General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat the hell is Barack Obama's presidency for?
He had been a hapless vice-president; now he had to both personify and project the transition from bereavement to business as usual. In the midst of the cold war, with Vietnam brewing, the Kennedy administration had been trying to get civil rights legislation and tax cuts through Congress. There was plenty of business to attend to. Johnson's advisers were keen that he introduced himself to the nation as a president who could get things done.
For that reason, writes Caro, they implored him not to push for civil rights in this first speech, since it had no chance of passing. "The presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn't to expend it on this," said "one of the wise, practical people around the table". Johnson, who sat in silence at the table as his aides debated, interjected: "Well, what the hell's the presidency for?"
<snip>
Barack Obama has now been in power for longer than Johnson was, and the question remains: "What the hell's his presidency for?"
<snip>
Interesting piece: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/what-is-barack-obama-presidency-for
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
temporary311
(956 posts)to speaking engagements that pay several hundred thousand a pop, if not more. Same seems to go for some other prominent positions in government. Can't risk doing anything which might jeopardize that.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)No president since Kennedy has been too keen to on making the "wrong" choice.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Who would you rather see give a speech? Nixon or Ford?
LonePirate
(13,473 posts)Yes, they may have regained the House but there is no one who believes they are a viable national party now and their grip on Congress has a shelf life of only a few more years, at best.
spin
(17,493 posts)The Republicans did:
The Democratic Party is Dead
by Robert B. Reich
Published on Sunday, March 11, 2001 in the Washington Post
If I were a political consumer, I would -- with apologies to the late Monty Python parrot -- be going back to the store right about now and registering a complaint: "This political party -- the Democratic Party. It's dead."
"No, no, no no," he replies, "it's just resting."
But I know a dead party when I see one, and I'm looking at a dead party right now. Just consider the past eight years: lost the presidency, both houses of Congress, almost all its majorities in state legislatures, most governorships. Will lose additional House seats in the next redistricting. Most of the current justices of the Supreme Court appointed by Republicans, also most current federal judges. And the interminable Bill Clinton scandals. The Democratic Party is stone dead. Dead as a doornail.
***snip***
Look, the only reason the Democratic Party is sitting upright is that it's been nailed there, like the Python parrot. Who speaks for the Democrats? Clinton is utterly disgraced. Gore ran a lousy campaign. Terry McAuliffe heads the Democratic National Committee only because he raised a ton of money for Clinton.
***snip***
This party is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is an ex-party!
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0311-01.htm
For a short time the Republicans were indeed riding high in the saddle. Perhaps their overconfidence led to their downfall. They may once again be in control if they can ever find some competent leadership and a candidate for President that is charismatic and inspirational (unlike John McCain and Mitt Romney). Of course they also have to address the Tea Party problem that is tearing their party apart.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)It's been replaced by a Zombie, Third Way, Wholly-Owned Corporate Subsidiary.
spin
(17,493 posts)and what they promise, nothing changes.
The rich get richer and the middle class continues to be threatened with extinction.
Boomerproud
(8,013 posts)The Democrats, I'm loathed to say, are nothing. FDR, Kennedy, Truman, Johnson are spinning in their graves. Pubbies are eating themselves alive due to their ego and greediness.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Obama's existence may contribute to the frenzy, but if the GOP had their shit together, it wouldn't matter at all who the Democratic President was: the GOP would roll over him/her like an steam roller. As they have in the past.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 10:49 PM - Edit history (1)
including an acquaintance of mine who's a reasonably high-ranking Republican.
The Republicans were down on the canvas on 1/20/2009... widely hated. Obama could have finished them off, instead he asked them over for beer, and praised their "serious" proposals.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
GOTV
(3,759 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Jesus H. Christ. Ted Cruz is much more of a threat to them than Obama.
GOTV
(3,759 posts)... what kind of demise is that?
LonePirate
(13,473 posts)There is still some life left in the patient even if its prospects for life/success in 10-20 years are largely non-existent.
Besides, the 2014 Senate races are largely normalizing events following the outsized Dem gains in 2008 and a sixth year incumbent. In 2016, the Senate will course correct again to recover from the Repubs' outsized gains in 2010. These cycles still occur even though the trend lines continue to suggest they will occur with decreased frequency in the future as the Repubs move ever closer to their demographic flatlining.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)...then I'll agree with you that this is the beginning of the party's demise.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the first time?
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...I told you before about posting inconvenient facts. What did we say? It's wrong to say things that upset peoples false narratives, remember?
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)it goes up every year, but this is record, but the fact that there is no relief for middle class is more than just disappointing - that's $1200 I am not going to spend supporting local business.
PLUS there are new "lifestyle" premiums - they can charge you $800 a year more if you have BMI out of range.
