2010. The economy was still really bad and our attention-deficit, quick-fix electorate doesn't take time to think about why things are the way they are. Citizens United funded astroturf Tea Party groups and anti-Obama propaganda 24/7 that swamped any Dem positive messaging. The Republicans were out in full force but the Dems stayed home as usual during mid terms.

If you want to blame a politician, it should be the individual Congressmen, particularly blue dogs, who ran away from the ACA vote. That is still going on, including here at DU, where folks keep bashing the ACA. In fact, Dean himself (wrongly) stated in the Wall Street Journal on Sunday that the ACA's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is a "rationing body" that will be "determining" what treatment Medicare patients get. Yup, he basically revived the old Sarah Palin "death panel" lie. As the L.A. Times pointed out today, via an editorial headline, "No, Howard Dean, Obamacare doesn't ration Medicare." With friends like these...

[dkf]

100. That is so not true. He would have stayed...Obama had no place for him.

I bet he would have done a better job than Sebelius. The prep for the ACA is atrocious.

[SunSeeker]

104. No, what Dean is saying about the ACA now is atrocious. nt

[dkf]

105. Howard Dean successfully implemented health care reform, he has studied it intensively.

I trust what he says.

[SunSeeker]

106. Of course, just because he is a lobbyist now should not affect his credibility.

[dkf]

107. Say what you will...the guy is a natural truth teller. He can't help it.

[SunSeeker]

109. Really? Was he telling truth when he said the "Ground Zero Mosque" was "a real affront..

...to people who lost their lives, including Muslims, on 9/11"?

[Scuba]

173. Bullhockey. He wants to improve the ACA, and it needs it.

[SunSeeker]

176. You think the ACA has a death panel? nt

[Scuba]

187. Please show me where Dean says it does.

[SunSeeker]

189. Dean said "IPAB is essentially a healthcare rationing body" in Sunday's Wall Street Journal.

He did it via an Opinion piece attacking the ACA:

One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.

Here's the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578628542498014414.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The LA Times rightfully ripped him for that, in an editorial on Monday entitled, "No, Howard Dean, Obamacare doesn't ration Medicare":

Republicans have said hyperbolic things about the 2010 healthcare law's Independent Payment Advisory Board so many times -- e.g., former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's declaration that it's a "death panel" -- that I've gotten inured to it. Nevertheless, it was a little startling to see some of the same facts-be-damned assertions coming from a liberal Democrat on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal.

Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean took to the Journal on Monday to attack the IPAB with the same blatant mischaracterizations that have been the hallmarks of the GOP attacks. The only real difference is that Dean did so after saying there was "much to applaud" in the 2010 law, including its (extremely expensive) push for universal health insurance coverage.

"The IPAB is essentially a healthcare rationing body," Dean blithely writes, despite the fact that the law flatly states the board cannot ration care. Specifically, any proposal the board makes to control Medicare's costs per beneficiary "shall not include any recommendation to ration healthcare, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1395i–2, 1395i–2a, or 1395r of this title, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

And while IPAB is expected to make recommendations every two years on how to slow the growth in healthcare costs across the industry, its authority to propose specific changes is limited to Medicare.

Dean goes on to say that IPAB will set reimbursement rates for Medicare doctors and "determine which procedures and drugs will be covered at what price."

But he's confusing the new board with mechanisms that already exist in Medicare to determine what's "medically reasonable and necessary" (a criteria for reimbursement) and what the government will pay for it. IPAB will be able to propose changes in the rate of growth for Medicare fees -- for doctors at first, and later for hospitals as well. It can also call for changes in the subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans and in the way Medicare calculates the proper price to pay for drugs. But as noted above, it can't restrict benefits or ration care.

The most remarkable -- and remarkably false -- critique in Dean's piece is the statement that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that the IPAB "won't save a single dime before 2021." That's because the CBO projects that Medicare costs per beneficiary will rise so slowly over the coming decade, they won't reach the threshold set in the law for the IPAB to act. It's not that the board will be ineffective, as Dean implies. It's that it won't be activated.

In the minds of Dean and other critics, the board has only one tool to control costs: set artificially low prices for medical care. And if that's all it does, I agree with Dean that it won't be effective. Price controls don't work very well in any context.

But that's not what the IPAB was created to do. It was designed to push systemic changes in Medicare, speeding the transformation from an inefficient system with misplaced incentives to one that rewards prevention and high-quality care. There's no clear way to do that, at least not today, but at the very least it means ending the fee-for-service approach that encourages providers to give more treatment to sicker patients, rather than keeping their customers healthy in the first place.

Like so many things about the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the IPAB has been wildly mischaracterized and misunderstood. Sadly, the mischaracterizations just keep coming, no matter how many times they're rebutted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-howard-dean-obamacare-ipab-wrong-20130729,0,6790127.story

[Scuba]

190. So he didn't say it? Neither did I. Stop equating attempts to improve the law ...

... with right-wing smears against it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending the ACA is perfect is insane.

[SunSeeker]

191. He DID say it. He LIED that the IPAB rations care, just like Sarah Palin did.

Also, as the LA Times pointed out:

The most remarkable -- and remarkably false -- critique in Dean's piece is the statement that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that the IPAB "won't save a single dime before 2021." That's because the CBO projects that Medicare costs per beneficiary will rise so slowly over the coming decade, they won't reach the threshold set in the law for the IPAB to act. It's not that the board will be ineffective, as Dean implies. It's that it won't be activated.

How is lying about the ACA an attempt to improve it?

