General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo I feel betrayed by this President? Yes.
If as so many of his defenders suggest, no budget he sends to this Congress has a chance of being passed, why not stand up for liberal democratic values? It's not as if he's running again. It's not as if his doing so would alienate large segments of the voting public. Social Security is something that there's actually a public consensus on . So too is Medicare.
Yes, he's better than any current republican would be, but he had a huge opportunity to stand up for liberal values and he's blown it. He's also created a hell of situation for dems running in 2014 for the House and Senate.
President Obama could have used his bully pulpit to rally the public around issues of poverty, inequality and corporate malfeasance. He's had no problem throwing trillions at bailouts.
I don't know why he's abandoned core democratic values. I don't know that I even care why. It's enough that he has.
The last time poverty rates in the country were this high, was under LBJ- and he launched the war on poverty. This president has been mute on it.
Not that gun control and expanded pre-school aren't good ideas, but imagine if the President focused as strongly on poverty and inequity as he has on gun control.
It's not just fiscal policy that Obama has disappointed on. Civil liberties, national security, etc.
This article is a couple of years old but even more pertinent now:
The Liberal Critique of Obama: Judging the President by His Own Standards
This ignores the source of the allegedly unreasonable liberal standards: Barack Obama. As I've argued at length, Obama defenders just ignore his broken promises on civil liberties, executive power, and national security. But set that aside, for there is something else that he promised his supporters in order to triumph over Hillary Clinton and John McCain, then totally ignored.
Take a look at some representative Obama quotes from Campaign 2008:
"If we do not change our politics -- if we do not fundamentally change the way Washington works -- then the problems we've been talking about for the last generation will be the same ones that haunt us for generations to come."
"But let me be clear -- this isn't just about ending the failed policies of the Bush years; it's about ending the failed system in Washington that produces those policies. For far too long, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Washington has allowed Wall Street to use lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system and get its way, no matter what it costs ordinary Americans."
<snip>
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/the-liberal-critique-of-obama-judging-the-president-by-his-own-standards/249050/
If you want to call this bashing, fine.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)
eridani
(51,907 posts)Calling people out for being more interested in personalities than in policy is fine. Name calling is not.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Too many are too quick with the alert thing, IMO.
SylviaD
(721 posts)...but I whole heartedly agree with you.
What a disappointment he has been. Just a total disappointment.
I don't get it. I feel betrayed.
mike_c
(36,214 posts)Kicked and recommended. I'm disappointed by Obama's tenure, of course, but not surprised.
cali
(114,904 posts)And I have to say, I've arrived at a place where I'm just plain disgusted.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)It doesn't make any sense to me. If anything, it exposes our Democratic brand to new attacks. We were making such great progress against the repugs. This is a blow, a setback to the cause of what we as progressives believe in so fervently.
randome
(34,845 posts)Chained CPI has nearly zero chance of getting through all the committees. So I think we should make our opinions known to our Reps -in no uncertain terms- and move on to the next issue.
cali
(114,904 posts)using deliberate obtuseness.
randome
(34,845 posts)I think my points are valid. They may not be all you need to assuage your feelings of betrayal but they're my contribution to the conversation.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)to put the Republicans in the Wilderness for another 40 years. However, there would have been some short term pain when he took office. As it is , I'm afraid there is going to be long term pain when he leaves office. He and the Party had a chance for real reform. Instead....we know the rest of the story...
Jade Fox
(10,030 posts)lobezen
(39 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)well, much longer than that, but especially recent years.
The party is tone deaf. They totally blew an incredible opportunity with their Neolibertarian approach to politics.
The President still doesn't seem to get it, or doesn't want to:
The people still desperately want change. They just need a leader to stand up with an alternative and confident vision!
At this rate not only will we loose these 8 years, but the Obama Presidency seems determined to continue this approach and these policies until we have practicly destroyed our "brand".
daybranch
(1,309 posts)When was the first 40 years? Do you suppose that the repubs have been in the wilderness? What history are you looking at-did you forget Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, The two Bushs, the triangulation of Clinton? These were all great eras in which republicans expanded their ability to promote the interests of their rich donors.
As for the rest of the story, even in Kentucky we play hot potato. Have you noticed now republicans are trying to distance themselves from this public display of their objectives? Let me see, 2.3 million signatures delivered to President Obama stating opposition to any any cut. Progressive democrats telling the people to primary those who would support this robbery. I will not again outline the varied groups in opposition to this but Obama's outrageous act has united us and made people of both parties start to realize government must be for the people.
You have no idea how this story ends. I and many millions of others probably including yourself are writing the story as we speak and we will end it in a way you will like.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)From the New Deal to the Reagan era, there was a pretty good balance between the R's and the D's, with the D's philosophy having the upper hand.
Who were the Republican presidents? Eisenhower (advocated desegregation, started the Interstate Highway System, warned against the military industrial complex) and Nixon (started the EPA, made food stamps a nationwide program, proposed a guaranteed annual income, opened diplomatic relations with China). I didn't like Nixon (I was a college and graduate student during his time), but he would be "too liberal" for today's Republican Party.
Those were the days when "Republican politician" wasn't synonymous with "mean and dumb."
Now the R's have the upper hand in ideology, the mean and dumb are running rampant, and the D's are cowering in the corner, with the "mainstream" Dems acting as if they accept the R's ideology.
As for how this ends up? Well, note that we will now have Mitt Romney's health plan nationwide.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Well Said!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)than they do with Progressive Democrats. That, in a nutshell, is why they work to marginalize Progressive Democrats while "seemingly" caving to the GOP. Of course, most of us know already that it isn't really "caving", it's "complicity".
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"I don't know why he's abandoned core democratic values. I don't know that I even care why."
No, no. no. It's not a mystery at all. It's important that we all know and care why, because that is the only way we fix this broken, corrupted system.
The answer is corporate purchase of government.
This is not about Obama. He is a temporary, severe symptom of a much larger and long-lasting problem. The one percent love when the discussion gets diverted, again and again, to pointless speculation about one man's personality and what in his psychology could possibly be making him do these things.
Why it happens is not a mystery at all. It has nothing to do with personal idiosyncrasies or this particular man. It happens because our system is flooded with corporate money that buys our candidates and drives their policies and ensures that only those who are in the pockets of the one percent can compete. And it will happen again in 2016 without public outcry and systemic change. They are already way ahead of us in planning for it. They have restructured the system to make it inevitable.
Once again, the problem is a monied elite purchasing into our government and using it to build a system that will protect and grow their wealth/power at our expense, long after Obama leaves office.
It is not a psychological mystery. It is a SYSTEMIC PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO FIX.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Yep...