Oh, and benefits went down and they are now WAY more restrictive on which Dr. I can see and which drugs I can get.
Of course there are the layoffs to India every quarter and the freeze on raises - adjusted salary is same as it was in mid-1970s.
Democratic party is doing a shitty job reaching the middle class, we are paying for both rich and poor.
For those who can get health care now, I am happy.
When will the middle class get some representation? Many of us voted for Obama - or do we not matter and you'd like us to vote for someone else?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)he would have? He at least made a start and as for your "corporate plan" they bear their share of the problems by not support healthcare reform and helping it work better for all.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)I voted for Obama because of his early talk about single payer and all options on table. I'm not going to assume he "could" have done anything because he has subsequently shown he is willing to take the most politically convenient path and claim success.
I assure you, most smart non-health related corporations were in favor of health reform. It is a major drain on profits and they would be very happy to offload it. This is especially true in high tech and with small businesses and younger employees. Old conservative dinosaurs just watch fox news and that's all they know.
The point is, the middle class is breaking down. It really, really is. And when that happens, there really is no opportunity for anyone to "work hard" and get ahead - some believe we are already there and I might just agree with that.
Our wage structure has barely moved since mid 1970s. meanwhile executive pay is up 300% or more in adjusted dollars.
It is crushing the economy - sucking dollars from workers and sending them to the offshore accounts of the ultrarich.
Hekate
(91,293 posts)pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)What should I have done, not taken it? You didn't explain why "my" plan is the problem?
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)Insurance companies bear their share of the problems by not support healthcare reform and helping it work better for all.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)and then letting insurance companies write health care policy.
Classic 3rd way pay-to-play.
Then the congressional aides who write the plans leave the next day and go work for insurance companies and Phrma.
Furthermore, if I left my company plan, under ACA I would pay $17,000 out of pocket for a F4 plan.
Neither my job nor my corporate plan (directly or indirectly) caused that problem. That outcome was pure politics.
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)Now I can not be dropped for having a health issue which is also wonderful.
I really do not like the legalized gambling of insurance companies, resent the increasing huge salaries of the uppers in them, wish we had a different health care thing but this is better than it was and I blame the Party of No for blocking what I wanted and giving too much power to ins companies.
ETA to ask which "politicians taking massive cash from insurance companies and then letting insurance companies write health care policy" do you mean? President Obama, Democrats en masse or the Party of No?
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)and the eroding economic footing of the middle class is the direct result. It's like global warming - impossible to ignore the historical data and too many Democrats don't want to acknowledge an inconvenient truth, believing instead we should blindly accept the status quo when we should be challenging leadership to do better.
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)See, the president is God, and if you say otherwise you're a racist. The fact that he signed over 600 billion health care dollars per year to Big Insurance does not count.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)left behind when Republicans jumped off the deep end. The adjusted median wage for Americans hasn't changed since 1970s. And that doesn't account for inflation in education, healthcare, housing, etc There are more inconvenient truths about our current economic recovery and we need action.
People here seem to think that the stock market is the final indicator of quality of life in America, unwilling to consider that half the nation doesn't own a share of single stock. Most have only a few months of savings.
The goddamned idea that rich people deserve to travel as first class citizens continues to corrupt the thinking in both parties. Now Democrats are about to pile it on with TPP.
It's only getting worse with income disparity approaching 3rd world levels.
Fucking stock market. Goldman is just waiting for everyone to buy so they can dump another shit pile. Then, leadership in both parties will cry about having to save rich people for the good of the country.
Now we are punishing kids in school with outrageous testing programs and 10 yr olds are up every night until 1AM - but that job they hope to get is going to India.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But no in reality our wage structure has moved down sense the 70 when you look at the fact that one working person in a middle class job could support a family, buy a house and maybe a new car once in a while...and now it takes at least two workers to do that...both parents have to work to make it for most people in this country.
It is not just about dollars earned but what you can afford...and many people cannot afford to buy a house, so they are forced to rent from someone who bought us houses from people who were foreclosed on and pay very high rent just to have a place to live.
And that is the true picture of our declining middle class.
spin
(17,493 posts)had he actually showed some leadership skills and also used his bully pulpit and his tremendous popularity to force true healthcare reform through.
Instead he largely left the healthcare revamp up to congress. Consequently we didn't get the world class healthcare system I hoped for but instead a compromise that may actually be more expensive for the average consumer than what it replaced. The rollout proved to be a total fiasco and it seems apparent that much work still needs to be accomplished before Americans have a healthcare system they can be proud of.
My main criticism of Obama at this point in his presidency is that while he can deliver an eloquent speech full of visionary ideas, he has little comprehension on how to bend congress to his will. Admittedly doing so is a lot like herding cats, but a great leader finds a way to accomplish his goals and overcome his opposition.