[Scuba]

192. You claimed Dean said the ACA includes death panels. Prove it or you're the liar.

[SunSeeker]

194. I asked you if you thought the ACA had a death panel. You did not answer my question.

I did not say "Dean said the ACA includes death panels." I did not say he used the words "death panels." He did not use the words "death panels" but he used the buzz word associated with that, namely rationing. And he was dead wrong. Are you saying the IPAB rations medicare?

[Scuba]

195. Wow, where'd those goalposts go?

I'm done with you.

[SunSeeker]

196. LOL. I figured you wouldn't be able to deny that Dean lied. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

128. Revisionist history...

You're acting like the DNC Chairman keeps that position for years - when in reality, it's generally a four year outfit at the most.

In fact, the party had SEVEN chairmen during President Clinton's time in office alone. Obama is on his second (Debbie Wasserman Schultz). The last chairman to serve longer than four years was Robert S. Strauss, who served FIVE YEARS from 1972 to 1977. Between him and Wasserman Schultz, there have been EIGHTEEN Chairpeople! In that same span, we've only had SEVEN presidents (and only three Democratic presidents). So, for Dean to stay on would have been nearly unprecedented and certainly not the norm.

Dean stepped down even before Obama took office.

"At this point he has said that he doesn't intend to run again," said a DNC source granted anonymity in order to speak candidly. "He has said so publicly for a while. He has not said what he will do next."

Unless you can find a quote from Howard that says he wanted to stay on for four more years, I doubt your claim. The fact remains, most chairmen don't even last that long ... and it's a rarity they seek a full second term (John Moran Bailey is the longest-serving chairman of the Democratic Party ... he served for seven years back in the 1960s).

[Puzzledtraveller]

165. true dat

Im rolling in the dough as we speak, need some cash, I got tons and its taking up too much space.

[leftstreet]

11. +1

[limpyhobbler]

17. Detroit should have been a bank instead of a city full of people.

Then it would have been important enough to save.

[midnight]

132. Or declared a corporation...

[duffyduff]

27. +1,000,000

Talk is cheap, Mr. President.

[SunSeeker]

84. It was BUSH who bailed out the banks in 2008, not Obama.

It was Obama who pushed through the $800 billion stimulus package in 2009 that consisted of unemployment compensation, support for states, infrastrucure spending and middle class tax cuts.

Jeeezus, I am so sick of seeing that "Obama bailed out the banks" lie here on DU. It was bad enough having to hear it from Romney. You'd think people here would know better.

[mick063]

93. google Obama TARP

He was a major player to get the bail outs implemented both as Senator and President Elect awaiting inauguration.

[SunSeeker]

94. I did. Did you? Also, Google Henry Paulson.

If you Google TARP, you will find out it "is a program...signed into law by U.S. president George W. Bush on October 3, 2008."

Henry Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary, originally conjured up TARP as a one-page plan to give the banks $700 billion with virtually no restrictions. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, pushed by Obama, reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion and put restrictions on it, spurring prompt repayment. As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly a non-inflation-adjusted 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

[mick063]

95. from my phone

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/TARP/

[SunSeeker]

97. From your link:

His actions as President have drastically changed the program, taking it from its original form as a mechanism to purchase specific kinds of stocks and warrants and using the program funds to spur lending among small businesses, create programs to assist homeowners in refinancing their homes, rescue GM, and create programs to directly provide funds to states hardest hit by the housing crisis.

[mick063]

98. Rah Rah PR

Quote the paragraph about his time as Senator and President elect.

Remember, this is a counter to your claim that this is solely Bush's baby.

[SunSeeker]

99. Well, it was not even conjured up by Paulson until October 2008...

So it's not like Obama spent his Senate career supporting TARP. That first line from your website is odd in that it suggests TARP existed throughout Obama's senayte career. It didn't exist until Paulson created it a few weeks before Obama was elected. And of course Obama supported it as President--after he fixed it, which your site acknowledges.

But, again, it was not Obama who bailed out the banks, it was Bush. Obama made them pay it back.

[mick063]

101. Just quote the paragraph.

It says it all.

[SunSeeker]

103. I did. The rest is weird. It is not exactly a news site.

And none of it contradicts the fact that Bush signed TARP and let the banks have the money. And none of it contradicts that Obama made the banks pay it back.

[mick063]

110. ok. I guess I have to do it.

Record as Senator


In addition to voting for the TARP program, Senator Obama spoke on the Senate floor in support of the program. In that speech, he urged his fellow Senators to "step up to the plate" and do the right thing in passing the legislation. He noted that a similar program had failed in the House and triggered a fall in the stock market. In supporting the program, he also urged it to have a program for home owners and an oversight board for the funds.

Second Half of TARP


After Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, he asked President Bush to request the second half of the TARP funds to be allocated to TARP. In making the request, he stated that the economy was still too frail and that it would be irresponsible to enter office without having all the tools he needed to address the problem.

[SunSeeker]

117. Bush signed TARP, not Obama.

You are ignoring that Obama changed TARP from the sweet no strings deal that Paulson wrote on one sheet of paper to something that actually helped the economy and Obama got the banks to pay it back.

You really are trying too hard to get Bush off the hook.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

119. Candidate Obama voted for TARP, not Bush. TARP would not have passed without his support.

[SunSeeker]

123. TARP passed the Senate with 74 votes. Obama's vote is not what put it over the top.

40 other Dem Senators voted for TARP, along with 34 GOP Senators. In the House, the vote was similarly overwhelming, 263 to 171, with 91 Republicans joining the Dems.