But if they can make it a psychological mystery we may not notice that the 1% own it all.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)The war profiteers are reinvesting their capital. Get ready for the wire brush austerity treatment.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)paid-off mostly are not going to stop the gravy train, what can the voter do except vote for the occasional true liberal (Franken, Wellstone) that slips through the cracks when the DLC decides who to run and fund? If that's all we can do, we'll never get any kind of majority before the shit REALLY hits the fan (global warming, etc.)
LarryNM
(493 posts)Inside and Outside of Government are needed as an alternative, otherwise its just wealth rules.
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)Obama is a willing puppet (which means he's not a puppet at all). It's not like he's facing re-election, and in desperate need of corporate money.
That's the difference between sell-outs like him, and people like Bernie Sanders.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to run against any Progressives we may want. We've seen it and wondered why, eg, the party leadership will often back an obvious Blue Dog/Third Way/DLC candidate over one that should be getting the support of the Dem Party.
But now, as Woo says, we don't need to wonder anymore, we know why they do that.
One solution is to put all of OUR money behind the progressive in every race and donate nothing to the party. It probably still wouldn't be enough to offset Corporate money for the Third Wayer, but it would give a little more to the progressive.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)... that the Government of the United States has always been in the pocket of the 1% (because that's how it's designed--that was its original purpose and intent). Then, if you can, assume that this will not change in the next 100 years.
Now what do we do? That's the question I am asking. My preliminary answer (a couple of years old now) can be found here:
http://laelth.blogspot.com/2011/01/turning-american-ship-of-state.html
Personally, I don't see the American people wresting power from the 1% any time soon, if ever. If I am right about that, we need to find a way to convince the 1% that it's in their best interests to throw the masses a bone or two. How to do that is the question.
-Laelth
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)How many corporate tax breaks were contained in the end of year tax "deal". And they came from the White House.
He is acting like a Republican. He is breaking the promises of two campaigns.
His numbers are dishonest. It's time to tell the truth about what's going on here. This is shameful. We are talking about screwing over very poor people while giving huge tax breaks to rather rich people. It violates all economic rules and all rules of decency.
The War on the Poor continues, but now it's being led by Democrats? What has this country come to be?
There are host of things you would rationally do before you did this. This is not even rational. Very big tax breaks are being preserved for the well-off among us, and instead we are going to balance the books by cutting real benefits for a demographic that's markedly less well-off than the average American?
The Catfood Commission was better and kinder.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"President Obama could have used his bully pulpit to rally the public around issues of poverty, inequality and corporate malfeasance. He's had no problem throwing trillions at bailouts. "
...give me a fucking break. It's like people are taking one sucky proposal in a massive budget to define the Obama Presidency in terms of "bailouts"? The bailout was Bush's, the guy who wrecked the economy. The President's stimulus actually rolled back about $300 billion of the bailout.
Anyone who doesn't see the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was implemented as helping the poor isn't thinking clearly.
President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.
Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.
Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s.
Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.
Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to create bottom-up economic growth and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits fully refundable, so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html
That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.
Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304
HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523
A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.
Medicaid does not cover many low-income adults today. To qualify for Medicaid prior to health reform, individuals had to meet financial eligibility criteria and belong to one of the following specific groups: children, parents, pregnant women, people with severe disability, and seniors. Non-disabled adults without dependent children were generally excluded from Medicaid unless the state obtained a waiver to cover them. The federal government sets minimum eligibility levels for each category, which are up to 133% FPL for pregnant women and children but are much lower for parents (under 50% FPL in most states). States have the option to expand coverage to higher incomes, but Medicaid eligibility levels for adults remain very limited (Figure 1). Seventeen states limit Medicaid coverage to parents earning less than 50 percent of poverty ($9,545 for a family of 3), and only eight states provide full Medicaid coverage to other low-income adults. State-by state Medicaid eligibility levels for parents and other adults are available here.
The ACA expands Medicaid to a national floor of 138% of poverty ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three). The threshold is 133% FPL, but 5% of an individuals income is disregarded, effectively raising the limit to 138% FPL. The expansion of coverage will make many low-income adults newly eligible for Medicaid and reduce the current variation in eligibility levels across states. To preserve the current base of coverage, states must also maintain minimum eligibility levels in place as of March 2010, when the law was signed. This requirement remains in effect until 2014 for adults and 2019 for children. Under the ACA, states also have the option to expand coverage early to low-income adults prior to 2014. To date, eight states (CA, CT, CO, DC, MN, MO, NJ and WA) have taken up this option to extend Medicaid to adults. Nearly all of these states previously provided solely state- or county-funded coverage to some low-income adults. By moving these adults to Medicaid and obtaining federal financing, these states were able to maintain and, in some cases, expand coverage. Together these early expansions covered over half a million adults as of April 2012.
Eligibility requirements for the elderly and persons with disabilities do not change under reform although some individuals with disabilities may become newly eligible under the adult expansion. Lawfully residing immigrants will be eligible for the Medicaid expansion, although many will continue to be subject to a five-year waiting period before they may enroll in coverage. States have the option to eliminate this five-year waiting period for children and pregnant women but not for other adults. Undocumented immigrants will remain ineligible for Medicaid.
- more -
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/quicktake_aca_medicaid.cfm
President Obama signed health care reform into law, which included the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was implemented. It also strengthened Medicare and gave new benefits to seniors. From the stimulus, to repealing DADT, to health care, student loan (taking banks out of the federal student loan process) and Wall Street reform, he's been reversing a lot of Reagan and Clinton's damaging policies, and he's still got nearly four years to go.
By Mike Ervin,
<...>
The first is a one-time additional payment of $250 to people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and other selected Social Security benefits. Many SSI recipients live on less than $10,000 a year, and so this additional income will make a significant difference.
Second, the stimulus package also allocates $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce the processing time for claims and appeals decisions. During the Bush years, the number of people awaiting final determination on their Social Security disability claims more than doubled to 755,000. Many were waiting two years or more for determination, without income. Obamas allocation should help end this disgrace.
<...>
More creatively, Obama provided $140 million to support centers for independent living. These nonresidential centers are run by people with disabilities and are focal points for services and advocacy. There are hundreds of these centers throughout the United States, providing thousands of good jobs for people with disabilities and others in their communities.
The stimulus package will also invest in the future by providing $540 million for vocational rehabilitation programs, which assist people with disabilities in obtaining higher education and jobs.
- more -
http://progressive.org/mag/mpervin030509.html
The Act included $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce its backlog in processing disability applications;
The Act supplied $12.2 billion in funding to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA);
The Act also provided $87 billion to states to bolster their Medicaid programs during the downturn; and,
The Act provided over $500 million in funding for vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement.