I still have hopes that Obama will find a way to insure his legacy as one of our nation's greatest presidents but time is beginning to run out.
God forbid that the Republicans will maintain their control of the House and increase the number of seats they hold in the Senate at the midterm elections. If that happens, I fear Obama will be a "lame duck" president. I also fear that if Obama overuses his pen and his phone to bypass congress, he will run into problems with the Supreme Court.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)Middle class is unconvinced about Obama, they look at ACA as more welfare for the poor AND rich with no relief for their own falling standard of living. They sympathize with him, but they are still waiting for relief and this spying shit doesn't help.
On other hand, 95% of nation never seems to get tired fighting the wars and paying the bills for the other 5%. This seems to be something both parties take advantage of.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
spin
(17,493 posts)we have largely destroyed and turn them into democracies.
We are extremely good at destroying things but suck at rebuilding therefore we unnecessarily lose lives and suffer injuries to our military forces. The cost of the rebuilding is enormous and hampers our nation's efforts to rebuild our own infrastructure and also to finance much needed programs that would benefit all of our citizens.
I suggest that we only engage in warfare when absolutely necessary and leave once we have defeated our opponent. (as when a nation actually attacks us). Let them finance their own rebuilding. If a terrorist group exists inside a nation and attacks us. we could tell the government that they can either assist us in eliminating the threat or face our military if they refuse. It's their choice.
We should never engage in warfare to benefit any corporations and we should never try to influence a nation though military force to adapt our form of government. I feel the best way to promote democracy is to be a outstanding example of how well it can work and how fair it can be.
Of course the world would hate us, but it already does. After one or two short wars, we might get a lot more respect. We would also save a lot of money that we can better use to improve our nation.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)It is clear our objective in Afghanistan was met in after a few months of bombing them back to stone age (arguably not hard to do to a country basically unchanged from stone age).
Anything after that was pure hatred, blood lust and foolish pursuit of Iraqi oil.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Which more or less led directly to WWII.
spin
(17,493 posts)However a lot of different factors led to WWII.
President Woodrow Wilson had a 14 point plan for Germany's Surrender which the German people liked. Unfortunately the Treaty of Versailles was far more punitive.
The treaty created bitter resentment towards the victors of World War I, who had promised the people of Germany that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points would be a guideline for peace; however, the US played a minor role in World War I and Wilson could not convince the Allies to agree to adopt his Fourteen Points. Many Germans felt that the German government had agreed to an armistice based on this understanding, while others felt that the German Revolution of 1918–1919 had been orchestrated by the "November criminals" who later assumed office in the new Weimar Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II#Problems_with_the_Treaty_of_Versailles
After WWII our nation led the effort to rebuild our enemies with programs like the Marshall Plan and the results were excellent. However, it could be argued that we did so to prevent the spread of the Soviet Union.
In my opinion it also led to the "Mouse the Roared" approach that I fear some nations use against us.
The Mouse That Roared
***snip***
The tiny (three miles by five miles) European Duchy of Grand Fenwick, supposedly located in the Alps between Switzerland and France, proudly retains a pre-industrial economy, dependent almost entirely on making Pinot Grand Fenwick wine. However, an American winery makes a knockoff version, "Pinot Grand Enwick", putting the country on the verge of bankruptcy.
The prime minister decides that their only course of action is to declare war on the United States. Expecting a quick and total defeat (since their standing army is tiny and equipped with bows and arrows), the country confidently expects to rebuild itself through the generous largesse that the United States bestows on all its vanquished enemies (as it did for Germany through the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared
So there has to be a balancing act. Admittedly one reason we stayed and rebuilt Iraq was to keep Iran from filling the power vacuum.
Perhaps the best we can do is as little as possible and absolutely necessary and then get the hell out.
No, I don't think Obama would have gotten single payer universal health insurance passed even if he thought he could have.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)I know because I know what my colleagues are paying in other companies. My deductible went up $500 as well. That's easy to forget.
BTW - I know of one tech company that is requiring employees to wear pedometers and you record miles per day on website (which is shared with unknown 3rd parties).
Even on ACA if I go independent, it is about $17,000 for my family of 4.
So, no relief for middle class outside bracket for ACA - and corporations are allowed to issue restrictive policies with "lifesytle" premiums.
Don't get me wrong, for the poor, ACA is needed relief. I just don't understand why middle class was thrown under the bus. A lot of us voted for the man.
I realize there are some who believe I should be grateful to pay such inflated charges but it angers me that there is no plan for price relief as Health Care, inc keeps ratcheting up the prices and squeezing more and more.