What do you suppose Obama and the Dems should have done? Vote no and let the banking system collapse and the economy fall into depression?

Obama ended up changing TARP so that it was half of what was initially authorized and made the banks pay it back. Under Bush/Paulson, it was a $700 billion no strings gift to the banks.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

124. Obama represented the Democatic Party as it's nominee. It would not have passed without his support

[SunSeeker]

125. The bailout was crafted by Bush/Paulson.

Bush signed TARP and bailed out the banks. Bush gave them the money, not Obama.

Obama voted consistent with the position of the Democratic party and the vast majority of Democrats. There was no way he, or any other mainstream Democrat, was going to vote no and let the economy fall into a depression.

Obama then made sure the banks paid back the TARP funds they received under Bush; Obama changed the original sweet no strings bailout Bush had authorized.

I don't know why you feel so compelled to ignore that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

126. 1/2 the funds were given out during the Bush Administration. 1/2 DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

To borrow from what you said,

I don't know why you feel so compelled to ignore that.

[SunSeeker]

137. ALL of the funds were authorized under the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. OBAMA made the banks pay it back.

BUSH and the Republicans caused the financial meltown, then bailed out the banks. Obama fixed the ridiculous bailout crafted by Paulson under Bush so that it helped out economy rather than just lining the pockets of the banks. As I said up the thread:

Henry Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary, originally conjured up TARP as a one-page plan to give the banks $700 billion with virtually no restrictions. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, pushed by Obama, reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion and put restrictions on it, spurring prompt repayment. As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly a non-inflation-adjusted 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program.

You are the one ignoring reality.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

139. All the funds were authorized under the Bush Administration WITH OBAMA'S ACTIVE PARTICIPATION.

[SunSeeker]

140. Obama did not conjure up the bailout, that was Paulson.

And BUSH SIGNED IT INTO LAW. Obama did not crash the economy, that was Bush. Voting for Bush's bailout to prevent the banks from collapsing is not "active participation." Obama obviously did not agree with the terms of Bush's bailout, since he CHANGED IT once he got into office and made the banks pay it back.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

141. As the Democratic nominee and the representative of the Party, Obama voted for TARP, not Paulson.

[SunSeeker]

148. Paulson WROTE it. That is "active participation" to use your words. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

150. Obama voted for it, not Paulson.

[SunSeeker]

152. Are you suggesting that Paulson would not have voted for it after WRITING it?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

153. No. I'm saying "Obama voted for it, not Paulson."

Obviously.

In plain English.

Easy to understand words.

[SunSeeker]

154. Good. But you don't seem to understand that BUSH SIGNED TARP.

And those are pretty easy words too.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

155. No. OBAMA SUPPORTED TARP AS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. Bush could not have signed it without his help

[SunSeeker]

158. Obama did not support the terms of BUSH's TARP. He changed them.

Of course he voted for it, is did almost all Democrats, since it was an emergency--money needed to go to the banks to prevent a worldwide banking collapse. Obama intended to fix it once he got in office and he did. To say Bush "couldn't have done it without him" is silliness. Bush couldn't have done it without Barbara Bush squeezing him out of her nethers. Is Barbara Bush responsible for the bailout? The bailout was Bush's baby. Bush bailed out the banks. It is a fact. Bush was responsible for the conditions that required the bailout. That is a fact too. But you want to blame it all on Obama. Pathetic.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

160. Then you admit that Obama participated in writing TARP. Thank you. Finally.

[SunSeeker]

161. No, Obama did not write TARP. PAULSON DID.

Obama changed the terms of TARP when he got in office. Geez. I was trying to use simple words for you. I guess your hatred of Obama blinds you.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

162. Re-read your #158 post. You AMITTED KNOWING Obama CHANGED the terms. You admitted knowing that

he participated in writing the final draft. Too late for you to change that now.

[SunSeeker]

163. No, I said he changed the terms AFTER HE TOOK OFFICE, when he had the power to do so.

He did not and could not do anything about the terms of Bush's TARP. It was an emergency and TARP needed to be voted on immediately to infuse the banks with cash to stop them from collapsing. Once he took office, he pushed through Dodd-Frank and changed the terms of Bush's TARP, as I repeatedly say up the thread.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

164. You need to do more research. Obama changed Paulson's origional TARP before voting on it.

The fact that Dodd-Frank was subsequently adopted did not negate Obama's participation while acting as the Democratic Party's nominee.

[SunSeeker]

166. Links? nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

169. Do your own research.

[SunSeeker]

177. LOL. Yeah, I didn't think you had anything. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

178. Did you overlook Obama's Senate speech> "There will be time to punish those who set this fire, ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=oz_BBI-_KzUC&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=obama+%22There+will+be+time+to+punish+those+who+set+this+fire,+but+now+is+not+the+time+to+argue+about+how%22&source=bl&ots=OXut3oFTRO&sig=Cx2y2HX0HgqD6R4V-lHsxyRFVrY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8YT4Uej2MY__qQH3nID4Dg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=obama%20%22There%20will%20be%20time%20to%20punish%20those%20who%20set%20this%20fire%2C%20but%20now%20is%20not%20the%20time%20to%20argue%20about%20how%22&f=false

How's that going?

[SunSeeker]

179. I see, you want to change the subject. LOL.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

180. Obama's speech was to persuade Senate Democrats to vote for TARP. He was actively involved.

Of course, his implicit promise to go after those who had crashed the economy was totally worthless.