The Act provided over $140 million in funding for independent living centers across the country.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/disabilities
By Josh Israel
All 45 Senate Republicans voted Friday for a budget amendment that endorsed the repeal of both Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. While Congressional Republicans attempting to repeal Obamacare is nothing new this marks the 39th repeal attempt this proposal also aimed to repeal the student loan reform and Pell Grant expansions that were enacted at the same time.
All 54 Senate Democrats present successfully voted to defeat the amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). If passed, it would have put the Senate on record in support of a repeal of
provisions that moved student loans from commercial banks to direct lending from the U.S. Education Department and:
- Used half of the the estimated $61 billion in savings to increase the maximum annual Pell Grant scholarship to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017, while indexing the grants to inflation.
- Lowered monthly payments on federal student loans and shortened the debt forgiveness timeline. For new loans after 2014, this will mean graduates will have to pay 10 percent of disposable income, instead of 15.
- Provided $2.55 billion to support historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions; $2 billion for community colleges; and $750 million for a college access and completion program for students.
Though every Congressional Republican voted against the health care and student loan reforms, House Republicans specifically exempted the student loan reform provisions from previous repeal attempts, though they have repeatedly slammed the reform as a Washington takeover of the student loan industry.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/03/22/1762921/senate-republicans-unanimously-support-repeal-of-student-loan-reform-law/
Want to talk about Wall Street reform, which expanded the FDIC's powers and created the CFPB?
Granted the chained CPI proposal sucks, there are a number of other proposals in the President's budget that help the poor and middle class and raises taxes on the rich and corporations.
Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660318
President Obama's Tax Proposals in his Fiscal 2014 Budget Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022659823
Obama budget adds domestic same-sex partners to Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022656561
A Budget Focus on Inequality
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022650258
cali
(114,904 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"more bullshit with lots of links that are not germane. boring bullshit."
Actually, it's opportunistic bullshit.
cali
(114,904 posts)And I can play your idiotic link game too. I'll even do your pathetic bolding crap. btw, you really don't impress anyone with that shit.
Obamas SOTU Address Calls for Middle-Class Revival, But Poverty & Inequality Still Get Short Shrift
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/13/obamas_sotu_address_calls_for_middle
<snip>
Every political party depends on its base to drive it to victory at the polls. This is where Mr. Obama has truly failed. He has totally ignored the liberal base indeed, actually maligned us.
Mr. Obama has broken promises to the workers and the poor. In 2008, he promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011; it has stagnated at $7.25. His administration has strayed further and further from labor unions, a mainstay for virtually every Democratic political victory at the polls. The unions did not receive support for legislation that would have created a fair environment for unions to organize corporate workers. Mr. Obama has done nothing to stop the surge of outsourcing of Americans' jobs. He has not fought to remove tax schemes that reward corporations for firing Americans.
And let us not forget Mr. Obama's behavior before his national health care bill was passed. Mr. Obama met in secret with health insurance lobbyists and, as a consequence, failed to support a government-run program similar to Medicare.
Mr. Obama's narrow focus on protecting corporations, rather than protecting the 99 percent, was highlighted again when he failed to veto a phony credit card "reform" bill. He signed a bill that did not contain a cap on the interest rates that credit card companies charge, resulting in Americans paying 30 percent interest or more on their monthly bills.
On Feb. 17, Mr. Obama visited Boeing headquarters and proposed cutting taxes for large and very profitable corporations. U.S. corporations, on average, pay 10 percent in taxes; thanks to tax-avoidance strategies, the official 35 percent rate is phony. U.S. corporations pay less than half what their foreign contemporaries pay.
<snip>
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-15/news/bs-ed-anti-obama-20120315_1_health-insurance-credit-card-reform-bill-corporations
Obama genuflects before Big Business
His fiscal cliff deal contains big corporate tax breaks
It was his chance to get rid of off-shore tax advantages and other corporate welfare. So, why did he insist they be part of the Jan. 1 financial rescue?
<snip>
http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2013/01/obama-genuflects-before-big-business/
"opportunistic? now you're even more ridiculous"
...I'm being "ridiculous"? You posted a bullshit article from March 2012 that states:
"In 2008, he promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011"
The article is a one-year-old opinion. In case you have noticed, the President raised taxes on the rich and expanded a number of policies that help the poor and middle class.
President Obama has done more to help the poor and middle class than any President since LBJ
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660715
merrily
(45,251 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Cha
(295,906 posts)DiverDave
(4,874 posts)not to charge anybody?
Will you tell me no laws were broken?
I am disgusted by my President,who I voted for, for turning on me.
It is truly about the buying of our country.
If we can somehow stop all corporate money...but I dont see it unless we ALL tell them
that we wont take it any longer.
Then we will see if the solders fire on us.
Yes he is a damn sight better then the baffons who ran against him,
but damn it, I had hope.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)it's just another game where you can't back down, that no matter what evidence is given, the heels get in deeper and dig in even more regardless of truth.
a very dangerous human failing - on a forum not so much, but unfortunately people with great powers act like this too, where they just cannot accept being wrong or making a mistake (The Chimperor is an example) and therefore things get fucked up beyond repair For Personal Reasons.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And it is a human failing not a sin.
demwing
(16,916 posts)In any given post, ProSense supports her argument with a scattering of links to her own posts!
Marr
(20,317 posts)I can only assume it's meant to misdirect and waste the time of the other person; hoping they'll eventually just give up and leave.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)prepared ahead of time, too
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"that one is a Pro prepared ahead of time, too"
...it takes less than a few seconds to copy a previous own posts. Yes, I've become a "Pro" at that. All you need is practice, you too could master that complicated task. FYI!
Skittles
(152,964 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How about the PO?
How about Offshore Drilling?
How about not just letting the Bush Tax cuts expire?
Should I continue?
If it were just one 'suck' proposal we could undo it.
But it's not, it's one 'suck' proposal after another.
Did the WH acknowledge the millions of people who signed the petition asking him NOT to include that 'suck' proposal in the Budget?
We know that Jaimie Dimon et al are very welcome in this WH.
But what about the people who elected him and who are doing what he told us to, 'hold his feet to the fire'? Are any of them getting an invite to the WH to make THEIR case?
The game is over, this 'suck' proposal is not just one, it involves opening the door to SS that no Democratic President, no matter how many excuses are given, should have ever done.
His own spokesperson told us why he did it. 'Republicans wanted it' he said. Really? Was it Republicans who elected him? If he feels that obligated to them, maybe he forgot to whom he has an obligation.