Raises and vacations are becoming thing of past in my business, 10 hrs in office, another 3 at home in evenings - how much more are we expected to give to help both rich and poor?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to know others have new options too.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The ACA locks in 800 billion in profits for Big Insurance, every year, legally. They'll probably steal a similar amount. But 3 million more people got private insurance, leaving only 47 million without. Yippee.
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)
Tanuki
(14,935 posts)pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)Total cost of about $17K for fam. I'm outside earning limits.
What is especially troubling are the arbitrary penalties for lifestyle choices - plus you have to submit to blood draws and they track your info on web site shared with "partners" which means everyone in world.
You have to understand there are middle class people who were opposed to health plan because they assumed they would be excluded and they were right. So, I don't understand the politics here.
The reality is ACA is a good deal for many people, but not for anyone just over the bracket and that is still many people.
Do I want to pay for my Children's plan until they are 26? No. I'd rather no they can make it on their own. It is absurd to think this is the new normal and i don't understand why Democrats are high fiving over it like its done and over.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)My brother in law's law firm is saving over $20,000 in premiums with the ACA. How is yours getting so screwed over?
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)they pass on rising costs directly to employees. Other companies I am aware of are forcing employees to wear pedometers to track miles walked or risk paying more for premiums.
I don't see how ACA would help your law firm given wages of lawyers. Probably not a good example unless you are talking about a small law firm with a bunch of clerical/paralegal staff.
For anyone outside the income bracket, ACA is as good as almost nothing. However, if my income drops to zero because of more and more jobs to India and China it will be better than nothing at all.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)6 lawyers, a couple of paralegals and support staff - probably 30 employees. He was expecting to get screwed with the ACA and was very pleasantly surprised. So was my retired friend with a platinum plan.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)banks, law firms, title work, etc etc. All being shipped overseas for pennies on the dollar.
As wages continue to decline in US, and wealth continues to get concentrated into hands of tiny minority, Obamacare will become more and more important.
Also, some big HR firms like Hewitt asked Obama to kill anything resembling single payer because if health care became affordable many people (like me) would quit and go back to small business.
Health care policy is killing innovation, except in those areas that increase profits for health care companies (like pressuring employees to wear pedometers).
Meanwhile the middle class will continue to help the poor and unjustly reward the rich with our tax dollars. We are like a feed crop for both political parties.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
gulliver
(13,224 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Really took the cake for me. We were sold a bill of goods when he said "NO!" to any stimulus in 2009.
When are you going to start presidentin' man?
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)BFD. And the Repukes are going to gain seats in the House and Senate next year.
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You deftly dodged the rest of my put-down of your ridiculous post though. Well played
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that marriage equality couldn't be stopped. Credit the many LGBTQ activists for that victory, not the President.
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'm just noting he was pretty late to the party, and it's not accurate to portray the President as a driving force on the issue.
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)okaawhatever
(9,479 posts)change, bailing out the auto industry and saving countless jobs. Turning around an economy that was like the Titanic. Increasing jobs, increasing exports, increasing minimum wage for federal workers and hopefully for the entire nation.
Taking the student loan program away from the banks and allowing the money to be reinvested in education. Pretty close to closing guantanimo. Massive increases in alternative energy by the military. Increased fuel efficiency standards as part of the automaker bailout. Increasing taxes on the upper incomes, increasing the tax on capital gains. Adding a medicare tax to capital gains and adding a medicare tax that doesn't have a cap to help pay for the ACA.
Killed DADT, removed most restrictions that held women back in the military. Ended the Iraq war and only peace keeping level forces in Afghanistan. Negotiated a removal of chemical weapons from Syria without military intervention.
The parts of his stimulus that included loans for alternative energy underwrote the Tesla car project. That car will likely be around for a while.
Improved the perception of the United States in the rest of the world. The few countries who now view us less favorably (Pakistan) never had us above 20% in favorability in the first place, and the increase in approval from the rest of the world is considerable.
I could go on......
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Corporatist agenda at every opportunity.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)Democratic Party as a corporation - their first priority is to stay in business provide a return for investors and pay salaries for their executive staff. Now you might think those investors are voters. But the investors are actually super rich corporations and their proxies who fund campaigns.
Of course corporations have always been an influence, but Citizens United sealed the deal.
For the most part Wall Street is doing record business - bailouts, amnesty, Monsanto protection, neutered FDA and EPA.
So they have little to complain about. Note that only a minority of people actually have a stock portfolio worth more than a few thousand dollars (at best).
The theory goes back to "what's good for GM is good for America" - of course that is a lie - it wasn't good for America when they offshored the auto business and needed bailout because their cost cutting and low wages built shitty cars.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Democratic Party as a corporation - their first priority is to stay in business provide a return for investors and pay salaries for their executive staff."
...test that theory.