[SunSeeker]

184. He was acknowledging the emergency of the situation; that is not writing TARP.

Paulson did that. And Bush signed it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

185. No, that was not writing TARP. His modifications to TARP were separate from his speech.

[Dustin DeWinde]

127. since when does the consritution grant any power to

A president-elect before inauguration?
Your posts carry the distinct odor of an Obama hating teabagger

[AnotherMcIntosh]

102. It's good to see that somebody get's it. Somebody finally gets it.

But your wording could use some help.

How about

"It was ONLY Bush who bailed out the banks in 2008, not Obama."

You're welcome.

[uponit7771]

142. So the bailout was done by Obama?!! REALLY?! wow...ok, i...ok

[JoePhilly]

147. LOL

[burnodo]

4. Then why is he helping to ensure the rich get richer?

Have any of those bankster scumbags he helped gone to jail or been held accountable in any way? The answer is no.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

156. A suspicious person might think it to be a form of the trickle-down theory.

[woo me with science]

6. Is he bragging, or what?

“If we don’t do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be. Unemployment will not go down as fast as it should."

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3358340

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. LOL! & +1

[ProSense]

12. No, but

"Is he bragging, or what?"

...you keep posting that nonsense (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358030#post7) and (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358030#post19)

How about some facts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358509#post7

[chimpymustgo]

32. He's bragging! "Mission Accomplished."

[indepat]

75. I can't recall any Gen.Wesley Clark, Gov. Dean, or Paul Krugman types being nominated to high-level

positions in the administration. Hell, am I the only person in America who would have preferred General Wesley Clark as Secretary of Defense over any available Republican? Why can't I see things as they are to get it right some of the time?

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. And it only took four years...

I just can't wait to see what the President proposes to do about it, now that the criminals are well away and statues of limitation are kicking in...

[ProSense]

15. No,

"And it only took four years..."

...it didn't.

Obama challenges rivals on US income inequality
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026452

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358509#post7

[Trillo]

9. Yes. See, he is a smart man.

It's just like Charlie and Lucy. Charlie notes the opportunity to kick the football and tries, but Lucy rips it away at the last moment, and Charlie goes tumbling.

But that was just a cartoon. It ends up the real Charlies weren't quite that stupid. Lucy fooled him once. Never again.

[pampango]

13. Not something a self-respecting republican would say. Income inequality is a good thing to a true

conservative. Gotta reward reward the 'makers', don't you know. And the less said about the fraying of the social fabric the better. They prefer to play the "us vs them" game rather than the "we're all in this together", social fabric game.

[limpyhobbler]

14. I'm sure his $9 minimum wage and global free trade deals will set us straight.

[ProSense]

20. So

"I'm sure his $9 minimum wage and global free trade deals will set us straight."

...you think "his $9 minimum wage" will hurt?

Raise That Wage

By PAUL KRUGMAN

President Obama laid out a number of good ideas in his State of the Union address. Unfortunately, almost all of them would require spending money — and given Republican control of the House of Representatives, it’s hard to imagine that happening.

One major proposal, however, wouldn’t involve budget outlays: the president’s call for a rise in the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9, with subsequent increases in line with inflation. The question we need to ask is: Would this be good policy? And the answer, perhaps surprisingly, is a clear yes....the current level of the minimum wage is very low by any reasonable standard. For about four decades, increases in the minimum wage have consistently fallen behind inflation, so that in real terms the minimum wage is substantially lower than it was in the 1960s. Meanwhile, worker productivity has doubled. Isn’t it time for a raise?

Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many “natural experiments” here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.

<...>

So Mr. Obama’s wage proposal is good economics. It’s also good politics: a wage increase is supported by an overwhelming majority of voters, including a strong majority of self-identified Republican women (but not men). Yet G.O.P. leaders in Congress are opposed to any rise. Why? They say that they’re concerned about the people who might lose their jobs, never mind the evidence that this won’t actually happen. But this isn’t credible...today’s Republican leaders clearly feel disdain for low-wage workers. Bear in mind that such workers, even if they work full time, by and large don’t pay income taxes (although they pay plenty in payroll and sales taxes), while they may receive benefits like Medicaid and food stamps. And you know what this makes them, in the eyes of the G.O.P.: “takers,” members of the contemptible 47 percent who, as Mitt Romney said to nods of approval, won’t take responsibility for their own lives.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/krugman-raise-that-wage.html

[limpyhobbler]

22. I think $9/hr stinks. People can't live on that.

Obama proves he is not serious about helping people when he says he thinks minimum wage should be $9/hr.

It should be more.

[duffyduff]

28. Employers will merely hire part-timers and save on benefits as well as wages

The problem is a few people have too much money, while millions upon millions of people have little money.

The distribution of wealth upwards is the problem, and it is the result of years of Washington, D.C. policies which are wrecking the country.

[Trillo]

42. Yes to the part time louse. So the solution is a living wage, oh, $25 per hour.

Bosses say: Everyone gets part time work. Because of the higher wage, a similar amount of money will remain in circulation, and each individual works less or fewer hours.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

[duffyduff]

57. The problem is they aren't doing that.

They are working people for 10 bucks an hour, which is likely the ONLY part-time job these people have.

[YOHABLO]

116. Single Payer Health care !! Takes employers off the hook ... why don't they support it.

[NorthCarolina]

134. You know why...

graft and corruption. Plus, the health insurance industry has DEEP DEEP pockets filled with cash. The general public? Not so much. You are not going to go to DC and get a whole new life of leisure if you depend on cash inflow from the citizens...all they do is pay you a salary.