JEB
(4,748 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Now *that* is some classic ProSense advertisement copy for the 2am time slot, right up there with those belts that are supposed to jiggle the fat off.
"One" proposal.
NDAA/indefinite detention, "Kill Lists," torture and rendition, settlements for corrupt banks, privatization and corporatization of public schools, Race to the Top and high stakes testing, selling off Gulf of Mexico for drilling, support for Trans-Pacific free trade agreement, implementation of massive surveillance of American citizens, brutal and coordinated crackdowns on peaceful protesters, arguing at the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance and strip searches for any arrestee, escalating drone wars on civilians in sovereign countries with which we are not at war, new policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns, awarding medals for remote drone attacks, refusal to prosecute war crimes, refusal to prosecute LIBOR and major corrupt banks, pressure on attorneys general for settlements for corrupt banks, advocacy of austerity budgets and repeated use SS and Medicare as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, tying of SS to the general fund with payroll tax holiday, support of TSA naked scanning and groping, escalation of the war on marijuana, appointment of private prison executive to head the US Marshal's office and subsequent massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons, etc., etc., etc..
And now a FORMAL PROPOSAL for the despicable, unconscionable chained CPI.
Yeah, just one predatory proposal. Only one. Aren't the Wall Street commercials amazing?
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)you ignore trends of medical doctors no longer willing to accept new medicaid patients.
Primary care physicians are also more reluctant to take on
medicare patients....specialists, not so much...but
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/07/health-affairs-study-one-third-of-doctors-wont-accept-new-medicaid-patients/
For example, from the above link:
Robert Maro Jr., a Cherry Hill, N.J. internist, said he has not accepted new Medicaid patients for 15 years because of low pay. He notes the state reimburses him only about $23.50 for a basic office visit, less than half of what he gets from Medicare or private insurers.
Maro said he treats Medicaid patients in the hospital and in nursing homes, but he would lose money treating them in the office where his administrative costs are higher.
He said he would start seeing new Medicaid patients only if knew the pay hike under the health law would continue beyond 2014. Otherwise, he worries he would take on new patients only to see rates fall back to the old levels in 2015, and then he would be required legally and ethically to keep treating them.
That would be a nightmare, he said
----------
From the President's corner I would say he's tried but we're systemically sick...almost too little, too late. imho
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)Some jobs are harder than others!
Number23
(24,544 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)And, very soon after Bush said that, Obama asked for release.
So, the bailouts during the Bush administration were very much as much Obama's as Bush's.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Health Insurance Facts
The babies on the bus go fly-y-ying.
Police in Hartford, Conn., are investigating a video that shows a woman tossing a child aside on the bus before attacking a fellow passenger she claimed "disrespected her in front of her baby."
The incident took place around 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, Transit general manager David Lee told the Hartford Courant.
In the video, originally uploaded to YouTube, a woman holding a baby on her lap is in a shouting match with another female passenger towards the back of the bus.
"I will thrash you on this bus," the woman can be heard yelling. "Somebody grab my baby."
She later complains, "F*ck that, this b*tch is disrespecting me in front of my baby." Seconds later, she thrusts the child into the arms of a surprised passenger before heading to the back to whale on the other woman.
The altercation began after the other passenger began talking about the woman's child, according to My Fox Boston.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/mom-throws-baby-on-bus-disrespecting-video_n_3076364.html?utm_hp_ref=weird-news
Or this:
Detailed Information on Inflation
Ali Razeqi says his time machine uses "complex algorithms" to see the future.
It's not quite Back to the Future, but a young Iranian inventor claims to have built a time machine that can predict a person's future with startling accuracy.
Ali Razeqi, who is 27 and the "managing director of Iran's Center for Strategic Inventions," claims his device will print out a report detailing an individual's future after using complex algorithms to predict his or her fate.
According to the Daily Telegraph, Razeqi told Iran's state-run Fars news agency that his device "easily fits into the size of a personal computer case and can predict details of the next 5-8 years of the life of its users. It will not take you into the future, it will bring the future to you."
Razeqi says Iran has decided to keep his prophetic time machine under wraps for now out of fear that "the Chinese will steal the idea and produce it in millions overnight."
I invite you to read through this information as well:
Something I Posted to Facebook
http://weirdnews.about.com/od/famoussidesowstars/a/FarkBio.htm
Something I Emailed a Friend
And study this graph:
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)That is the key. And given this, and what the article points out, why not
present an awesome budget that moves America forward with jobs, single payer
Medicare for All, education, infrastructure, et. al...
Why not go heavy Democratic? Why does Obama choose republican policies to move forward?
randome
(34,845 posts)It's possible he's trying to peel off a few Republicans in the House to vote more in favor of the overall proposals.
That's not n-Dimensional chess, that's politics!
And speculation on my part.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)party to be elected again, you make Democratic Proposals. It also means that you understand the enemy. If, after studying the enemy your realize they will lie, then you go for broke for your own party.
The WH excuse for this proposal is that 'Republicans asked for it'!! Did Republicans elect him btw?
Politics is not doing what the opposition wants, it's doing what those most like to elect you and your party, want.
Is this some new kind of politics where you get elected then you cater to the opposition, then you are stunned when the opposition turns around and denies what you claim they wanted, then places themselves in the position of the good guys who are going to 'save' SS from YOU?
This frankly, is the worst kind of politics I have ever seen. IF we are being told the truth, even now. Which doesn't really matter, trust has been lost, and that is very, very bad politics.
Nay
(12,051 posts)Pres. Obama, whom I voted for twice, is not much of a Democrat.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)excuse when asked 'why did he do it' was 'Republicans asked him to'.
Democrats asked him not to, by the millions.
But he listened to Republicans.
If we wanted Republicans requests granted we could have voted for Romney.
The apologists here keep trying to make excuses but so far not one of their excuses has made any sense.
If it was Bush making this proposal you can only imagine the screaming and yelling from those very same apologists.
treestar
(82,383 posts)what about the progressive things that are in this budget?
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)Granted, Ive mostly been caught in the one big, glaring, gigantically awful thing in the proposed budget. But so far, Ive heard corporate tax breaks, cutting social security, cutting virtually all social services, not cutting military waste.
What are the progressive things in this budget?
treestar
(82,383 posts)in its blog posts.
There are links to the actual budget itself and some mention of other parts of it.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net
merrily
(45,251 posts)Should we be grateful that a Democratic President whom we put in the Oval Office twice actually threw a few Democratic things into his budget?
