Obama's Legacy Could Be an America of Aristocrats and Peons, Shocking New Research Reveals

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/obama-legacy-income-inequality



Warning: This story is going to make you very angry.

New research from inequality experts Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez has revealed that we now have the biggest gap between the rich and rest of America since economists began tracking data a century ago.

This isn’t supposed to happen following an economic crisis. After the Great Depression, Roosevelt’s New Deal programs worked to prevent wealth from piling back up at the top. And over the past two decades, the percentage of income claimed by the wealthy dropped after each recession. But in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the top 1 percent has gobbled up nearly all of the income gains in the first three years of the “recovery" — a stupifying 95 percent. Economic inequality is even worse than it was before the crash. In fact, last year the rich took home the largest share of income since 1917 with the exception of only one year: 1928.

Is this an accident?

Let's take a look at the years from 2009 -2012. While working people were sweating it, the richest Americans have enjoyed a fabulous ride. For example, if you were in the top 1 percent in 2012, lucky you — your income soared on average by 20 percent . And if you were in the top 0.01 percent, you probably bought a bigger yacht because your income was up by more than 32 percent on average . As for everybody else? They shared a measly 1 percent rise.

[madokie]

1. I hardly see this as Obama's fault

pukes in congress is where the problem lies and no amount of trying to shift the blame to president Obama will change that.
this article is bullshit as far as I'm concerned.

[leftstreet]

2. Obama and the Democrats rescued the GOP

That was the necessary first step

Voters rejected Reaganomics and the religious right by finally TROUNCING the GOP in 2006 and 2008

Obama and the Democrats immediately started reviving that dead political party

[Enthusiast]

7. Democrats have been administering CPR ever since.

It has been a shocking ordeal.

[lumpy]

96. Ridiculous words, no less

[iandhr]

11. Actually Obama is the first President since Clinton to get tax increases on the rich.

[truebluegreen]

80. Actually all Obama had to do was NOTHING to raise taxes on the rich a lot more.

[PoliticAverse]

139. Indeed. n/t

[treestar]

142. Leaves out the fact the Republicans were holding something else hostage

as they always do. They are at an advantage when it comes to not raising the debt ceiling, not passing a budget, causing government shut down, which they do every single time it comes up under President Obama. We should have his back against the Republicans. That might get us somewhere.

[madrchsod]

183. nah...it`s easier to complain than...

actually understanding all politics are local.

i`m not sure how old you are but i remember when republicans actually gave a shit about our country. it was in their self interest to make sure they brought back to their districts jobs and cash.

i've disagreed with a lot of things he`s done but i stop and remember just how bad it would be under a republican president. and i think who much better it would be with a democratic house.

[JDPriestly]

194. If the rich paid their fair share of taxes, raising the debt ceiling

would not be so important.

FDR penalized the bankers and stockbrokers, the gamblers who had led the country to bankruptcy. Obama rewarded them.

That is not because Obama is a terrible person but because he does not understand economics or budgeting or money. He has a good character but did not have the understanding when it comes to economics to even choose the right advisers. Larry Summers? Robert Rubin? The very guys who should have been watching America's money and didn't: Geithner and Bernanke. Relying on the advice of those misguided (if not worse) and incompetent people was Obama's huge mistake.

FDR challenged the bankers and stockbrokers to answer for their miscalculations, greed and crimes. Obama has just let things go.

FDR instituted programs that helped little folks. Obama has shown a willingness to destroy or diminish the effectiveness of some of the very programs that FDR put in place like Social Security.

Obama is privatizing. FDR improved the public sector. (Obama did a tiny bit for the public sector but not nearly what needed to be done.)

I'm sorry. Obama is very good when it comes to foreign affairs, but when it comes to the economy, Obama is not listening to the best and brightest.

And Glass Steagall? Still not reinstated. The banking laws that were passed are far too weak. Just watch what is happening to Bank of America.

Here:

. . . .

“The Dow,” as it is often called, is intended to represent the core of America’s economy. “As the Dow goes, so goes America” is the theory. It is one of the most watched indices of all markets, with many people tracking how much it goes up, or down, every trading day. So being a component of the DJIA is a pretty big deal.

Alcoa , HP, Bank of America lost relevance

. . . .

Bank of America (BAC) was one of the 2 leaders in financial services when it entered the DJIA. It was a powerhouse in all things banking. But, as the mortgage market disintegrated B of A rapidly fell into trouble. It’s shotgun wedding with Merrill Lynch to save the investment bank from failure made the B of A bigger, but not stronger. Thousands of branches and terminals make the name well known, but its value obscure.

Now racked with concerns about any part of the institution having long-term success against larger, and better capitalized, banks in America and offshore has left B of A with a lot of branches and terminals, but no market leadership. What innovations B of A may have had in lending or derivatives are now considered headaches most people either don’t understand, or largely despise.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2013/09/12/out-with-a-whimper-alcoa-hp-b-of-a-and-the-djia/

In my opinion (and I am not an economist), I would be wary of the rising prices for housing. If wages are not rising, an increase in housing values suggests a possible bubble. Think about it. Housing is the thing that ordinary people buy and invest in usually before anything else. Housing values should match middle class, ordinary people's income levels. Right now, the wealth of the middle class is not increasing. If that is the case, how can middle class people pay more for housing? They just can't.

So when you hear about the housing market demand increasing, watch the prices. If there begins to look like that market is booming a bit and prices are rising but wages are not rising, we have a problem.

The Obama economy is not healthy at this point. Not at all.

I hope that we Democrats can get behind Elizabeth Warren for 2016. I have the impression that she understands these things. And she has the humility and experience and intelligence to pick truly trustworthy, competent people to advise her on areas in which she does not personally have expertise.

[drynberg]

202. JDP wrote the FACTS, I fully agree. Too much "spin", come on folks, this is our country we're

Talkin' 'bout. I also agree that we need to get a leader who not only understands but does what she believe, and that of course is Elizabeth Warren.

[madrchsod]

204. warren is also my pick if she runs

when the president listened to penny p during his first election i was hoping for the best. unfortunately he brought her,duncan,and rahm with him. three chicago dinos was a progressive`s nightmare that came true.

i`m not sure if warren will have the blessing but she could at least make the next democrat work hard for his or her place on the ticket in 16.

[blue14u]

224. I absolutely agree with you JDPreiestly...

We need to stand with Warren. When she speaks, she has studied

and understands completely and simply the issues she speaks of. It would not be a far reach for her to get educated on the other issues she must also learn to become POTUS!

I support her more than anyone I have supported for President since Bill Clinton..

Go Elizabeth Warren.. 2016 POTUS can be yours if you want it!

[JDPriestly]

231. Thanks. Join your local Democratic Club or form one if you don't have one.

I think that Elizabeth Warren with her solid understanding of economic issues and consumer and middle class problems could win the votes of many Republicans. Elizabeth Warren is decidedly for the middle class which includes a lot of small businesses in America. Many of the owners have been lured into the Republican Party by false promises. I think that Elizabeth Warren could explain to them how the Republican Party's policies really affect them and win those voters to the Democratic Party.

Elizabeth Warren is not, in my view, a socialist. I'm not sure I would even call her a populist. She is just the incarnation of common sense. She is middle class. She understands economics, and our economic imbalance is the central problem in the US today. So I think she would have broad appeal to Americans, both Democrats and Republicans. She seems to favor fairness in money matters and that is what we need right now.

I would like to hear more about Elizabeth Warren's views on tax reform.

[Auntie Bush]

190. He has to increase their taxes even more!

Even ReThugs should see that it's necessary if we are going to keep our economy afloat.
We need middle class Americans to buy the corporate products or they go under too.