SEC Will Require Companies To Report CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023694931
Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305
NLRB to Prosecute Wal-Mart For Violating Workers’ Rights (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024053560
Everyone assumed the banks would beat financial reform. They didn't
BY MIKE KONCZAL
2013 was a not-awful year for financial reform. If you aren’t terrified of jinxing even the smallest good news, you might even say it was pretty good. The multi-year implementation of 2010’s Dodd-Frank bill made several final advancements this year, and compared to where people thought we’d be a year ago, we are in a pretty solid place...nobody thought that banks would face tougher holding requirements for capital, that regulations of the financial derivatives markets would advance, or that the final Volcker would be a pretty good start instead of an incoherent mess. Yet that is what appears to have happened in 2013. So what caused it? And how it might apply to future political goals?
The successes of 2013 were partially driven by the failures of Wall Street in 2012. The multi-billion dollar trading losses from JPMorgan Chase known as the “London Whale” changed the dynamics for financial reform in a way that took a year to realize. JPMorgan had been leading the charge against reform, arguing that the effort was over-harsh and destructive, and that Wall Street had already cleaned up its act on its own. Indeed, the big concern in 2012 was that Wall Street would convince enough moderate Democrats that Dodd-Frank had gone too far in certain respects, and that Congress would stop regulatory action before it was even completed. This fell apart right alongside the multi-billion dollar losses in JPMorgan’s position...JPMorgan’s London Whale trades also drew clear lines on whether reform would work. In 2012, one of the major battles had been over how aggressively to make foreign affiliates of U.S. banks follow U.S. rules. The London Whale helped the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler, push for aggressive implementation over European criticism; he argued that the London Whale was a continuation of the supposedly bygone practices that led to the financial crisis. JPMorgan’s failure also gave new energy to, and a clear target for, the stalled Volcker Rule, which was designed to split hedge funds from banks.
Financial reform benefitted as well from engaged activism that proposed tougher reforms, which pressured regulators to hit the mark and kept the financial industry on the defensive. This is clearest in the case of capital requirements, which require banks to hold a set percentage of their assets and which the finance industry fights consistently. To many people’s surprise, the U.S. ended up with tougher capital requirements than people anticipated, with more to come next year. Ideally we’d see double-digit capital requirements with extra requirements for larger firms that fund themselves with panic-prone funding. Regulators didn’t get there on the first try, but still came in stronger than originally proposed. And they are making stronger steps on the second part.
<...>
Senators Elizabeth Warren and John McCain also pushed a new version Glass-Steagall earlier this year. It also didn’t gain much support, but still put some steel in the spines of the Volcker Rule’s authors, as Glass-Steagall was being proposed by many as an alternative reform if the Volcker Rule failed.
- more -
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116064/2013-financial-reform-went-way-better-anyone-expected
Obama pushes to limit federal spending on corporate executive pay
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022927167
By Heather C. McGhee and Amy Traub
When it comes to boosting economic opportunity, President Obama isn’t going to wait for Congress anymore...the President made a powerful statement about employers’ obligation to reward work -- starting with his own obligation as the executive in charge of millions of federal contracts.
In a study we released last May, Demos found that nearly two million private sector employees paid with federal tax dollars through contracts, loans, grants, leases and health spending, earn wages too low to support a family. These are people working on behalf of America, doing jobs that we have decided are worthy of public funds—yet they’re being treated in a very un-American way. That’s why federal workers have been walking off the job for the last year...Now the President has taken a major step to lift up hundreds of thousands of those workers. In the process, the president will help families work their way up out of poverty and give new momentum to efforts to raise the minimum wage for everyone laboring too hard for too little in today’s low-pay economy.
The truth is that preferring contractors who pay workers at least $10.10 an hour will have benefits far beyond the workers themselves and their families. When our tax dollars subsidize and promote the creation of low-wage jobs rather than positions that enable workers to afford the necessities of life, there is a ripple effect throughout the economy: poorly-paid workers have less to spend in their communities, and businesses facing less consumer demand in turn hire fewer workers, stunting economic recovery. Low-paid workers also contribute less in taxes and more often need public benefits to provide for their families....From the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act onward, the idea that the federal government should be a model employer – and that employees working on behalf of the public should have strong workplace protections – has an extensive history in our country. The use of executive orders to improve the employment practices of companies granted federal contracts also has a long precedent. Beginning in 1941, successive presidents from both parties signed executive orders aimed at preventing employment discrimination by federal contractors. President Obama’s order raising wages for companies that do business with the federal government follows this successful precedent.
If the cost of federal contracts is a concern, the spotlight should be not on the employees who will finally see a raise to $10.10 an hour, but rather on the over $21 billion a year the government spends on the pay of their bosses, the top executives at contracting firms. After Demos put a number on this subsidy of executive excess in a September report, Congress included a lower maximum pay reimbursement for contractors in its December budget deal. But even the lower cap still provides executives a roughly $234.00 an hour subsidy. When you consider that our current contracting system fuels inequality through both lavish compensation for CEOs and poverty wages for front-line workers, it becomes clear where cost-cutting efforts should be focused.