Hell, I bet we could have picked out some things in Reagan's budgets and Bush's that would have been acceptable to Democrats.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)As when the best stimulus he could come up with was a cut in the payroll taxes? A purely Republican idea.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Maybe because he IS a republican? Or at the very least, a corporate tool.
Either way, he isn't standing up for those who got him elected twice.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Republicans into a corner. Force them to argue against single payer, high SS cap, and lower Medicare age. The American people would support him AND HIS PARTY running in 2014.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)looking back like that at things he has said, it looks like it is calculated to fool liberals. To be fair, this is not something that is unique to Obama.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)use the vulnerable and the working class as their bargaining chip in their grand bargains.
Obama was supposed to be different. He campaigned that he would be different and create change.
This isn't the change I was counting on.
merrily
(45,251 posts)ETA I don't think parsing words in order to to deceive voters is eloquence.
Other words to describe that much more accurately.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)when he ran in 2008 and 2012. I preferred him over Hillary Clinton because he talked about changing the system. He hasn't even tried. We were told by his supporters, 'just elect him again. He won't have to run again, and he'll finally be allowed to be himself.' I think he's being himself and I don't like it.
The scary thing about all this is we now have to ponder about where we go from here. We elected a man in good faith who said he would change things and it's becoming pretty clear that he has no intention of doing that. If we can't trust a man who runs for office to keep his word, where do we go from here? Can we achieve change through elections? I think it's a fair question to consider when we can't trust the word of the people running for office. Without the people's trust, the system we have cannot work.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)He has some progressive legislation but in terms of the system he has not only participated in it, but he has fought efforts to change it and fought efforts to bring justice into it.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)DO MY CAMPAIGN PROMISES
MAKE MY NOSE LOOK BIG?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)goes well these days on all this crazy talk about Obama terrorizing old people by starving them.
good fucking grief - how many times has this theatre show been played here, with the result being Obama really isn't as evil a fuck some people are hoping he is?
cali
(114,904 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)President in 2008. And have hoped against hope ever since that he would fulfill their expectation.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)There was/is a batch that despised Obama back then and now. Hateful and grotesque language that the admins allowed back then, and still do now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You would have to want the President for whom you voted to succeed, unless you are both a masochistic and treasonous.
I don't know about despising him, but even if some despised him, the vast majority had to be rooting for him to succeed and wanting to like him. Your claim that posters here are dying for him to fail simply can't be literally true.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)msongs
(67,193 posts)markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)They have him profiled perfectly.
He is more concerned about his legacy and how he will viewed by history than anything else at the moment. They know he is willing to give up almost anything to get something accomplished in his second term. They are almost sadistic in their pursuit.
cali
(114,904 posts)precisely because of this.
Nay
(12,051 posts)the capitalistic economic system are having and will have. Another 8 years wasted placating the elites!
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)I think history judging him harshly starts next week.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)the policy decisions he has made, the advisers he has surrounded himself with, and his willingness to give far too much away to achieve "compromise" have been a terrible (but not unexpected) disappointment. We have been hurt as a country because of them, and hurt as a Party.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)"We have been hurt as a country because of them, and hurt as a Party."
I agree with that and it is very painful to accept.
Gary 50
(381 posts)Liberals will always be voting for the lesser of two evils. Obama is an extreme disappointment, and that is the most we can ever hope for. Should a real liberal ever win the presidency again, which is highly improbable, he would be tied up by the Republicans and their corporate masters with phony charges, made up scandals and impeachable offences created out of thin air or shot dead. The one percent who run, control , and own this country aren't going to allow the rest of us to take back our country. Ever.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And when you allow it suppose you have the power to allow...
Just remember this, that if the bottom 50% of this country walked off the job it would take just a few weeks before the 1% started to get real hungry...they need us a lot more than we need them.
Thus the promote the idea that without the big brother corporate elite you would not have a job and would starve...fear is their friend.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
Our involvement in Afghanistan shames me as a Canadian.
Our tar sands, which are fueling USA's war-machine is not only killing tens of thousands across the globe, but is ruining native lands and livelihoods here in Canada.
I like my country, but am disgusted and shameful of my government's behavior.
I am fortunate and grateful to be moving away from the farm I lived on.
The farm lies directly between two of our armed forces bases,
and constantly hearing, and seeing the warplanes fly over,
distressed and angered me.
My new place is far enough away that I hear no warplanes,
don't even hear automotive traffic!
So beautifully quiet there.
Luv it!
CC
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Or so the Serious People would have us believe.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I think that many people were naive in 2007-2008. Every time that Obama started a sentence with "let me be clear", many of us knew that we were going to hear a load of B.S. There's nothing wrong with being confident, but overconfidence leads to arrogance.
Obama's entire career has been about fast tracking up the political ladder. If he had stayed in the Senate longer than 2 years, maybe he would have built relationships that would have helped him once he entered the WH. No president can accomplish his agenda without their help. Presidents can't just dictate and assume that members of his party will fall in line and blindly obey. It just doesn't happen. Early in his term Obama would give one of several speeches to both Houses and behind the scenes the Dems would be seething. He tended to act like Zeus on Mount Olympus. He hardly ever called Dems or asked their opinion. Most decisions were made by a tight group of political hacks that he trusted. Sooner or later (sooner since 2010 was a debacle) it was going to hit the fan.
Obama has found out that it's far more easy for a president to change than to expect Washington to do the changing. Most of these people have seen presidents come and go, they know that they are the ones staying.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Slamming obama does not = People liking Hillary
People being mad at Obama does not = people forgetting the Clintons perfected bashing the left
And both Hillary and Obama would be too hated by the redneck right to get anything, because it would have been too easy to score points by saying no to them.
You know, if you really want to help Hillary get elected, the last thign you want to do is incense anger and hatred of OPbama, because the left you will need will remember that all Obama did was use the Clitoin playbook of bashing the left. You do not wanmt them to get an appetitite for someone new, someone who has nothing to do with either the Obama or Cliton administartions.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I'm not concerned whether she's liked or not liked in this forum. I'm voicing my opinion and only my opinion. Besides, we don't even know if Hillary is interested in running in 2016.
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)I don't see the fast tracking politically as the problem here. I see being too friendly with the wrong people as the problem. He wants to make a deal and be everyone's friend so much he is willing to treat his own party as "those guys who have to fall in line" and the opposition as "the important ones".
This isn't something that could have been fixed by a longer senate term. This is something that needed a bit more stubbornness and maybe some unwavering dedication to principle.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)The presidency should not be on the job training. What happened to learning to do one job well enough before being promoted?
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)I understand the point, but disagree on some key details.