[George II]

14. You skipped a couple of decades - Reagan left office in 1989!

[leftstreet]

41. Reagan-omics, not Reagan

trickle down, supply-side, bootstraps, Welfare cadillac queens

All MYTHS voters have finally rejected

[Kolesar]

76. Pernicious nonsense, Mr Leftstreet eom

[lumpy]

94. How in hell do you think Obama has rescued/revived the GOP? ferkinghogwash

Explain if you can.

[Raksha]

123. That they did--and I have no intention of forgiving them for it. n/t

[RKP5637]

3. Quite true, often the obstructionists get a free pass and the blame

goes to Obama than the culprits IMO. I think we could be doing a hell of a lot worse than Obama, a hell of a lot worse. No president is perfect.

[lumpy]

101. No doubt about it. Now he is getting mudslinging from his 'loyal' Democrats or pretend to be.

[Raksha]

125. We could also be doing a hell of lot better than Obama.

It isn't difficult to imagine at all.

[RKP5637]

148. Yep, agree!!! n/t

[hlthe2b]

10. I'd like to defend him, but where are the prosecutions on Wall Street? Why would he push Summers to

FED? So much of Obama's policies contradict his stated positions.....

[lumpy]

99. Obama is not a prosecutor nor does he make and execute laws. That is the role of a dictator.

A President has to have cooperation from Congress and his constituents to accomplish goals.
Education is a good thing.

[hlthe2b]

109. Oh, come on... Holder does report to Obama and prosecution priorities do involve him

Holder is a political appointee, after all.

And, your snide comment re: education only reflects your intentional ignorance of the facts.

[green917]

116. execution of the law

Executing the law is the principal responsibility of the executive branch of our government of which both the department of justice and the office of the presidency are part. although I don't know that I agree that this will be president Obama's legacy, there is a Damn fine point to be made that the doj, under the direction of the president and the attorney general he appointed has prosecuted many more medical marijuana cases in states where med. marijuana is legal and cases against whistle blowers than they have initiated investigations of members of wall street that nearly crashed the world economy. this too is part of his presidency.

[Phlem]

117. Riiiight

And we're all of a sudden going to revert right to that as soon as Obama's done? What we have here is precedence. Now they no what they can get away with and how to do it, the process is BROKEN chief.

Your right however, Education is a good thing.



-p

[AgingAmerican]

138. Eric Holder does Obama's bidding

No congress needed to start criminal investigations and file charges.

[Vanje]

170. Congress

wasnt the body who appointed Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and Gene Sperlinged .

Obama is working for the fraudulent bastards that caused the recession.
Obama protects the interests of the one percent.


Get real.

[Doctor_J]

196. The executive branch doesn't enforce laws?

um...yeah. Tell that to all of the MMJ proprietors that Holder has come down on

[morningfog]

211. And here I thought the DOJ was part of the Executive Branch.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

227. You've been thoroughly discredited. Do you have more to say about the benefits of education?

[jtuck004]

137. "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks," Obama told the bankers in 2009

With a background of organizing he could have assembled the largest turnout of Americans in history and walked us away from the plantation we live on today. Instead he backed the banks and corporations who donated the largest amounts to the Democratic campaign to get him elected, here. The obstructionists should be held responsible for their behaviour today. But he gave them the power.

Just a couple of months into his presidency he called a meeting of banking executives. But instead of representing the interests of those who voted for him and had been hardest hit by the crisis – the poor, union members, black people and Latinos – he sided with those who funded him and precipitated the crisis: "I'm not out there to go after you," he told them. "I'm protecting you."

As one of the bankers told Ron Suskind in The Confidence Men: "The sense of everyone after the meeting was relief. The president had us at a moment of real vulnerability. At that point, he could have ordered us to do just about anything and we would have rolled over. But he didn't – he mostly wanted to help us out, to quell the mob. And the guy we figured we had to thank for that was [Treasury secretary] Tim [Geithner]. He was our man in Washington." This is what makes Democratic attacks on the business record of Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney so difficult to swallow. While their substance is sound and their target deserving, the source makes them hypocritical and opportunistic. The poor do not have "a man in Washington". Romney deserves to be taken to task. However, it's not a task the Democrats can credibly undertake since they have been complicit in the very practices for which they criticize him.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/16-5

[Vanje]

165. /\ this is an amazing post/\

Obama protects the one percent.

[Katashi_itto]

168. Pretty much, he throws crumbs to the rest of the population in the form of

half hearted social issue crumbs and the sells us out where it really counts.

[cui bono]

219. Exactly. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

174. disgusting.

[treestar]

144. There are many factors that go into prosecuting a case

In this debate before, some DUers researched and found that there were some prosecutions. It should be up to prosecutors, not DUers, which cases to go for. People make it out to be way easier than it is.

[Scootaloo]

28. It's not his fault

to quote a line from a favorite hip-hop artist, Immortal Technique:

And they might even have a black president but he’s useless,
Cause he does not control the economy stupid!

No, the president does not control the economy. With regards to the economic position of the nation, the president - any president, ll presidents - are indeed useless (barring some extreme and deliberate intervention, as we saw under the cited work of FDR)

However, as we've seen, the president always catches the blame for the economic turbulations that happen under his administration... provided of course, that president is a Democrat. Just as presidents always get credit for economic rises... provided they're a Republican. heads they win tails we lose, you know?

[AgingAmerican]

141. His appointee Holder

Could have started prosecuting the Wall Street rip offs and the banksters after they stole 40% of the nations wealth. Obama made a conscious decision not to prosecute. The looting continues unabated because there are no consequences.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

176. Agreed. Holder's role was/is to act as a figurehead until the statute of limitations runs out.

[raindaddy]

31. Nothing is Obama's fault.

Obama had no choice but to allow the deregulated "too big to fail" banks to grow even larger after they took down the economy.

It's not his fault Wall Street insiders like Larry Summers, Timmy Geithner, Gene Sperling etc received top posts in his administration.

The Republicans made Obama cave on Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy after he campaigned against it.

Even though progressive economists warned Obama his Stimulus Bill contained too many tax cuts and not enough spending, of course it wasn't the President who listened to the conservatives.

More than enough time has past to give us an indication of who Obama really represents and it's not middle-class and poor Americans.

We have a former Democratic President who actually brokered a peace treaty in the Middle East. It would've been a perfect time to consult with Jimmy Carter on Syria and a nice way to acknowledge his contribution. Instead they bring in Henry Kissinger on the 40th of the Nixon backed coup in Chili!

As long as Democrats continue to make excuses, unable to shift any blame to Obama we'll see the Democratic party continue to shift to the right.

[Marr]

65. Exactly-- who do they think they're kidding with that shit?

Obama has shown his hand repeatedly on issues that didn't involve Congress at all.

[lumpy]

103. It is shit alright, the shit list that is.

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. heh.

[truebluegreen]

83. Well said, thank you.

And welcome to DU.

[Phlem]

132. +5 jillion

Welcome to DU!



-p

[NealK]

164. +1 n/t

[go west young man]

218. Nailed it!

The cheerleaders won't be phased though.

[blue14u]

234. You just made a friend of me... Welcome to DU!

"As long as Democrats continue to make excuses, unable to shift any blame to Obama we'll see the Democratic party continue to shift to the right." raindaddy

Thank you for saying this... it is so true. I supported the POTUS both elections..I worked hard for him.. I will no longer support "third way", "centrist" again!

This is not what I signed up for. I will never understand a "loyalist" attitude. What happened to doing what you say and doing what's right? I do know the difference between right and wrong by the way.

What's the saying?...
"if you don't stand up for what you believe in... you stand for nothing".

[mick063]

68. This article is spot on.

Obama is fighting for jobs numbers. He is not fighting against income inequality.