[ProSense]

38. Well,

"I think $9/hr stinks. People can't live on that. Obama proves he is not serious about helping people when he says he thinks minimum wage should be $9/hr. It should be more. "

...people can't live on $7.25/hour. An increase to $9/hour does mean at least $60 more per week for minimum wage earners. It should be more, and it would be great if a higher rate passed.

California's minimum wage is $8 per hour. The highest rate in the country is San Francisco's at $10.55 per hour. San Jose also has a minimum wage over $10, which just went into effect. The highest state rate is Washington's at $9.19.

In January, San Francisco will officially be the first U.S. city to have a minimum wage of above $10, nearly $3 more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. And that won’t be the only locale in which workers will see a little extra pay in 2012. In fact, eight states will be raising their minimum wage next year, which, according to the Economic Policy Institute, will benefit 1.4 million workers:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/21/394180/millions-workers-minimum-wage/

Check out the wages by state: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2823309

The President's proposal and Harkin's increases the tipped wage.

Tipped Minimum Wage Increase Would Give Millions Of Workers First Raise In 22 Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/tipped-minimum-wage-increase_n_3155656.html

An increase to $9/hour would bring us closer to the UK, and $10 would be even better.

On minimum wage, U.S. lags many rivals

By Chris Isidore



President Obama's proposal to hike the U.S. minimum wage to $9 an hour would still leave the lowest-paid American workers trailing their counterparts in several other major industrial countries.

The world's highest minimum wage is paid in Australia, where workers are paid at least 15.96 Australian dollars, or $16.91, an hour.

Canada does not have a national minimum wage, but the lowest provincial minimum wage is in Alberta, where workers must be paid at least 9.75 Canadian dollars, or $9.73, an hour, while workers in Yukon get at least $10.27.

Figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a multinational research body, show nine countries around the world where the minimum wage is more than the $9 President Obama is proposing.

- more -

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/13/news/economy/minimum-wage-countries/index.html

It would be great if we could match Australia or lead the developed countries.

[limpyhobbler]

41. Obama's $9 wage: just enough to say he's not quite as bad as a Republican.

We still lose, just not quite as much.


I'm for raising it, even if it's just a 25 cent raise, that helps.

But when the President makes $9/hr his policy, like in the State Of The Union speech, he really shows what he is all about. Symbolic gestures for the working class, while really serving the corporations.

[ProSense]

43. Republicans

"Obama's $9 wage: just enough to say he's not quite as bad as a Republican. We still lose, just not quite as much. I'm for raising it, even if it's just a 25 cent raise, that helps."

...want to get rid of the minimum wage. The increase would be $1.75/hour.

[limpyhobbler]

44. Uh huh. $9 sucks. That's Obama's idea of a decent wage.

Please just give us low wage workers any crumbs off your table that you could possible spare. Thank you so much sir we really appreciate it.

Too low. Not good enough to earn applause . It deserves gasps of horror. The other party being worse is no comfort.

[ProSense]

45. Well,

". Uh huh. $9 sucks. That's Obama's idea of a decent wage."

...it's better than $7.25/hour. I repeat:

An increase to $9/hour does mean at least $60 more per week for minimum wage earners. It should be more, and it would be great if a higher rate passed.

California's minimum wage is $8 per hour. The highest rate in the country is San Francisco's at $10.55 per hour. San Jose also has a minimum wage over $10, which just went into effect. The highest state rate is Washington's at $9.19.

In January, San Francisco will officially be the first U.S. city to have a minimum wage of above $10, nearly $3 more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. And that won’t be the only locale in which workers will see a little extra pay in 2012. In fact, eight states will be raising their minimum wage next year, which, according to the Economic Policy Institute, will benefit 1.4 million workers:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/21/394180/millions-workers-minimum-wage/

Check out the wages by state: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2823309

The President's proposal and Harkin's increases the tipped wage.

Tipped Minimum Wage Increase Would Give Millions Of Workers First Raise In 22 Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/tipped-minimum-wage-increase_n_3155656.html

An increase to $9/hour would bring us closer to the UK, and $10 would be even better.

On minimum wage, U.S. lags many rivals

By Chris Isidore



President Obama's proposal to hike the U.S. minimum wage to $9 an hour would still leave the lowest-paid American workers trailing their counterparts in several other major industrial countries.

The world's highest minimum wage is paid in Australia, where workers are paid at least 15.96 Australian dollars, or $16.91, an hour.

Canada does not have a national minimum wage, but the lowest provincial minimum wage is in Alberta, where workers must be paid at least 9.75 Canadian dollars, or $9.73, an hour, while workers in Yukon get at least $10.27.

Figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a multinational research body, show nine countries around the world where the minimum wage is more than the $9 President Obama is proposing.

- more -

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/13/news/economy/minimum-wage-countries/index.html

It would be great if we could match Australia or lead the developed countries.

[limpyhobbler]

48. This policy is weak and puny.

I got your point. $9 is better than $7.25. And $7.25 is better than $0.

Got it. I agree.

My point is different:

By proposing a $9 minimum wage Obama is just playing the good cop the GOP's bad cop.

$9/hr is not enough to support a family. In some cases it's not even enough to support a single person, depending what their other bills are.


I'm all for raising it to $9. But it's not good enough.

[ProSense]

50. Right,

"I'm all for raising it to $9. But it's not good enough."

...a bigger increase would be better.

Miller & Harkin Introduce Bill to Raise Minimum Wage to $10.10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11172203

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Minimum wage is already $9 an hour in Washington and $8.90 in Oregon

Always waiting for the lagging centrist East and South to catch up with the program, but we should have ours at 15 so even what we have is not enough for people to live on.