Being "trained" to do a job like being a senator, or president, is not necessarily a good thing. Seasoning, growing in ability, that is. But being trained to the position, which is what seems to happen to most senators, is not. Because what happens is they get bent into the mold of the mistakes and problems that have preceded their tenure in office.
There are very few "experienced" politicians I would trust with the presidency, and none of them were running, as far as I recall. If anything most of the available alternates would have accomplished much the same results as Obama, just drawing more Democrats down into the crap of getting it done. The danger, if anything, would have been that they would have sold us out more successfully. Quietly and with less fanfare, but more effectively. That's not a good thing. In my opinion.
What we need is a person who comes to this with a different viewpoint, not a different method of accomplishing the same viewpoints goals.
He was/is not ready for the job. Nice guy, great Dad but not ready for the round room.
walkerbait41
(302 posts)The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)bind. He is trying any kind of prying move to get lose the hold of Big Business from government without getting hit hard by it's wrath. He needs our support to do our job so he can do his job. We must be the people's lobby and hit the crazy greedy heartless senseless fearful followers with all the media facts, compassion and complaints we can muster.
If he is supposed to fight against Goliath he needs us to not goad him as he walks around the encounter while fielding the worlds and nations other problems, he can afford no major mistakes.
How can you be disappointed?
He is the same man you elected twice? We know him. He a a political animal unless you haven't noticed. He works around the edges and then pushes from the center.
We couldn't hand over our dear country to the new US Nazi Right in one election but ...ARE WE ready to fight everyday with the guy we got to stave off the constant onslaught of all the lawyers that greed can buy?Biting at his heels over a bargaining chip that if actually accepted could not stand if we rose up in the numbers needed.The fight for democracy must be bigger and smarter and more constant than the creep and surge of greed.
AM I disappointed in us? Yes. He needs us and we need us. Bravery starts at home to provide us with a land of freedom and equal justice.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)...that I do agree with-- but how can we do that if we can't even "bite at the heels" of our Person who can "afford no major mistakes" but is, in fact making a big one?
Figthing means not putting up, right?
you are confusing me
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)is given up. Republicans will not do that, and Our President has a major example to point to to show that he is going against his own party. Look at the big picture.Obama is not perfect . He is not liberal. He is not a hardliner. He is a very finely balanced and intelligent politician with a heart.
Get on the liars of the right who are killing us and back this man who is doing his best to be honorable and fix all our problems.
It's not confusing if you step back and compare him to the leaders of our time. He comes out on top and he is building a foundation of fine people around him who will help save democracy from being eaten away by the need for selfishness and fear of losing prowess.
Picking at a minor point when the right is flooding our government with corporate legislature and deluded "yahoo's" who are licking up the propaganda that dominates our media is lick griping at the fireman who is leading you out of the burning building.
If you are confused step back and look again.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)!. "Revenue"...Find some revenue somewhere else--like from corporates who pay no taxes
2. What is this "it" that will not happen unless OUR hard-earned revenue is given up?
3. He sure is "going against his own party"--to our detriment. And the liberal wing is a significant part of the party BTW.
4. You can't blindly follow a leader when he's wrong. We need to help set him straight.
5. Who are these Obama selected people who are going to save Democracy? They better get on it!
6. You don't "lead out of a burning building" by pandering to vultures. Ever.
7. Face it. The fact that Obama can't really do much on the economic front may not be because he is a bad or inept leader but because the system is so corrupt and broken it's not fixable.
--------------
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)1. I totally agree, but this most probably is the Presidents perceived capitulation to give himself a carrot and a stick to the Republican madness.
2. "It" is the CPI.Sorry it was the prominent thing on my mind when I saw this thread.
3. Again "it" is a most likely a political move to make it look like he is trying so hard to make a deal that he would put that stick he is using (ans#1.) in our eye.
4. This may seem like a wrong move but, IMO, "it" is so political that it will not even actualize.
5. We, you and me and the other over 300 million citizens who have a voice to inform and feet to march and power to assert.
6. Sometimes you do pander to vultures when you must escape. Esp. in politics.
7. Yes, the system is corrupt and unless we want to stay here we must use our best chess piece wisely and not knock him over or discount him when he is playing the game the best he knows how.He is not working with sane people or rules now being written by those who are concerned about our democracy. Even our most wholesome leaders have had to pick their way through enemy negotiations and the thing is this President does not view Republicans as enemies. I do. It seems that you do,too. Yet we are not in the number one position. He is and he must not be slapped for not being FDR although we would wish it. We must keep the wolves back from his door and not be also nipping at his heels over somethings that "Obama can't really do much" about but is trying. He does seem to do what the country needs when he has open ability and national support to do it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)BULL FUCKING HOCKEY.
He's a public SERVANT. He works for US. The country OPPOSES this.
Offensive, ridiculous corporate authoritarian garbage. Spare us.
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)Of course we can complain and we must stand up for the Bill of Rights and we must scream when we see him being surrounded and beaten by greedy free marketers and those who wish to wrap the laws around themselves just because they feel insecure or those who twist public opinion to make dismantling changes to our laws, but when he is in negotiations with lunatics lets trust that he will not sell us out.
He has not done so on subjects where he has been given power. He needs more power not less. He is the leader we need at this juncture. He is playing it the best he can until we give him more to work with. You saw how well he worked when he had some power when the 2 branches were held those 4 months and a week by a Dem majority and that was with the insane filibuster rules.
Nipping at his heels with those who could care less about responsible government only makes his job harder. I know it's hard at times to see it this way but he is the one we brought to the dance because we know he can dance. Let's give him the room and so many amazing partners that they cannot be pulled down by those who only want to change the government into their own private club. Club rules saying; No dancing allowed unless you are a personal friend, family, or have lots of money.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)He has not sold us out "on subjects where he has been given power"?
What does that even mean? And why would he "sell us out" in any case?
Please stop with the vague word salad. Please try again, with examples, and try to be coherent. How, exactly, did Republicans make him put chained CPI on the table? And how did they prevent him from putting on the table what should have been on the table, including massive military cuts and an end to corporate welfare? And, while you are at it, would you care to explain how they made him commit the endless parade of other major betrayals of this administration *that had nothing whatsoever to do with Republican obstructionism,* including:
Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like:
A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. And let's not forget Tim Geithner.Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
New policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns,
New policies of awarding medals for remote drone attacks,
Appointment of private prison executives to head the US Marshal's office
Massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons under US Marshall's office
If anyone is hovering around anyone's ankles here, it is our corporate Democrats licking the feet of Wall Street.