Discerning people can quickly spot the difference.

[HooptieWagon]

84. Not completely Obama's fault.

But he shares the blame with republicans and DLC/Third Way Dems who have consistantly protected the wealthy and systematically dismantled working and middle classes. TPP will be the coup-de-grace.

[lumpy]

104. More shit

[Marr]

133. So you're for the TPP? /nt

[AgingAmerican]

145. Should Obama have ordered Holder to prosecute Wall Street

...and the Banksters after they stole 40% of the nations wealth?

[lumpy]

92. Obama is a victim for being dumped on by the Bush legacy, and Republican obstruction.

His legacy will be a President who tried against all odds ; who has tried to clean up a mess left by previous administrations with little cooperation from a Congress bent on destroying his legacy.

[AgingAmerican]

146. So Bush forced him not to prosecute bankers and wall street?

[Raksha]

159. Possibly. The BFEE* could have threatened him personally if he tried it.

*BFEE = Bush Family Evil Empire.

[Vanje]

172. ....and Bush forced Obama to appoint bankers and recycled Bush-appointees

to work in the White House.

[lumpy]

97. New tactic of bullshit rhetoric by Obama haters. It falls into the category of mud slinging.

This in old GOP tactic, mud in your eye.

[madokie]

108. Too many find it too easy to dump on the one man working his ass off

trying to get us out of this mess. I'll stand with President Obama over any and all of these naysayers any day.

[AgingAmerican]

135. He chose not to prosecute

Those who stole 40% of the wealth of the middle class.

[robinlynne]

143. Palease.

[brush]

178. Agreed! Can't understand the reason for such a post . . .

. . . besides shit stirring.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. The 1%

It's THEIR Country. They just let you live here. For now.

[Cryptoad]

5. How Funny

Obama Legacy ????

This has been a long time coming . Seems it all start around 1980 ,,,, what happen then




ummmm,,,,,,,,,,,voodoo economics come to mind?


Wage Earners Median Income levels (adjusted for inflation -2009 dollars),,,,,,,



Reagan took office = $38,549.63,,,,



Bush1 took office = $32,225.01,,,,



Clinton Took Office = $ 29,467.12,,,,



Bush2 Took Office = $ 33,810.81,,,,



Obama Took Office = $27,359.12,,,



Median Wages have gone up $400 since Obama has been in office,,,,



Does anybody else see a pattern here,,,,,, ?




Median Wages always go down when there is a Republican in the White House and they always go up when a Democrat is in the White House! ,,,,,

The Working Folks know who is looking out for them! ,,,,,




These median wages are reflections of a dying middle class. This is the reflection of the disastrous effects of the HooDoo Economic policies of the GOP reducing taxes on the Super Rich. It is clear that the GOP depresses the Middle Class and Democrats lift it up. ,,,,,




Add to this the fact that the top 400 wage earners income had their Adjusted Gross Income increased by 498%, it is abundantly clear that the Regressive Bush2 Tax Code must be repealed and replaced with a truly progressive tax code that taxes the Super Rich their fair share or the Middle Class will continue to decline under it is no more.,,,,




[median income level means there equal number of people who make more and less than the median number],,,,,




[ figures are calculated from IRS yearly FIT reports and adjusted to 2009 dollars using the following online calculator - http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/]

[abelenkpe]

17. My industry has been off shored during Obamas presidency

While I know republicans would cheer such a development I also don't see democrats doing one damn thing to stop off shoring or bring those jobs back. I do however see talk of yet another trade agreement.

No one really cares about the middle and working class.

[whathehell]

26. Yup. While his administration can't be blamed for all of that, as you say,

neither he OR the Democrats are doing ANYTHING about it. I think they're hoping we'll just be

pacified with Obama Care and "social issue" successes like Gay Marriage, gun laws, abortion, etc.

which, though important, all have ONE interesting common core -- They Don't Cost Money!

They've become a reverse mirror image of the Republicans -- They take the OPPOSITE stand

on Republicans on social issues, and stay MUM on the Economic ones, thereby keeping

Wall Street and the Economic Powers just as happy as they are with Republicans!

[abelenkpe]

35. That is an excellent description of what's going on

Could not agree more.

[whathehell]

73. Thank you!

and yes, I do think we all need to ask why Democrats seem intent on ignoring Economic Issues.

Backatcha!

[Raksha]

128. Exactly. n/t

[Cryptoad]

38. Which Obama law

ran your industry off shore?

[abelenkpe]

53. What have democrats done to keep them here?

N O T H I N G

Now granted republicans would block anything they attempted sure.

But it hasn't stopped them pushing new trade deals that will continue to decimate the middle class.

No one in government really cares.

[Cryptoad]

59. Do you think Obama has the power to create laws. ?

What steps do you think he should have taken to stop the practice that is legal?

[socialist_n_TN]

62. Isn't he the one negotiating that miscarrage of justice that is the TPP?.......

Or at least hiring the negotiators? And as others have said in this thread, his appointments have left a LOT to be desired as far as the working class is concerned.

There's a lot that Obama doesn't control, that's true. But the problem is that the things that he DOES control, including the underused "bully pulpit", does NOT inspire trust in which side he's on.

[Cryptoad]

156. How do you judge when the agreement is still being constructed?

[socialist_n_TN]

212. How can you NOT judge when it's being constructed in secret?

What I've heard doesn't sound good.

[Cryptoad]

226. Is that what is really bothering you?

you are not on the negotiating team?

[cui bono]

220. When it's done it's too late!

Every issue people criticize, people come back with "it's not done yet, how can you criticize" or "wait and see what it is when it's finalized" but then it's too late! That's not the point of a democracy, the point of our democracy is to be governed by the will of the people, so we should make ourselves heard, not wait to see what they've decided for us.

That's just yet another attempt to stifle any criticism of Obama and it's wrong headed and dangerous.

[Cryptoad]

225. So many seers,,,,,

No its not too late,,,,, it will have to approved by Congress. Better than complaining about something that doesn't exist yet just because Obama has something to do with it.!

[socialist_n_TN]

229. Well I'm glad tthat you're SO comfortable with your betters..........

making decisions FOR you. That's not very democratic, but then I suppose a lot of folks aren't comfortable with democracy.

[Cryptoad]

233. Yes it does seem

that democracy makes lots of folks uncomfortable . Especially Puritans

[lumpy]

88. Many people do, people critize him for not fixing everything that needs fixing and critize

him for taking action on the things he can attempt to fix. Some think he is some sort of an ineffective dictator, commie, 1 per center, etc. You name it.
The one thing they don't think about : what is the role of the President, what are his powers, can he create laws, does he have the power to shut down banks, regulate industry etc.?
Education is a a good thing.

[Cryptoad]

157. Well said!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

206. his admin has put forth a jobs bill which the pukes blocked

And they waste $$$$$ with their fight against Obamacare.

They've waged a titanic fight against stimulus action (while hypocritcally using the monies themselves)

They've sequestered and threatened govt shut down over Obama's proposals to raise taxes on the top 1% earners.

Seems the opposition is the problem to me.

[Larry Ogg]

56. How has Free trade, repealing Glass Steagal, and media deregulation lifted up the middle class?

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Remember, that all happened under a democrat who, like republicans, sold the working folks out to the highest bidder. And the deregulated media told us how good it was going to be for us all. To bad that,"us all" ment the 1% and fuck the rest.

And instead of prosecuting white collar criminals, Democrats have carried on the long time tradition of Republicans who reward criminals with cabinet positions. How has that lifted up the middle class?

And how has, protecting war criminals while going after and prosecuting whistle blowers, lifted up or protected the middle class.

"The Working Folks know who is looking out for them!" Your kidding right? Because the last time I checked, Working Folks are deeply devided over ideological fantasies, fairy tales, and bigotry etc.