[Bradical79]

40. More like too little too late.

Sure, it's better than nothing, but the reality is that cost of living has so far outpaced wages that $9/hour isn't nearly enough.

[Buns_of_Fire]

92. The problem is, he's already set his opening negotiation point at $9.

republicans aren't going to negotiate starting at that point. If they'll negotiate at all, it'll be negotiated downward from that $9.

Good man, terrible negotiator.

[woo me with science]

21. [phone]

[leftstreet]

31. The minimum wage is $9.19 in WA state. Obama's clueless

Several states are close to that

Is this what his speechwriter meant when he said we could look for more 'unfiltered' Obama speeches?

Jesus

[woo me with science]

51. Nine dollar minimum wage while implementing the Trans-Pacific

is like giving a guy a quarter while you break both his legs so he can't work anymore.

[limpyhobbler]

53. yeah. exactly.

one hand gives a little. The other hand takes away a lot. Somebody just had a post hidden for making pretty much the same point. #25
It's getting harder to criticize Obama on this site.

[WinkyDink]

16. Excuse me, Pres. Obama, but remember the banker/Wall Street mortgage crimes?

[HardTimes99]

18. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . - nt

[forestpath]

19. Yeah, he's so worried about it he wants to cut Social Security.

[NorthCarolina]

133. Because if HE makes those cuts....

you know, being a devout Democrat and all, they would be kinder and gentler cuts than the Repubs would do if they got the chance. So, perhaps he is attempting to head off the GOP by pushing for the cuts himself for a better deal for Americas elderly!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

143. Ah, very clever. The seven-dimension chess master wins again.

[forestpath]

159. Yeah, he's all heart, isn't he? Meanwhile, repug sharks smell the SS blood in the water.

(Apologies to sharks.)

[Junkdrawer]

23. Then propose an agenda that will address the problems....

It's not that hard:

We need new energy/transportation infrastructure that won't destroy human civilization.

That will need to be paid for: Tax Wall Street and the obscenely wealthy.

If you're going to use the Bully Pulpit, don't just describe the problems, propose measly half measures, then tell us you can't do that because of the mean Republicans.

Lead or get the hell out of the way. It's what we hired you to do.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. He HAS done that and it was rejected by the House. nt

[Junkdrawer]

35. He proposed a Wall Street tax? He proposed an Eisenhower sized infrastructure project?

News to me.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. Eisenhower had a Democratic Congress. This split Congress rejected

even $100 billion on various infrastructure projects proposed by the President. And did you miss that the Bush Tax cuts went away?

Yes, DU is the Rip Van Winkle who wakes up his own strange self-generated universe.

[Junkdrawer]

63. In other words The Bully Pulpit will be used to show he cares while...

inaction on wouldn't-be-enough-if-passed proposals is blamed on Republican obstruction.

Where have I heard that before. Oh wait...THE LAST 5 years.

[Phlem]

67. +1000000

Spot On.



-p

[Jamaal510]

172. Nope.

[Phlem]

174. To each his own Chief.

-p

[BumRushDaShow]

69. Try this

Here's the guy you should ask. He holds the "power of the purse" (fact: President can't cut a check) -



Pick up the phone and ask the Speaker of the House when he will move some jobs bills. Here's the number -

http://www.speaker.gov/contact

Office of the Speaker H-232
The Capitol Washington, DC 20515
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] - See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/contact#sthash.foUMlVRy.dpuf

[Zoeisright]

90. Whine whine whine whine WHINE whine whine

[Junkdrawer]

91. Yep. Constantly whining about Republican obstructionism is getting old. n/t

[SHRED]

72. +10

[PowerToThePeople]

24. Don't worry about it Obama, the free market system will work it out.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

26. Keep up the good work, Mr. President.

[cantbeserious]

29. About Time He Figured This Out - Applies To The World As Well

&feature=youtu.be

[JaneyVee]

34. Does anyone here understand how Govt works or do you all still think

He keeps his magic wand in a drawer?

[Junkdrawer]

36. Mean Republicans won't let him lead, so he'll accurately describe the problems...

so we know he's on our side.

Been there, done that.

[Bradical79]

39. No wand, but he does have a pen...

which he uses to actively sign free trade agreements. One example of an anti-worker move he makes all on his own. Congress also doesn't control his relationships with bankers. Just another example.

[Egalitarian Thug]

52. Can we hold any hope that, at some time in the future, the corporate 'D' uber alles crowd

will get as sick of writing this bullshit as we are of reading it?

[Iliyah]

56. Well Bachmann did say they needed to take Pres O's magic wand

away - LOL

Thanks ProSense!

[uponit7771]

144. ...Ron Paul said he had a wand and that it worked so they believe him /sarcasm

[Bradical79]

37. I love what he says

I just wish the actions matched the words.

[Safetykitten]

47. Allrighty then!

[SHRED]

49. Anyone from Wall St in prison?

How about advocating a Universal Public Healthcare system?

Nevermind.

[JEB]

54. No shit Sherlock.

What ya gonna do about it? Another secretive trade agreement?

[kentuck]

73. |:-)

Brilliant deduction, huh?

[DallasNE]

55. Income Inequality Fueled By Outright Corruption

And there is something President Obama can do about it. He can have the Justice Department turn up the screws and prosecute the corruption, including jail time for those found guilty and not just fines that punish the stockholders but leaves in place the real crooks to once again practice their wares. Make an example out of the crooked Virginia Governor, for instance, by charging him now while he is still in office. Be ruthless on corruption.