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)Cheney/Rumsfeld and Limbaugh/FOX News USA I'm surprised that you would find the workings of our government so easily mended and all a sitting president who rules by reason using the best twisted laws money can buy, can not just do better but cure all your and our ills and democracy is unscathed. I find this more obtuse than you find my post. It will take a huge social and political movement to rescue us. We have to do it. We can support this President and he can do what he can without ruffling so many feathers that fires off the shot that makes him totally politically impotent.
That's the fix we are in as I see it, and insulting me and belittling our President will not help solve any complaint on your list.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You like to deal in vagueness. It is very cushy and satisfying to hide in generalities and excuse everything by insisting that the world is full of mean Republicans messing everything up.
The problem, though, is that the list I posted was full of betrayals that had nothing to do with Republican obstructionism...often nothing to do with Republicans at all.
Thank you for participating here, though. It's important for people to see how empty the rhetoric really is.
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)so nuanced and so varied that vague is how to judge a politician's progress on a barely recoverable democracy. Each "betrayal" that you listed have so many roots and strings and twisted laws to embed them, that it will take a long time and many honest publicly backed administrations to mend them. I don't have the time to delve and nit pick at all the things that I think should be corrected. I have many more than you have listed and many of them I would see as heartless mistakes by the President, but where do we deal with the workings of an balanced government when you would rather beat the lead sled dog for not pacing off his canter in time with your song. We need him for survival. We chose him and he is doing his best to get us out of trouble. He cannot do it alone. He needs strong faithful dogs to pull with him. I am one. When we get to a safer place I will nip at him about why we aren't devoting more resources to renewable fuels that don't destroy and pollute. What is his problem that he hasn't stopped all unfairly funded campaigns and you forgot to mention the unions that he did not support. I could go on and on but would that help him out maneuver those bought Republicans and crooked Democrats . How can he out pressure the clever lobbyists with no thought of ethics when we are hammering about the countless disappointments.
If you don't see that the power of the Corporations have their feet on the constitution's neck then I can see that patronizing me maybe explains to you that the all powerful Obama can fix everything now and if he doesn't then he has betrayed us. A few can break things and decades of lawyers can dismantle the laws that work for the little guys and mass media can gossip and change the hearts against equality, but one man cannot correct all those problems without a strong team of loyal individuals striving daily to help him by supporting the battles he faces daily and kicking the naysayers to the curb and saying get out of his way and let him who we chose to lead us out of this mess do his best to broker a deal. This is who he is a consolidator.
Exchanging views is good. I am not a very specific type. I like to see a bigger view. I am however very focused on getting a better group in the house and senate that will pull with the President so that he can undo the crumby mess that yes the present Republican's are very responsible for.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Nationwide, 1.1 million more votes were cast for Democratic House candidates than for Republicans. But thanks to gerrymandering, the GOP still controls. So just stop with blaming "us" for what the President is doing.
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)The US national census was taken April 1, 2010. Those results were used or really misused after that election to gerrymander Representatives districts by the new House "we" elected in the fall of 2010. That election was a miserable lack of support for the democratic cause and the support for the Democratic President we elected to office in 2008. The Districts had not been so badly rigged until after the 2010 elections. And now we have to stop the nitpicking and battle the massive propaganda that is sweeping the common sense out of our populace.
Obama has not badly miss stepped in my opinion. He has to play the political game that was set for him and that he is capable of playing. We have to give him more political power and protection.
bluethruandthru
(3,918 posts)This president has been a huge disappointment in many, many ways. Yes, I suppose he's better than any republican, but, in my opinion, he's turned his back on the Democratic party and it's core principles.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)What does all the needles repetition accomplish?
Do you just need to vent??
cali
(114,904 posts)look it the fuck up. do a search. You know how to do that, right?
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Nice try.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's almost as if you are going from thread to thread saying to those critical of this policy that they post the same thing all the time and you know what they are up to. Because that is what you are doing.
See the subthread retread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660876#post23
cali
(114,904 posts)honesty to deal with it, pumpkin.
pathetic.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)You know how Cali was feeling about Obama before "he was ever elected"? Like way back in 2008 -- you know, before he was ever elected -- Ms. Joined DU In 2011? Many of his most vocal critics here were Obama supporters -- initially. When you get a shive in the ribs a few times, it tends to make you rethink your opinion.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'm the one who felt betrayed by him before he was ever elected; it happened in the '08 primaries when he told FOX News, in response to a question about what Republicans did better than Democrats, that it was education, which sometimes got teachers upset with him. Damned straight. I'm a teacher. He's proved the truth of his words to FOX over and over.
I've spent time over the years butting heads with Cali. She is a hell of a lot more moderate than I am, and supported Obama through, in my opinion, way too many betrayals.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)What was your member name prior to 2011?
oh wait...let me guess..."I lurked"....
treestar
(82,383 posts)Enough with the emotional over the top drama.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I am disappointed too, but I have faith in the man. He'll come through.
The young people need help too, and somehow, he'll get it for them WITHOUT hurting the old. Have faith, girl...
cali
(114,904 posts)times that the fabric is frayed.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Sums up my reaction. I just don't get or appreciate all the gamesmanship. Call me simple.
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--that is downtrodden talk.
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)he had promised to do when he was elected and re elected, but trying to work with repubs and teabaggers trying to take us back to the stone age is virtually impossible. He tries and probably bangs his head against the wall trying to work with the likes of McConnell, Bohner and their ilk.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)everything Obama has done or not done, but I surely consider the alternative.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)paparush
(7,964 posts)Because he's not a liberal Democrat.
President Obama was my senator before he was my president. He has never been all that liberal. In fact, in prior decades, he would have been a Republican. But he is a good and intelligent man whom I respect (usually). He's the best we've got, even when he disappoints us bitterly.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)lark
(23,003 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Assuming Obama is the person he comes across as when he speaks (not dissimilar to Bill Clinton), there is some kind of outside pressure which has caused him to veer far away from the left.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)How compromised our system is. How corrupt and sold out to exploiters and corporates. It's horrible to witness.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Is a statesmen.
As far as coming across like Clinton, he too was a politician. And even while he sold the middle class down the river, Clinton carefully mentioned he felt our pain. But he really didn't feel our pain.
He blithely signed off on the Bank Modernization Reform Bill, a few months before leaving office. Even though that one piece of legislation took out Glass Steagal, a provision that was serving as a main protection of our economy.
And what did Clinton get in return? Nothing less than the quid pro quo of $ 100K per speech in front of a corporate podium.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)The US is disintegrating for many while others are feeding off what remains of the carcass. The US is destroying itself all by itself. Give it another 10 years and these will seem like the best times.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)beyurslf
(6,755 posts)budget, what good was voting for him?