And most of them just can't seem to figure out, that, when the 1% pumps billions of ill-gotten dollars into the campaign coffers of both political parties, it's not because they want to lift up or preserve the middle class. It's because they want to give workers the illusion of choice! Do you want to be screwed by one of our blue puppets who likes gays, or a red puppet who hates gays?

There's a patern to be seen alright, and it's not the differences between the two parties that is going to destroy the middle class, it's where the two parties line their pockets, and sell us out to the 1%.

And Obama is very much apart of the two party illusion, and he is not on the side working folks. At best, he is just not against us as much as other republicans, so as far as the two party illusion goes, that's suppose to make him a democrat.

[BlueJazz]

105. You got it Larry

[Cryptoad]

209. GOP

applauds your efforts!

[whistler162]

6. don't forget he also caused Mount Etna to erupt!

If you first don't succeed try flinging more mud.... it is mud isn't it and not that other brown stuff!

[Safetykitten]

8. Obama and his Wall Street bailout. Now here is proof.

[jwirr]

22. I seem to remember that bushie was president when we bailed out the banksters and wall street.

[bvar22]

87. As a US Senator, Obama campaigned FOR, lobbied FOR, and voted FOR the Bailout,

so he DOES shoulder some of the responsibility,
along with these guys:

[AgingAmerican]

149. Why weren't they prosecuted?

Why didn't Holder bring charges? Why don't they do it now?

[lumpy]

111. Trying to pin that on Obama? Of course.

[cheapdate]

9. I suppose it might be "shocking"

if a person had no knowledge whatsoever of the preceding three-decades in the United States; the collapse of manufacturing industries, stagnation in wages, and the decline of labor unions didn't start on January 2009. Nor did globalization, offshoring, and the rise of venture capital, investment banking, and multinational corporations.

These things have been going on for three-decades. Barack Obama hasn't magically reversed them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

15. No, he & the people he works for accelerated it. n/t

[cheapdate]

40. It's a continuation of a trend that started in the 1970s.

It hasn't "accelerated". Who told you that? The trend has simply continued -- it hasn't accelerated. The spike in inequality metrics for the present year are due in part to tax law changes passed by this president that are unfavorable to wealthy individuals. Many are cashing out options this year to avoid higher capital gains in 2014.

Barack Obama is no bolshevik, but he's no robber baron either.

The modest moves that Barack Obama has made to favor the middle classes and to disfavor the accumulation of massive wealth by individuals are among the reasons why many very wealthy people are so intensely opposed to his presidency.

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. Nobody told me that, I've lived it while paying attention to what is done, rather than by

believing what someone says. The trend has existed here since the early-mid 19th century, but this wave was begun in the late '60s in response to the post war changes in America. Reagan brought into official policy and that persisted until Clinton. Masked by the economic boom created by the revolution in personal computing, Clinton was able to demolish the remaining foundations of The New Deal and _shrub took Clinton's work and ran with it, leaving President Obama with the first opportunity to alter the nation's course in 80 years. The President consciously chose the more-of-the-same course favored by the parasites referred to as aristocracy in the OP.

The fact that the very wealthiest of the wealthy have realized every bit of the so-called recovery, plus even more, makes the acceleration self evident.

[cheapdate]

70. It's not accelerating, it's increased at a nearly constant rate,

ignoring recessions, over the past thirty years, as the historical chart in this Mother Jones article shows:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/chart-washington-gridlock-income-inequality

[Egalitarian Thug]

74. Do you see that spike from '87 - '90? This one is going to force them to re-scale

the chart so it will fit. Additionally, this charts income, which is obscenely unjust in itself, but the wealth held is far worse and nothing at all has been done to prevent the next shearing, the only question is when.

You can call it an aardvark if you like, it is what it is.

[cheapdate]

86. Here's a sypmathetic chart from the New York Times on Friday.

It covers through 2012. They didn't have re-scale.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/?_r=0

Look, I'm sympathetic to this argument. It's a hugely important problem and I'd support radical solutions.

But I think the fact is that it's the same factors that have been creating this trend over the past thirty years that are still in play today; globalization, offshoring, the rise of the multinational corporations, the dominance of the banking and financial sector, tax laws at home and abroad, trade policy, the dominance of liberal (free-market) economics, steady improvements in productivity, declining power of labor unions.

Who the president appoints to head the federal reserve isn't going to make a real difference. Nor will raising income tax rates by 5 or 10 percent. The causes are vast, diffuse, systemic, and global. I don't know what the answer is.

[Egalitarian Thug]

91. Because you don't want to know what the answers are. There's no mystery here, we've

known numerous ways to solve all of these problems for a very long time, all that is lacking is the will among those in power to implement them.

This thread is about the President;s legacy of worsening the failure that created the mess he walked into.

[cheapdate]

95. Screw you. You're all loose talk and nothing else.

Go ahead and impress me and repeat the solutions that you heard some smart person say somewhere.

[Egalitarian Thug]

147. You're not my type. How about we start with something simple, eliminating the sources of

obscenely disparate wealth.

No federal contracts will be made with nor taxpayer money paid to any contractor that off-shores any services, or sub-contracts to any contractor that does. Require all contractors to hire American citizens to fulfill any federal contracts made.

Progressively more confiscatory inheritance taxes above some healthy figure, say $5M.

Tax assets held by any non-profit and not-for-profit organization for longer than two to five years at the comparable person income tax rate.

Tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income.

Tax interest income at the same rate as personal income.

[liberal_at_heart]

152. You've got some good ideas there Egalitarian Thug.

[Egalitarian Thug]

163. Thank you, but they're not mine. As I told cheapdate, solutions to all of these

"oh-so-terribly-complicated" problems have been around for years, decades in many cases. What is lacking is the will to implement them.

There are at least a hundred really clever and innovative solutions to any of the problems we face today, we've just come to accept the ideal that any change must not change anything for the rich, unless of course it makes them richer.

[liberal_at_heart]

171. I'm definitely tired of the excuses.

[abelenkpe]

155. That all sounds good to me :) nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

223. I'm glad you like it. If people would just make the demand... n/t

[cheapdate]

232. You barely address the main problem,

Last edited Sun Sep 15, 2013, 01:02 PM - Edit history (3)

which is globalization and the resulting elimination of entire US manufacturing industries and the depression of wages and conditions in the industries that remain.

I wholeheartedly support progressive measures to require wealthy individuals and corporations to pay a larger share into the public treasury. Capital gains and dividend income should be taxed as "ordinary" income. Wealthy individuals should be taxed at progressively higher rates. Massive, accumulated wealth should be taxed.

All of these revenue measures are needed to allow the government to make the investments in education, public health, research, and infrastructure that are necessary, but not sufficient, for a healthy and prosperous nation.

But nothing short of solutions more radical than what you've proposed are going to solve, for instance, the problem of what becomes of the hundreds of communities and the roughly 4 million workers in the former textile manufacturing region of GA, SC, and NC who lost their source of income when the entire industry left the country overnight in the 1980s and 1990s.

These manufacturing jobs, which had been the backbone of hundreds of small towns and communities for generations, left the US for lower wage, foreign countries. This same scenario has been repeated in other industries all across the country.

Everyone isn't going to get a college degree and become an engineer or a computer programmer. Our biggest problem is the loss of manufacturing jobs and there aren't any quick fixes.

Nancy Pelosi and the 111th Congress brought forward a number of legislative proposals to address this problem. Some were passed into law, and others failed to get through the Senate before the 111th Congress expired and the Democrat's ability to move legislation was severely weakened by losses in the House and the Senate.