- more -
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/196837-executive-order-on-federal-contracting-means-real-action
BOOM: Obama signs order to raise minimum wage for federal contractors...disabled workers included!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024489919
sheshe2
(84,227 posts)You go girl!
Take down~ 
Touchdown, you scored!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024547983#post10
Gary Younge is a tool. One almost gets the feeling that these anti-Obama posts are attempts to distract from the fact that he's moving ahead with getting some significant things done.
Health care is working. Dodd-Frank is being strengthened. The EPA is on the move, and he's putting his pen to use.
Geithner, Somers, DUNCAN, TPP, rejecting Warren for the consumer post the list can go on.
And how many wall streeters went to jail?
To claim a "change" then there should be.
Oh, and the beat goes on...http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024552598
Yeah, he did some, but not nearly enough.
Don't settle for half, dang it, lets keep his feet to the fire.
Precious little of that around here, what with the screaming
if someone DARES to question...pretty progressive, no?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Geithner, Somers, DUNCAN, TPP, rejecting Warren for the consumer post the list can go on.
And how many wall streeters went to jail? "
...thanks for that nonsense.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf
And what does a House Committee have to do with the President?
DiverDave
(4,896 posts)no changing your mind.
elect Hillary, she will keep the gravy train rolling.
oh and bye, I wont try and change any more mindless minds.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)troll, DU would have made me wealthy.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)Do you think it is anti-Obama to imagine that the Democratic Party could be doing much, much better than it is doing?
Or do your salary and benefits and entitlements make you compulsively resist any call for change? Do you believe the establishment and status quo is good enough?
You seem very conservative for a Democrat.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You are calling someone a tool?"
...I am.
Or do your salary and benefits and entitlements make you compulsively resist any call for change? Do you believe the establishment and status quo is good enough?
You seem very conservative for a Democrat.
Are you one?
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)nothing to hide from, Democratic Party is very conservative these days. Even many "reforms" are conservative with health reform modeled after Romney's plan. So it isn't surprising that conservatives are in Dem Party.
However, try to tolerate differences of opinion or style. just because you are conservative doesn't mean war with anyone who expects more from a party supposedly in opposition to the Republicans.
No need to get defensive if someone doesn't think the Dem Party is doing enough. Why would fight against progress?
And as for tools, there is nothing more dangerous to yourself than the dull blade you are waving around.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Your positions are very conservative...nothing to hide from, Democratic Party is very conservative these days. Even many 'reforms' are conservative with health reform modeled after Romney's plan. So it isn't surprising that conservatives are in Dem Party."
...I see that you're jumping right in with uninformed talking points. I mean, Romney loves Obamacare as much as he loved the MA health care law.
LOL!
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)“Governor Romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis – this was a bipartisan idea, in fact it’s a Republican idea and Governor Romney at the beginning of this debate wrote and said what we did in Massachusetts could be a model for the inauguration and I agree that the Democrat legislators in Massachusetts might have given some advice to Republicans in Congress about how to cooperate but the fact of the matter is we used the same advisers and they say it’s the same plan.”
It's a bit of a trick question. Here's the answer:
http://l.barackobama.com/press/release/president-obama-romneycare-was-the-model-for-obamacare/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Guess who said this? '...in fact it’s a Republican idea and Governor Romney at the beginning...'"
Ooh, Obama said something political. LOL!
"Guess who" did this:
On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.[19] He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[20] He vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[21] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation
By The Republican Newsroom
This story from The Republican’s archive is part of our look back at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s years in Massachusetts politics: as Senate candidate, gubernatorial candidate and governor. It was published on April 26, 2006.
By The Associated Press
BOSTON — Sending a sharp rebuke to Gov. W. Mitt Romney, House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly yesterday to overturn his vetoes to the state's landmark health-care law, including the controversial $295 fee on businesses that don't offer insurance.
The predominantly Democratic House broke from debate of the state budget to begin the override process, first voting to restore a portion of the law guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients.
The House overrides had been expected, and Senate President Robert Travaglini said yesterday that he expects the Senate will override all eight of Romney's vetoes. The Republican governor's spokesman said the differences were not essential to the larger goal of health care coverage.
- more -
http://www.masslive.com/mitt-romney-archive/index.ssf/2012/04/gov_mitt_romney_health_care_ve.html
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)By the same logic, I can say Obama killed single payer so he is also against health care reform.
But the fact remains, he gave credit to the Republicans and specifically called out Romney for credit.