[roamer65]

58. I am really surprised this country is still somewhat unified.

Apathy is the only thing holding it together.

[Brigid]

59. Where was all this before?

It isn't as if any of these observations are anything new -- certainly not around here.

[ProSense]

60. Well,

"Where was all this before? It isn't as if any of these observations are anything new -- certainly not around here."

...it's a point worth restating.

Obama challenges rivals on US income inequality
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026452

[ctsnowman]

61. K & R

I hope the president keeps this dialog going for the rest of his term. It's going to take years for this to turn around.

[tularetom]

62. So he plans to solve the problem by appointing Lawrence Summers as Fed chairman

Yes, what an excellent idea.

The same guys who want this douche in charge are the guys who put the kibosh on a stimulus program that could have instantly cut unemployment in half but was deemed too radical by a Democratic administration.

[kentuck]

64. Then he can create more jobs by approving the Oil pipeline..

out of the Canadian tar pits.

[ProSense]

68. Actually,

"Then he can create more jobs by approving the Oil pipeline.."

...the President dimiss the claim that the pipeline will create jobs.

Obama Says He’ll Evaluate Pipeline Project Depending on Pollution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023355210

[kentuck]

71. Must have heard only 200 jobs will be created.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

120. It's a done deal. "Evaluate" = "I'm going to delay telling you that I approve of it."

[NuclearDem]

66. Yeah, well, bailouts, chained CPI, putting earned benefits on the table,

putting the bankers in charge of the economic institutions responsible for regulating their friends, and signing free trade agreements tend to exacerbate that sort of thing.

[Igel]

70. Lots of things have been fraying the "social fabric."

And have been doing so for a long time.

Some we can talk about openly. Some we can't talk about at all.

The disturbing ones, IMHO, are those that we can talk about only guardedly, so sometimes we think we're talking about them openly but in reality we're not talking about them in any meaningful way.

This is the one he wants to talk about. It's in the 3rd category.

[ProSense]

74. Still, worth talking about. n/t

[Ed Suspicious]

76. Platitudes.

[MotherPetrie]

77. You'd think he was running for president instead of already having 5-1/2 years under his belt.

[pinboy3niner]

81. 'Fraying U.S. social fabric' is just what you'd expect a Muslin to say

[NorthCarolina]

82. Sorry Mr. President, but you reap what you sow. nt

[SunSeeker]

85. K & R

[Phlem]

87. OFFS

first of all DUH!!!!!!!!!

second, the nerve, after signing 3 more trade agreements with a 4th being negotiated.

He's just throwing the obvious in our face now.



-p

[Fire Walk With Me]

88. Alan Grayson TPP Secret Treaty “This Hands Sovereignty of Our Country Over to Corp Interests"

Corporations Push to Overrule National Laws

We reported last year:

Democratic Senator Wyden – the head of the committee which is supposed to oversee it – is so furious about the lack of access that he has introduced legislation to force disclosure.

Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is so upset by it that he has leaked a document on his website to show what’s going on.

What is everyone so furious about?

An international treaty being negotiated in secret which would not only crack down on Internet privacy much more than SOPA or ACTA, but would actually destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. and all other signatories.

It is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Wyden is the chairman of the trade committee in the Senate … the committee which is supposed to have jurisdiction over the TPP. Wyden is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so he and his staff have high security clearances and are normally able to look at classified documents.

And yet Wyden and his staff have been denied access to the TPP’s text.

Indeed, the decision to keep the text of TPP secret was itself classified as secret:

Read more at:-
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/first-congress-member-allowed-to-read-secret-treaty-says-there-is-no-national-security-purpose-in-keeping-this-text-secret-this-agreement-hands-the-sovereignty-of-our-country-over-t.html

From this post on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023049340

OBAMA IS DREAMY

NOT

[Scurrilous]

89. K & R

[bowens43]

108. Funny, I have seen Obama work diligently to expand that gap

'Obama says' means nothing.....

[Phlem]

113. yep

That's pretty much how his presidency is turning out.



-p

[hay rick]

111. TPP and TAFTA will fix that.

Not. In the end, he will fight for trade agreements that continue to undermine American wages while settling for excuses on a DOA proposal to raise the minimum wage.

From the point of view of the middle class, the story of the Obama presidency is that he seized the easy electoral advantage of being less bad than his rabid anti-99% Republican opponents. He has been content to manage the economic decline of average Americans while his feckless opponents offered plans to accelerate that decline.

It's very sad that President Obama is just now acknowledging that declining incomes is the real economic challenge that we face, not saving misbehaving banks and coddling "job creators." Hopefully he can get savvy advice from Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers on how to deal with his new challenge.

[Safetykitten]

112. Wow he's on a roll! By the way, next speech..."The Sky Is Blue!"

[Caretha]

114. I would like to add

NO SHIT SHERLOCK

[NorthCarolina]

115. Was he standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner when he said that? nt

[Rex]

118. We need the bat signal!

Who will come to our rescue?

[Fumesucker]

121. Be careful what you wish for

[Rex]

122. Oh that would suck!

[Drunken Irishman]

129. This thread is so full of FAIL.

And why DU is a fucking joke and why no one takes the left seriously. You have Obama speaking about something you've all been yelling at him to speak about for years and you dismiss it. Get a fucking clue, people. Obama can only push what the congress allows him to push. What's his agenda? You demand! Well fuck, I know you guys have brains - use 'em! An agenda means shit when you have a Republican House. Don't like it? Work to get 'em voted out of office. But let me guess, that goes against what's easy. Instead, you'll mope online, trash Obama and other Democrats, make snide remarks and then throw up your hands and say, "HOW DID IT GET TO THIS?"