The Buses, Rail Cars, Ferryboats: Make it in America Act of 2010 (H.R. 5791) for instance passed in the House, but didn't get through the Senate.

The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 (H.R. 4213) was signed into law July 22, 2010.

The usual players -- the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Enterprise Institute, et. al -- fiercely opposed all of these measures and they used their resources effectively to vilify Democrats and take back the House in 2010.

I'd say that you're the one who doesn't "want to know what the answers are". You're satisfied with incremental half-measures that don't solve the real problems.

[RC]

16. Nor has he really tried.

Let's start with who his appointments were/are, starting with Larry Summers - AGAIN! Those appointments are a symptom of where the Obama Administration's policies reside, and it ain't with us.

[jwirr]

23. Exactly. And anything he has done has been opposed head on by the rethugs. It is a miracle that

we are doing as well as we are. I have been through this before when congressional rethugs held either the balance of power or enough to keep much from getting done. In those years we were lucky to protect what we already had. How anyone can blame this on President Obama for this mess is interesting because the rethugs have outright told us what they are doing - trying to obsrtuct our economy so that the 1% is the only group that prospers. We ignore that at out own peril.

[George II]

12. Obama's "legacy"? Just how do you come to that conclusion?

[JoePhilly]

19. Last week his legacy was going to be WWIII in Syria ... the wheel of outrage

spins round and round.

The whole Syria outrage thing isn't working out so well, so we spin the wheel and locate a new point of outrage.

[treestar]

45. Yep, Obama bad

I knocked a glass of water over this morning: Thanks Obama!

[mick063]

98. You read the arguments here.

He doesn't fight for the working man.

Your cheerleading rings hollow.

[lumpy]

112. Do your own damn fighting then, if all you can do is whine. He is not your savior.

[mick063]

150. Good answer sir.

I fight daily.

You may call it "whine" if you like.

[lumpy]

158. Exactly. Working people are the ones that have brought about change in the past. By gathering

together to make those changes, pressing Representatives, unions, strikes etal. Whining won't do it, activism.

[mick063]

162. You do not have a clue about what I do.

I work against the President's economic agenda. I do it in any fashion I choose.

You sir, are free to work at it how you choose.

[lumpy]

169. What is the Presidents economic agenda that you are working against, may I ask, Madam?

Perhaps instead of working against Obama's agenda you should be working on your own economic agenda. DU doesn't cut it.

[mick063]

221. I don't believe so.

I'm rubbing you the wrong way.

That in of itself reveals some impact.

It also reveals that you are supportive of cutting Social Security, having Goldman Sachs determine economic policy, all but ignoring the voice of organized labor, allowing corporate moguls to secretly negotiate trade deals, and facilitating wealth disparity.

Are you or are you not supportive of such things?

[George II]

228. Unsubstantiated talking points

[Raksha]

131. Wrong! Syria and the blame for starting WWIII would be an additional point of outrage,

not a new one. The obscene level of income inequality has been there all along--a permanent point of outrage.

[Vanje]

175. About the Syria issue

NOW we know what it looks like when Obama fights.

The proposed Syria strikes are a no go., both from congress, and with the American people.
Even against those odd, Obama is really putting up a fight.

I've never seen anything like it from our Pres.

I didnt think his pragmatic self was much of a fighter.
I know different now.

I wish he would have fought like that for the 90 percent.
It might have been amazing.

[Autumn]

34. xchrom didn't come to that conclusion, xchrom posted an article

written by someone at a news site or blog, and the author of the piece titled the article. People often post articles on a political message board like DU where people like to discuss and read things .

[George II]

46. Generally when people post articles on this site, it's because they embrace the thought.....

...behind those articles.

[Autumn]

48. I don't have the ability to read minds, but I do find that most DUers post

interesting articles. Even when I don't agree with them. They generate a discussion and in that discussion sometimes one can find great information and thoughts.

[lumpy]

115. Bullshit. People post latest news stories to keep us posted on what is happening. Not selective

news. Bullpucky

[George II]

118. Well, posting a speculative article about Obama's legacy isn't "latest news", it's opinion.

[lumpy]

122. Read Autumn's post. She said it more succinctly than I.

More fly shit mayo.

[treestar]

42. Yep, if this is so, it's been happening since the Reagan Administration

Some people are obsessed with the current President, but it seems to be tenfold with President Obama.

[great white snark]

188. Wishful thinking from a group that influences nothing.

Their only measure of influence are the number of recs on an internet forum.

[Rex]

18. 30 plus years of trickledown economics...but SURE let's

blame the new guy.

[hfojvt]

27. the new guy did promise both hope and

change.

What was his big jobs proposal back in 2011?

A big, big part of it, the only part he really fought for, was a 3% payroll tax cut. Interesting thing about the payroll tax cut - 14.1% of the benefits goto the richest 5% while 12.1% goto the poorest 40%.

Well, thank goodness Obama changed that whole Reaganomics mantra. How do you create jobs and boost the economy? With tax cuts, and with tax cuts that favor the rich.

Yes, we can
yes we can
si se pueda

[Rex]

29. Like I said, blame the new guy.

Forget all those decades that someone could actually do something to change our system.

[lumpy]

127. Truly, it has taken decades to get to this point. People expect miracles over night, especially

when they don't take time to think about it.

[hfojvt]

217. the new guy said he wanted to change it

he was given a mandate by the voters to change it
he decided not to change it
at least he and his family is likely to live wealthily ever after.

[treestar]

43. He stood for and still stands for hope and change

He did not "promise" it. No one person can do it all. A politician's promises are to stand for certain things. They cannot promise results as no office in the US is a dictatorship.

[Rex]

82. Very good point, they are not wizards.

nt.

[hfojvt]

216. he did not stand for it

we fell for it.

One person can certainly give a speech. A speech where he says something besides "my job program is a tax cut (most of which will go to the top 20%) (of course, he is not honest enough to admit that last part)".

To ask Obama to do that is NOT asking him to "do it all".

[questionseverything]

79. payroll taxes only go to 107 grand

so how did any1 benefit from the "vacation" that made over 107 grand?

we had a tax increase in illinois that same year so the payroll holiday really helped my family

[hfojvt]

214. because if they made, say $300,000 or $170,000 or $873,426

they got a 2% cut on $107,000.

Which is $2,140.

Curiously enough that is much more than I got. My taxable wage income in 2011 was $15,814.01 and 2% of that is only $316.28.

$2,140 > > > (is much greater than) $316.28

$316.28 happens also to be $83.72 LESS than the "making work pay credit" which Obama campaigned on in 2008, only to throw out in favor of the accursed payroll tax cut.

[PeteSelman]

201. The new guy had majorities in both houses in 2009.

And he and they squandered the opportunity presented. They could have done anything they wanted and instead did everything they could to appease the Republicans who then refused to vote for anything at all.

The People wanted major change and we ended up getting the same old crap.

[raouldukelives]

20. The only people to blame are the corporations behind it.

And the shareholders who enter into the symbiotic relationship with them.
People aren't as stupid as they seem. They know exactly what supporting them will accomplish for the least among us, zip. In fact, much less than zip. Our friends, neighbors and nature are being sacrificed for the short term profit of a few.
That's usually when personal moral, ethical and political standards are tossed out the window. They just hate the thought of missing out on sharing in that precious blood money.

[Safetykitten]

21. the amazing ability to blame everyone else but Obama...

Is staggering in it's scope. He he responsible for anything? Ever? Except for foreign policy when he's saved by a communist?

it's like there was there was someone else that kept the bank bailouts and wall street giveaway going.

[lumpy]

129. Your post is confusing

[madrchsod]

180. he was saved by a communist? really?

so i guess we should thank putin? putin? ok......