So, he either lied about it or he didn't.
I get why you might want to distance yourself from Republicans, but why deny the fact that ACA is vastly more similar to the MA plan than it is different.
As for dental - have you been following the nightmare people are having getting dental coverage under ACA?
Why was that left out?
That is more than a disappointment - it should cause Democrats to demand that the massive loop hole be fixed.
I understand as a conservative you might think that lack of dental care is OK, but it really is important for kids especially.
Interesting, didn't think I would find such a conversation on a Democratic website.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)sheshe2
(84,227 posts)
Ron Green
(9,825 posts)for the mouth-breathers is no mean feat.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I can't believe you're making that comparison here. What the hell was LBJ's presidency for? LBJ was reviled by the left and so unpopular he had to withdraw from running for a second term.
Don't you recall the constant chant of those years: Hey, hey, LBJ. How many boys did you kill today?
People on this thread are trying to paint Obama's legacy as consisting of Tim Geithner or Larry Summers. This kind of pettiness in the present and grandiose hagiography of the past is ahistorical and wrong. Frankly, it's laughable. LBJ's legacy was not solely the Civil Rights Act and Obama's legacy will not be some economic cabinet member.
50 years from now, some smartass kid will be asking what the meaning of President X's presidency is. And he will use the Affordable Care Act, gay rights and women's rights, economic stimulus, etc. from the long-ago Obama administration for a comparison of what once was able to be achieved.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Think about the this: "His ascent to power had meaning, but now his interventions are too rare and too piecemeal to constitute a narrative"
...in the context of the Obama administration's recent actions, including his Executive Order raising the minimum wage.
President Obama Announces New Truck Efficiency Standards
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521194
Obama administration issue new banking rules for marijuana businesses
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024501968
US drug policy fuels push for legal pot worldwide
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024511737
Cha
(298,524 posts)ignorant whiny thread about which they know nothing about.
That bullshit will not be tolerated during campaign election time 2014.. so back into the woodwork for them.
"If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I also think rich people should pay higher taxes because they can afford it if anyone can (pretty much by definition), and waging wars for oil is immoral.
It bugs me to no end how some on here outright discount the progress that LGBT rights have made over the last few years. From Seneca Falls, to Selma to Stonewall... BO put it all in perspective during his 2nd innagural.
pa28
(6,145 posts)He talked about being a transformative president yet from day one he's surrounded himself with careful, pragmatic centrists and he's followed their advice.
By paying attention to the president's actions exclusively you start to understand what his presidency is about. It's about a an improved version of the status-quo guided by a capable manager. That's it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)This is some of the silliest nonsense ever posted here.
And that's saying something.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You're being too kind.
EchoV
(8 posts)I think people thought that he would come in and just shake things up and everything would be so stream lined and simple. I was kind of wrapped up in it myself. The truth is you HAVE to work within the system. And I think he has done a wonderful job of that. I think we all thought - he is going to come in and x is going to change and y will be the new way things are done all because we no long had a WASP in charge. I think he has done so many things under the radar so as not to appear as the 'angry black male' that we honestly do not know all he has done. Just my thoughts.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)within the present day piece of shit TPP agreement and, well, spying.
These are not the big bold initiatives we expected regardless of any other consideration.
And they are as big and bold as any in history.
I'll leave health care off the table, but if he held back because of racial appearances as you put it, that is simply disingenuous, and not a politically appropriate compromise. However, I don't believe that is relevant here and I give him credit for not stooping in this regard.
Rather, I see him following a textbook 3rd way path set out before him by old DNC - corporations are at heart of any social policy solution, and military policy follows neo-con playbook.
Hence corporate designed health care + TPP + Monsanto Act and aggressive strategy of spying on citizens via patriot act.
I'm worried that Democrats are too wrapped up with fringe issues - of course gay marriage is important, but if you can't earn enough to raise a family within that marriage, then what?
In other words, we don't seem to be able to focus on more than one issue at a time.
I am hoping gay rights advocates would join fight for economic justice as vigorously as fight for marriage rights once they experience total costs of raising kids - food, medical, school, clothes, etc on an adjusted median wage unchanged for decades.
Time will tell.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It does not explain his enthusiasm for increased drone killing, prosecuting journalists as criminals, building a wall of secrecy around his Administration and vastly increasing the number of countries in which military operations are underway.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)The same Lyndon Johnson whose presidency was undone by incompetent foreign policy? The same Lyndon Johnson whose legacy, even today, is so muddled and negative that most Americans consider his presidency a failure - despite his domestic agenda? The same Lyndon Johnson who couldn't even run for reelection because most in his party hated him? The same Lyndon Johnson the Kennedys despised? The same Lyndon Johnson who had an opposition party consisting of northeastern liberals? The same Lyndon Johnson who came to power with soaring approval ratings and a nation ready to rally around the legacy of a fallen hero - included in that legacy civil rights?