Well I wonder! I wonder how many of you actually voted for Gore in 2000 - how many of you had no problem with Ralph Nader's campaign and even pushed the idea there was not a lick of difference between Bush and Gore? I'm guessing a lot. In fact, I'd wager many on the left peddled that nonsense and don't see the irony in the least. It got to this because Bush fucked us over. Yes, BUSH. Not Obama. But that's okay - we'll blame Obama because he's not fixing it as fast as he should...except he spent his first two years trying to do just that and lost the House in 2010 because those mopey liberals wanted to teach the President a lesson! Well, lesson taught! What the fuck do you expect Obama to do with a Republican House?

You know, the disconnect between some of you people and reality is startling. You mock and mock and mock those Obama supporters by suggesting we view him as some messiah and then you get pissed when he doesn't act like one. WELL WHAT IS HE DOING TO MAKE IT BETTER? Working to get Democrats elected so that they'll pass his agenda. But that's still not good enough! FOOL ME ONCE! Yeah, great - Obama had all of TWO YEARS with a Democratic House and Senate to fix thirty-years of fuckups. Do the math. No one could have fixed that mess in that quick of time.

But again, we'll mope and make snide comments and attack those who are on our side and completely ignore the people who are more culpable for this shit than anyone - the Republicans. The left, namely Nader and Michael Moore, did it in 2000 by making it a referendum on how similar Bush and Gore was and you're doing it in this thread ... then when the Republicans win, push their agenda, or obstruct the fuck out of everything, you're left wondering, again, HOW DID IT GET TO THIS?

Hm, yeah...I wonder.

[Fumesucker]

130. The proof is in the pudding, let's just take the 2000 election since you mention that last

One of the complaints of the evil left is that there wasn't much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Well, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 was a keynote speaker at the 2008 Republican National Convention, that's how much difference there was and is between the parties. A man can go from vice heading the ticket for one party to urging on the other party in less than a decade and no one thinks anything of it. The Democrats certainly didn't act like it was anything unusual, they kept right on sucking up to Joebituary.





Country First indeed.

[Drunken Irishman]

167. Yeah. Lieberman sucked ass. But that still didn't justify the left's hate of Al Gore.

Al Gore has proven a decent and competent man who would've run this country considerably better than Bush and his cronies.

[mick063]

131. He had his chance

And he blew it. Nothing he can do now to compensate.

[SunSeeker]

157. Obama did not "blow it"-He passed the ACA, with only 24 days of a filibuster proof majority.

Obama saved the auto industry and he got the Stimulus passed which reversed the massive job losses that were going on when he took office.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

181. That must be why we do not have universal health care.

/sarcasm off

[SunSeeker]

182. My brother will have health coverage for the first time in his adult life.

That, to use Biden's words, is a big fucking deal. My brother had a pre-existing condition that kept him from being able to buy insurance for decades. Thank God this President did not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, otherwise my brother woukd not be getting coverage next year. It will save his life.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

183. Would your brother prefer to not have universal health care? Obama could have achieved that.

When adopting the Republican plan to compel the purchase of health insurance instead of providing universal health care, Obama had a majority in Congress and a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

He blew it. Big time.

[SunSeeker]

186. Obama could not get single payer. But he got us a good first step.

And I think the ACA will cover just about everyone, at least here Iin CA where we have a state government that is not fighting the ACA.

Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for only 24 working days. And there were a bunch of blue dogs who refused to vote for a public option, let alone single payer.

[Cal Carpenter]

136. Waiting for him to 'speak about' something?

Um, down here in the real world, it is the actual *conditions* and *results of policy* that we are 'yelling' about, not a fucking speech.

Oh the luxury of thinking rhetoric matters. Must be nice.

[SunSeeker]

138. Great post, DI. Only one correction: Obama only had 24 working days of a filibuster proof majority

The filibuster proof majority in the Senate lasted only 67 legislative days and only 24 actual working days.

Summary:

1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.

http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=2442

[uponit7771]

145. This is fudr, one of the first responses to the thread was Obama bailed out the banks...no really,

...it's there for everyone to see.

Fear Uncertainty Doubt planners do this crap all the time

[JoePhilly]

149. +1000

And they'll be whining about President Hillary Clinton and confused as to why some uber liberal Messiah didn't show up in 2016 to beat her.

[great white snark]

151. Full of leftist hypocrites who will bitch and moan no matter what outcome.

Those who complain for a living need failure. They set up failure.

[BklnDem75]

170. +1000

[Jamaal510]

171. +1000

[Phlem]

175. Right

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

But it's always full bipartisanship when voting for and signing Free Trade Agreements.

I, never once thought I was voting for some fucking fairy tail, superman, GOD.

I wanted him to do something about jobs over 4 years ago. This applies now more than ever but hey, he's got a paycheck.

-p

[NorthCarolina]

135. BREAKING: Obama Says Income Gap Is Fraying U.S. Social Fabric...

and adds...'and I helped'.

[uponit7771]

146. by helping create jobs?! Or are you one of the left who agrees with wingers et al about the economy

...and it getting worse because of Obama?

[Phlem]

168. HA!

By signing 3 FTA's ?



-p

[mick063]

193. The Amazon warehouse tour was enlightening

That symbolic failure of worker safety and pay, Obama lending crediblilty by using it as a backdrop, does indeed indicate that the President has an influential hand on growing economic disparity.