[Berlum]

24. "Please don't call us peeons." - The Proles (99%)

[baldguy]

25. Blame Obama first.

How is this different from anything the GOP does?

[liberal_at_heart]

67. No the order of blame goes Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. They are all to blame.

[baldguy]

85. Where does the OP - or the article it points to - blame anybody but Obama?

They don't even bother to mention any other president. The whole point they're trying to convey is that it's all Obama's fault.

[liberal_at_heart]

89. Because the other presidents are ex presidents. They can no longer do anything about

the economic disaster in this country. Obama however could fight for a real minimum wage(say $15/hour instead of the $9/hr he has proposed). He could fight for funding for K-12 and universities. He could extend his program to help students with school loan debt by including everybody and not just new borrowers. He could support unions and teachers. He could oppose the TPP and the Keystone Pipeline. Now that he has ACA he could do what he should have done from the beginning and work on turning the ACA into single payer. The ex presidents although culpable can no longer do anything to help fix it.

[baldguy]

119. Bullshit. Ex-Presidents certainly have a more powerful voice that the average citizens does.

You don't think that Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Clinton - and Carter too, while we're at it - don't have a unique ability to effect the debate? Of course they do. The simple fact is that they won't And it's because they have to deal with the same political limitations that Obama faces. Yet you absolve the ex-Presidents of any responsibility for the sad state of affairs they helped create. You're being narrow-minded & juvenile.

[liberal_at_heart]

126. I will agree that they could add to the debate. But because they supported Trickle Down

Economics when they were president I doubt they will come out against it now. Carter seems to be adding a valuable voice to the issue. Thank goodness we have him and liberal democrats and independents such as Warren and Sanders.

[baldguy]

130. Call me when any of them come out against the status quo - and against their own records.

But don't be throwing a temper tantrum or holding your breath until they do.

And don't try to pretend Obama isn't in the same boat as they are.

[liberal_at_heart]

136. When my kid suffers because the public schools are not properly funded and because Race to the Top

pressures schools to force children to learn faster than they are capable I will throw a temper tantrum anytime I want. The president supports Race to the Top. He supports state standardized tests. And the only funding I have ever heard him talk about is for math and science, surprise surprise. I guess Tim Cook needs some new engineers. While at the same time my kid who is in special education classes has the same student teacher ratio as the general education classrooms and thanks to Race to the Top my special educational student is expected to perform the same as his general educational peers. So don't lecture me on Obama being a victim or about not throwing a temper tantrum. I will criticize Obama until he starts fighting for our teachers unions, our students, our workers, and our poor and disabled.

[morningfog]

213. Yet an ex-president's power is miniscule compared to the current Preisdent.

[lumpy]

134. Obama is just one man. The stuff you lay out for him to do can't be done in less than 8 years.

He doesn't have that much time with hardly any backing or cooperation. Think how the ACA has taken so much time, by unheard of opposition using every means to defeat it.. He does support many of the issues you state, it takes more than one person to accomplish anything when he even has lackluster backing/input coming from his constituents. He has to compromise on every issue to have any results what so ever. Pfffft

[liberal_at_heart]

140. I wouldn't care if he never got one piece of legislation passed. I just want him to stand up for us.

I want him to fight for us. He is not willing to do that. And therefore, I am not willing to fight for him either.

[lumpy]

166. He has spoken out re. many issues we care about. He has proven he has the fight, opposition

has been fierce, he still holds on inspite of that. He cannot fight alone for us, we have to join the fight by activism, knowing well the representatives we vote for, supporting/joining those who are fighting for us, groups and individuals. If we are not fighting for our rights and we can't support our President fighting for us, then we cannot expect much being done.

[liberal_at_heart]

167. look believe what you want. I'm done arguing with you.

[lumpy]

121. People love to gripe about their 'poor unfull filled lives' of dire want. Who becomes the whipping

boy? Obama. The whole country is suffering because of Obama.

[liberal_at_heart]

124. The whole country is suffering because Obama helps perpetuate Trickle Down Economics.

[lumpy]

151. 'Trickle Down Economics' is not a simple process. It has taken years for trickle down economics

to be engrained into our economic lives. Economics involves all laws, regulations, profits and a hell of a lot more ingredients to bring about changes in economics. Nothing can be done with the wave of a wand. It would take exceptional determination by every one and cooperation and desire in the Congress to make those changes. Tall order. If Obama is perpetuating trickle down it is because it has become a way of life. We perpetuate it when we purchase, invest, work for, actually exist.

[liberal_at_heart]

160. Sorry. I just refuse to let them off the hook. Just because it has been the way we have done

business in the past does not mean it is the way we have to do it now. Even if he loses spectacularly because of republican obstructionism he could at the very least fight for policies that help the people. A living wage, funding K-12 and university education, turn ACA into single payer, scrap the TPP and other trade agreements. Scrap Race to the Top. Even if he didn't accomplish these things he could at least fight for them. He does not want to fight for these things. His policies help corporations and the 1% more than they help the people. I will not support him when he choses them over us.

[lumpy]

177. We have to join the fight to make changes. Obama needs our help to get anything done in

view of the fact that he gets little help from the people who are supposed to be doing their job running the country, and that includes every one of us.. I'll say it again, voicing yourself on DU isn't going far enough, get active.
We shouldn't expect one person to 'fight for us'. Some times we have to do a little fighting ourselves. Activism

[liberal_at_heart]

182. If by helping you mean vote democrat in 2014, well I will as long as there are liberal

candidates to vote for. If there are no liberal candidates to vote for my ballot will remain blank or I may consider an alternative.

[lumpy]

184. No, I didn't mean just voting, support groups (not with money) who have the same interests as

yourself, primarily.

[madrchsod]

181. you forgot nixon, ford, and carter.

deregulation started with nixon. by 1976 industries were moving to s korea, taiwan,japan,and mexico.

[og1]

30. oligarchy has enjoyed extended prosperity under both parties

the truth is the elected serves the financier not the electorate

[Zorra]

32. Alan Grayson: Thomas Jefferson on the Buffet Rule

I don't know what Founding Father and President Thomas Jefferson would have thought about TV, cars, spaceships, cellphones, skyscrapers, computers or nuclear weapons. But I do know what Jefferson would have thought about the Buffett Rule. He would have liked it.

The Buffett Rule is the Obama Administration's proposal to adopt a 30% minimum tax rate on personal income above $1 million a year. It would promote one of the central tenets of progressivism: that the burden of taxes should fall on the rich, not the poor.
snip---
In 1811, two years after Jefferson left the Presidency, Jefferson wrote a letter to General Thaddeus Kosciuszko, a hero of the American Revolution. Jefferson said that he supported taxes (then tariffs, since there was no income tax yet) falling entirely on the wealthy. As Jefferson explained: "The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of this country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
snip---
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/20/1085083/-Thomas-Jefferson-on-the-Buffett-Rule

[Safetykitten]

33. "This isn’t supposed to happen following an economic crisis." Well in this one we rewarded the

people that did it. Obama continued Bush's TBTF shit un-interrupted.

Try to spin the facts, but he's really to blame for the majority of this now.

[kentuck]

36. The President meant well...

But he surrounded himself with the "wrong" people, the same people that caused the problems in the first place. That did not help.

If he had appointed different advisers, with a more Democratic bent, he could have accomplished a whole lot more than he has at present.

As it is, the poor and the working class are in an even deeper whole than before.

I would blame the President for a lack of understanding about economics and wealth transfer.

[fredamae]

37. I believe we mostly understand

the dynamics of the "crap-pile" Obama walked into-
However it's how he did/did not exercise the powers he does have at critical "political intersections". Suggesting/Pushing for Chained CPI, Extending BushCo Tax Cuts, and certainly--Dismissing War Crimes, Corruption, Fraud in the banking industry, Mortgage Crises, Keystone XL, his "picks" for key positions..etc..