It's funny this article ignores the most divisive, ugly and bleak period in modern American history (the Vietnam War) while also ignoring the fact Obama's presidency has accomplished a great deal domestically - way more than the last four presidents combined.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Jeb Bush's education plan, reprieve for the banksters and Bush crime family, and other republican schemes. To that end it's been a thundering success.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"To get formerly sane Dems to support union-busting, Heritage Care, torture, KXL, TPP"
...that comment is like the OP piece, say any damn thing.
NLRB to Prosecute Wal-Mart For Violating Workers’ Rights (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024053560
NLRB gives boost to speedier union elections
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024453233
Up in arms over union ‘persuader’ rule
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024492896
The "formerly sane Dems" are the ones blinded by their anti-Obama stance.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rollout
Obama Throws a Gut Punch to the Teachers Unions
Obama’s new chief of staff Jack Lew a ‘union-buster’
...of those are talking about personalities. I mean, what policy is Jack Lew in charge of as COS?
Then from the health care article:
Already, the Laborers’ International Union has established warm relations with one potential GOP presidential candidate, Chris Christie, endorsing his 2013 reelection as New Jersey’s governor. The union gave $300,000 to the Republican Governors Association, now headed by Christie. And there have been preliminary discussions between labor officials and aides to the governor over a possible appearance by Christie at a union convention.
Yeah, thanks for nothing. Ugh!
Politicub
(12,165 posts)I know not everyone gives a hoot about gay rights, or may consider them small, but president Obama and his administration have moved gay rights forward. This has improved the lives of millions of LGBT Americans greatly.
This is not debateable.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because there is no money in it...but it can be used by both parties for political purposes.
And if you are a 1%er then you will be satisfied with the gains made...and so will poor and middle class gay people...but they will suffer just like the rest of us from the policies that do matter to them...but profit if you are in the top of the income bracket.
It is a sucker deal for most people including the non rich gay comunity...they give you the rights you should have had all along in return for the money and policies that make us all poorer...and expect you to be happy with that bone they through you to chew on.
BumRushDaShow
(130,737 posts)as he would have had to discuss the real history of that time versus the youtube video version. 
But I suppose he didn't want to bring it up as it would have invalidated his strawman.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and thus the nation wasn't pro-killing like it is now.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)It doesn't agitate; it doesn't educate; it doesn't organize
rrneck
(17,671 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
Skittles
(153,507 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)dismissive drivel:
Finally, there's healthcare reform. The brouhaha over its botched rollout will scarcely be remembered a few years hence. But with roughly 31 million people set to remain uninsured and little changing for many, its undeniable benefits are not likely to be remembered as transformational. All in all, there's precious little that Obama has done that any of his primary opponents would not have done.
I suppose that "any of his primary opponents" would have been called out for his achievements.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)My feeling is that he somewhat is.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/yes-virginia-the-rich-continue-to-get-richer-the-1-got-121-of-income-gains-since-2009.html
Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1874619
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery
Wealth of Billionaires has Doubled Since 2009
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/11/12/Billionaire-wealth-doubles-since-financial-crisis/5011384268135/?spt=hts&or=12
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024539986
Update May 31, 2013 — This page has been updated to reflect the fact that the EITC changes under ARRA, which were to expire at the end of 2012, were extended through December 2017 by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
Update Oct. 31, 2011 — This page has been updated to reflect the fact that the EITC changes under ARRA, which were to expire at the end of 2010, were extended through December 2012 by the Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2010.
The earned income tax credit is a refundable credit intended to help people who work but earn modest incomes. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides a temporary increase in the EITC for taxpayers with three or more qualifying children. In 2013, the maximum EITC for this new category is $6,044. ARRA also increased the beginning point of the phaseout range for the credit for all married couples filing a joint return, regardless of the number of children.
In 2013, the credit begins to phase out at $22,870 for married taxpayers filing a joint return with children and completely phases out at $43,210 for one child, $48,378 for two children and $51,567 for three or more children. For married taxpayers filing a joint return with no children, the credit begins to phase out at $13,310 and completely phases out at $19,680.
These changes applied to 2009 and 2010 tax returns under ARRA, and were extended by the Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2010 to apply to 2011 and 2012 tax returns. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended these temporary ARRA increases for five years through December 2017.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/ARRA-and-the-Earned-Income-Tax-Credit
Krugman: Obama and the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415
The heatlh care law also raised the payroll tax for high income earners and taxed investment income.
A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.
Additional Medicare Tax
A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)wocaonimabi
(187 posts)Until CU and the Lobbyists are gone the crumbs are the best we are going to get no matter whom is in office.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)That is all.