Perhaps, like learning to listen to what "they" Don't say to hear the truth? We also need to "see" what Did Not happen out of not just POTUS Admin, but the Dem Party as a whole.

What we experience Now are the consequences of the "dance of illusions" between Corporatist Dems and the Corporatist GOP.
I was struck by the comment Reid made the other day about "The Anarchists" Running the Joint...Considering he's "there" and has been since 2009, considering the revelations of Intent by the GOP just Weeks after PBO was sworn in in 2009--Reid's just NOW realizing that which We've been telling him for 5 Years is true? He would have or definitely Should have Known before Any of the rest of us and did what to Prevent it?
No, I don't believe we should simply blame PBO, but rather the Whole Damned Lot of them....

Feeding Us Bullshit while they All dined on Caviar while in planning sessions of How to usurp More from the poor/mid-class for personal gains.
Intended or Not--That's what we have-and "our team" did nothing/little to stand with Us.
Those who Are and Have worked for Us? They're Out Ranked and Out Monied.....

[Safetykitten]

39. This^^^

[Autumn]

49. Excellent post fredamae. I think you called it right.

Thank you.

[fredamae]

50. It's just the raw

facts (imo, of course) I watched this unfold--or became more aware in the '90's, but was unwilling to accept what I observed--I was a Dem-and by God, if My Team did something I questioned? I "let it go" out of pure faith in the "goodness and wisdom of their intent"-I rationalized, excused and dismissed. I was part of the problem, actually. I just didn't Know it then.
I was raised in a political era where it was relatively safe to believe in the values of the Dem party--and when the shift began in earnest? Yep-I was in total denial. But--my kids/grand-kids are Awake and I'm not just grateful for them-I'm with Them!
My belief and faith in the Dem Party is completely dissolved...
I'm so ready for the "Rise of the New Left"--Where can I sign up?

[Autumn]

51. I want to sign up too.

This current whatever the hell the Democratic Party is, just isn't working. I had the same beliefs in my party you had, and then that belief was shattered.

[fredamae]

52. The Dem Party Leaders have

redirected/reframed/redefined the Democratic Party to become The Representative Body for Wall Street/1% Corporate Wing-It's called "The New Dem Coalition/Third Way"
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/
The membership is posted and some were a surprise, frankly.

The Old Dem Wing of the party (the base) has been relegated to "the corner and benched".

[Autumn]

54. For over 40 years I have voted in every election.

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

I saw that D and I cast my vote based on that D, I didn't bother with listening to the words, that D was all I needed. I was wrong for doing that it's what got us where we are today. I didn't notice that they were moving away from the values my Parents had that they voted for and had instilled in me. I'm not doing it again, I will study the candidate and push for Democrats that hold my values.

[fredamae]

61. Sounds like Me

54 years I've been loyal and dedicated to the party since Before I could vote---I too have voted "D" in every election since I was allowed to vote at the legal age of 21.
I'm a third generation Democrat--or I was until I unregistered a few months ago.

I tried for years to speak with the leader of my local state Dem Party-they ignored my emails, phone messages-the DSCC/DLC/DCCC/Dem Party HQ either simply ignored me or they Hung up.
They do not care whether folks like you and me leave or not--it's Their way or the Highway--"see ya later bye--and OBTW, could ya leave a donation on your way out?"

[MuseRider]

114. So true.

I think there are a whole lot of us who were that way and are part of the reason it got this bad. I feel so responsible for just being happy "my party" was in charge so I could just sit back knowing that everything they did would be good and best for all.

No longer a Dem because they back stabbed us. But we did let it happen by turning our heads for just a little while. You have stated all of this well, thank you.

I don't hate Obama but I never thought he would do any differently than he has done. I hoped he would, after all it was Obama or McCain. We desperately need someone who will hold the standards and not water them down so we don't recognize them and they don't do anything but further the decline of this country.

The new left had better be ready soon. I can't wait. From what I have heard about it it sounds much like a return to what made most of us Dems in the beginning.

[Catherina]

64. I think I love you! n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

66. They live in their own little bubble. They have no idea what regular people go through on a day to

day basis. Anyone who doesn't fit into that little bubble is considered an anarchist.

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. Very well said. Thank you. n/t

[MotherPetrie]

44. K&R

[ProSense]

47. Sure, it "could be"

if one ignores the CFPB, the health care law, the tax changes that took effect this year, several other policies, including LGBT benefits, and the fact that he still has nearly three and a half years left in his term.

We'll see.

[kentuck]

55. Some folks see it as...

Thanks for the porridge! And Bread too!

Where's the meat??

[ProSense]

60. That's OK, "some folks" want it repealed.

"Some folks" will never support it.

[Safetykitten]

58. Well to be fair, we have to go back to caveman times, as this trend was in full swing...

I mean any acceleration or huge uptick in the past oh, say couple of years is just an aberration.

[socialist_n_TN]

63. Maybe I should read the article?.......

But from the excerpts, it seems like a pretty shallow analysis. I'm not a particular fan of Barack Obama, who's a self admitted "80s moderate Republican" who seems to be morphing into a full blown Reagan Republican with his stand on Syria, BUT you can't look at data from just 3 or 4 years and claim this as a legacy. It's merely a continuation of 30+ years of neo-liberal, Freidmanite bullshit.

If it had argued that he didn't do much of anything to stop it, I could agree with that. But I ain't blaming Obama for the whole shit enchilada. If anything that was Reagan. He was the one who initiated this economic trend.

[Kolesar]

77. I'd like to know who the author is, but I don't want them to have a click to show their advertisers.

eom

[progressoid]

205. Lynn Parramore

Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet senior editor. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of 'Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture.' She received her Ph.d in English and Cultural Theory from NYU, where she has taught essay writing and semiotics. She is the Director of AlterNet's New Economic Dialogue Project. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore

[liberal_at_heart]

71. I like that picture. Very illustrative of today's American 1%.

[Brigid]

198. Have you ever seen the HBO miniseries "John Adams?"

When he arrived in Paris to work with Ben Franklin to persuade the France to support the revolution, he was absolutely appalled when he got his first good look at the aristocracy: frivolous, extravagant, decadent, arrogant, and completely clueless. They looked exactly like the guy in the picture; in fact, I think that may be where it came from. All I could think was, "No wonder Adams couldn't stand them, and no winder the French people themselves were soon going to revolt themselves."

[Hutzpa]

72. A very poor attempt to blame Obama

why not blame the jerk-asses in Congress?

[mick063]

100. Why does the President feel compelled to compromise the working man to appease "jerk-asses"?

Because he is in the economic bed with them. That's why.

The current Democratic leadership will hop into bed with anybody if the money is right.

[Hutzpa]

106. You see it's always easier to point finger

at the figure head because they are an easier target, since I know the president can hardly make
sweeping changes without the support of Congress I generate my anger and energy towards
Congress instead of the president. Maybe some of us needs to do just that.

Congress are the ones holding the power hence it is important to ensure the right people get into
Congress. I also understand the obstacles involved when it comes to nominating candidates as
there are a lot of organised criminals passing for distinguished gentlemen these days whom are
also interested in achieving the opposite of what we as people want.

[mick063]

154. I find it easy to point the finger because the President only has spine for bad policy.

Of course he can't make sweeping change, except for sweeping change that hurts the working man. TPP, NSA, Chained CPI, Goldman Sachs cabinet....all issues the President lobbies for heavily.

The point isn't about changes he can make that I approve of. The point is about changes he can make that I disapprove of.

He is spineless in the cause of the working man.

Spineless.

[ocpagu]

81. Brioches, anyone?

[bvar22]

90. Well, if he had fought near as hard for the Working Class & Poor...

..as he did to get a New WAR started,
maybe things would be different?

[indepat]

93. Not by accident, but by design with the three major branches of government in cahoots with big

bidness: for the bidness of 'Merika is bidness and we don't need no freakin' social safety net.

[bluestate10]

102. Why don't you and the article writer point out the historical obstructionism of

republicans? President Obama is a President, not a dictator. The President is constitutionally limited in what he can do to reduce wealth inequity. Congress, in particular the republican US House, must do their jobs. Republican state legislatures and Governors must stop attacking public workers and poor people. I am going to Unrec your post for it's fundamental untruthfulness.

[xchrom]

113. this president could do 1 simple, LITTLE thing he hasn't done

require contractors with minimum wage employees raise those wages to living wage standards.

a simple executive order would do that.

it would affect -- something like 2 million workers.

[Progressive dog]

207. No he can't, government contract wages are set by law(s)

The standard is prevailing wage and benefits for both construction contracts and services. The President of the USA is not a dictator and the Federal budget is not his piggy bank, he does not and should not have power to unilaterally set wage rates for government contracts.

[macspanicattack]

107. Think I found original post of this story...

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/obombers-legacy-could-be-an-america-of-aristocrats-and-peons-shocking-new-research-reveals/

Yea...Not Obama bashing at all......

[Autumn]

110. Looks like your site got it from AlterNet and tweaked the headline.

Click on read more . What else would one expect from an icke

[NealK]

161. Nice try.

Better luck next time.

[macspanicattack]

185. Sorry...Didnt see the time stamp.

But I'm still very uneasy with posts that are ammo for the right-wing nut-jobs like Icke. And I have seen more positive actions from this president in his 5 years in office than from any of the other presidents in my lifetime.... And that's Kennedy forward. And he still has 3 more years to go.
I think this fact really isnt being factored in to any argument. A lot can happen good or, yes bad in 3 years.

Sometimes I can be a stubborn die-hard optimist. Not a maniacally depressed robot as from hitchhikers guide. I don't rant doom and gloom when I'm standing in a rainbow. I take the positive with the hope that more positive is in the future.

[Phlem]

120. Slopping through the drool in this thread,

it's dawned on me that not only does BO have the Obstructionist congress excuse to fall back on, but whole lot of people making more up for him.

Awesome post xchrom.

-p

[grahamhgreen]

153. The war with Syria will solve these problems and more.

[seabeckind]

173. And go figure...

those mean old gop obstructionists are forcing Obama to appoint Jeffrey Zients (a Bain graduate) as his economic advisor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014593956

And he has such wonderful credentials, too" "...acting budget director under Obama as well as the government's chief performance officer..."

so when we complain about the spending priorities of the admin...guess who you call?

and when there're problems with the contractor performance at NSA,VA, Pentagon, NNSA, FDA, etc...guess who you call?

And now...to as a fitting punishment...tada! Economic advisor.

Goes along quite well with choosing a leading outsourcer, offshore guy to head the jobs council (Immelt)

And outspoken anti-social program politicians to help him figure out what needs to be cut for the deficit.

And all cause of those meanie obstructionists.

Bullshit. He owns this.

[madrchsod]

179. without the majority in the house and a 51 votes majority in senate there is little that he can do.

i wonder what this country would be like under johnnie and sarah or mittens and eddie munster.

[lumpy]

186. I wonder what this country would be like if they would spend more time thinking about issues

using their own brains instead of some the brains of someone else.

[macspanicattack]

187. The Teapublicans are hoping

that the Democrats will split their votes or even not vote in 2016. You can be sure this site is watched closely and some posts bring a tear of joy to their eyes.

My greatest fear is that by feuding amongst ourselves, we will hand the reigns of power over to literal madmen! Think Bush X 100!

[liberal_at_heart]

189. yes, if I don't vote democrat I am sure I will blamed for the loss. I don't give a shit.

I will vote my conscience.

[macspanicattack]

192. Conscience worked well for Bush...

Knew a lot of now Democrats that voted for Nader.

But be true to yourself. But dont complain if we end up with ... well...You remember...

And the world is made up of people who dont give a shit.... Thats why we are where we are....

[macspanicattack]

193. Come on everyone....

Lets all raise our glasses to those brave souls out there in DU land who bravely admit THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT!



It takes courage and personal sacrifice to not give a shit. It takes a special kind of 'gene se qua ' not to give a shit. Great thinkers and doers in history didn't give a shit! Who they were I'm not sure...I don't give a shit!

So again...A toast to those who..... Oh shit....who cares!

[liberal_at_heart]

195. My son already is in hell. It's called Race to the Top.

Your threats of a worse tomorrow don't scare me. We are already there. 1 in 5 Americans can't put food on the table. The WH refused labor's request for healthcare premium subsidies. The Monsanto Protection Act passes Congress. TPP will probably be fast tracked and approved. Wages keep going down. Prices on rent, groceries, and education keep going through the roof. CEOs earn 400 times more than average workers. We are in hell. We are in corporate hell.

[macspanicattack]

197. Sorry for your personal probs that have made you bitter.

I had a long response written out for you...But your just not worth it. You've given up on all the positive and have taken the doom and gloom highway with a pit-stop at 'Hate Obama Land'!


I don't need that to read this when I'm on DU looking fore posts with actual advice and suggestions for change.

People who bring me down...Ignore function.

[liberal_at_heart]

203. fine with me. I have plenty Obama cheerleaders on ignore.

[blue14u]

235. There is no argument

for that statement.. I do hold the President accountable for

many opportunities he has let go to far to the RW... imo.

There is no question in my head I would do it all over again

(to elect him), over those boneheads you mentioned. I was so

scared we were doomed if "they" had won... Now we are just doomed in a different way..

sigh :/


i wonder what this country would be like under johnnie and sarah or mittens and eddie munster.... madrchsod

[Spitfire of ATJ]

191. This is what happens when you ask the "best minds" in DC what to do....

....and they're all thinking "Wall Street" first.

[libdude]

199. It is about

President Obama's legacy and the only certainty is that he will have one. It will depend on who is writing that legacy about him and will it be viewed objectively or subjectively, or a mixture. From reading the postings, it seems that evaluation has already started.
I believe that Obama has missed many good opportunities to be that change that he presented himself as the peoples advocate for and for me, I view that as a great loss of opportunity to set the rules of politics to the left, not that that was not done on social issues, as someone posted, but on the economic issues. For a historic example, FDR, recognized the pressing economic inequalities in America and made those his priorities pushing legislation to ameliorate those inequalities.
As to Obama's approach, he did the identifying, but his efforts to address those issues either being reduced to speeches or photo ops, or to aiming the achievement mark very low.
I suppose that old question that someone once posed, I will paraphrase, Are you better off, is your community, state, country better off as a result of Barack Obama being President?

[woo me with science]

200. K&R The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a coporate agenda,

all the lies and attempts at denial notwithstanding.

It will happen with the next corporate Democrat, too. It's a systemic problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395

[mzmolly]

208. It's Bush's legacy.

eom

[RetroLounge]

210. kick

RL

[NYC_SKP]

215. Meanwhile, Congress remains blameless.

Sorry, xchrom, but Fuck that shit.

[liberal_at_heart]

222. There are dozens of threads criticizing Congress as well. Look at the threads that talk about how

Congress is passing the Monsanto Protection Act or how they are expected to approve the TPP. The threads criticizing Congress for not passing universal background gun checks after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Not to mention the fact that Congress has a historically low approval rating. There is plenty of blame to go around but Obama doesn't escape blame either.

[Quantess]

230. Obama has been in office 6 and a half years, now.

The excuses are thin.