"If he is just going to bow to Republicans and include Romney ideas"
...did Romney make these proposals: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022659823
When did Romney propose expanding Medicaid?
Anyway, it's too late to get your vote back, but not too late to become familiar with the difference between Romney and Obama.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and blaming Democrats is a distraction. They are only products of a broken system. We must fix the system and stop expecting the system to work for us.
We have to get money out of politics. And the first step, the most important thing on our plate is to fix the broken election system. The Elite 1% are spending money to "fix" the system in their favor. If we cant have free and fair elections, all is lost. There will not be any hope for future reforms and no hope to save recent gains.
I think the bottom line is that we wont get the Elite 1%'s attention w/o massive peaceful civ il disob edience. I dont condone violence.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)what u said
Number23
(24,544 posts)You don't normally do things like this. But I guess you gotta use whatever springboard you can find to jump on the rage bandwagon when it rolls by.
cali
(114,904 posts)think it's good. that simple.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Remember when Obama was destroying the Democratic Party and lost the election after the first debate, but then won re-election by a landslide and Democrats gained seats in the Senate?
President Obama has done more to help the poor and middle class than any President since LBJ
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660715
"November 2011? And you wonder why some might view this as opportunistic?"
Dump him!
I knew exactly who I was voting for both times.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Yet, in '08, while the DU wars between the HRC camp and the Obama camp raged, of which I was not a part because I didn't support either, the most common talking point in Obama's favor was "but he's not DLC!!!"
Even DU's most confirmed DLCer, who was supporting HRC, got a good laugh out of that and tried to debunk it, showing that his positions were actually a perfect fit.
Way too many people wanted to believe that he was an "old" Democrat, even when he told the world he was a "new" Democrat. He's been a disaster since the beginning, and he didn't really ever pretend to be any different.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)Sending him money that perhaps we did not really have to spend. I regret those donations and he is a disgrace!
TR's words speak my thoughts:
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)far too many have neglected what I'd call, that duty.
That's not bothered me nearly as much as the treatment those who've satisfied it have recieved.
LeftyLucy22
(45 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)BHO is not FDR or JFK or any other imaginary miracle progressive President. Have you forgotten his favorite book was "Team of Rivals" and his favorite line during the 2008 campaign was the "there are no red or blue states, only the United States"? I think he believes if he doesnt find a way to bring this country together we are doomed.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)I compare the living former presidents and their post Oval Office lives, and see Jimmy Carter standing head and shoulders above the rest, not in terms of moneys accumulated, but in terms of using his prestige in efforts on behalf of world peace and humanity. Carter was born in 1924 - that makes him 89 years old, but just this month (April 9) I saw him on the Jon Stewart show being interviewed about the work the Carter Center has done and continues to do re health care in third world countries. At age 89!
Then I recalled that photo op in the Oval office, with then still President W, Obama and the living ex-presidents all in a row. Take a look at it. It was Bush-Sr.,Obama, Bush-Jr., and Clinton standing with their shoulders overlapping each others', and then a 6 inch gap of space between Clinton and Jimmy Carter. This is an historic photo. The photographer would have positioned W in the exact center. It looks like Clinton stepped away from Carter and jammed the others into each other. Was it to distance himself from Carter, or just his man-crush on W? Probably both. In any event, Jimmy Carter was our last president not to be corrupted and controlled by corporatism. A thoroughly decent human being - we haven't seen his like in the Oval Office since he left.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2010/09/20/5143877-carter-probably-superior-to-other-ex-presidents?lite
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I've always viewed it from your perspective. The truth of our condition made real...Carter was the last real president. He is a wonderful human being and works hard, takes risks and speaks out for the people.
SylviaD
(721 posts)Is that what it's all come down to? Is that the low bar that all the hope and change has led to? In the grand scheme of things, of politics and of the issues of our day, is this what it all boils down to? Like a sour sauce in a frying pan?
god damn it, I feel so let down.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)although I did harbor some hope that he'd prove me wrong and be a bit more transformative in the right ways than he's been.
As much disappointment as I feel over the stuff you covered here, it's his relative silence, lack of substantial leadership, and inaction on climate change/AGW that irks me the most, given the additional human misery and worse that is in store for us all worldwide, and as a citizen of the planet.
And of course much like with some of the other things, his "he's done no wrong" supporters can invoke the "what's politically possible" stuff, to which I'd respond with "Tis far, far better...", which is the most we can ask of him. As I've suggested to some members of that "crowd", it's not really a question as to whether he's done any good or not, but at what point and over what can or does the scale get tipped into the net negative territory, and the SS thing could reasonably provide that tipping point because of the betrayal element you've expressed here. That the negative side has been loaded up with this and that over these last few years, making the feeling you've expressed here likely outta many, was why I told them they really should be holding their stupid tongues with the "basher/ODS-sufferer/obama-hater/etc" crap as it pertained to the SS thing, because it likely would serve as a catalyst for the outrage many now feel, leaving them in a scorned minority.
Unsurprisingly many/most of them didn't listen -- you stinking basher...lol
Divernan
(15,480 posts)and do leave them the scorned minority. I'm an elected Dem. official in my community and have a cohort of felllow progressive Dems - currently focused on defeating GOP Governor Corbett and GOP legislators in 2014. We have to deal with the influence of Big Energy/Big Fracking lobbists/campaign contributions.
Wouldn't it be great to have a Democratic president who led by example, used the bully pulpit opportunity of his second term and exhorted other Dem. Candidates to put the welfare of their human constituents first, and turn their backs on corporate & privatizing interests, instead of catering to them? Obama pushes fracking - that's where the money and the post political office, lucrative board appointments are!
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)the leading by example thing.
That's why I've long argued that it is his willingness to cut SS in the manner proposed that is so damning -- it's the wrong kinda leadership and a betrayal of what the many thought was a line that wouldn't be crossed.
That's why those "basher" chargers and this whole debate started with "there's no way he'd propose such!" by them.
That's what is so mystifying to me about their continued defenses of it, unless it can all be chalked up to individual ego-preservation on their part, now that they've been shown to be so abysmally wrong from start to finish. It should be clear to them that the outrage being felt and expressed has the same origins as their initial denials that BHO would ever contemplate such, so they should have some insight into and appreciation of the whys and hows behind the current "betrayal" talk.
That's why I've been telling them they are lacking in intellectual heft, integrity, or both.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)At least for us.
For the banksters, corporations, and the 1%, he's a glaring success.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)assuming you mean there's nothing he's accomplished that mitigates the rest in the general sense/totality of the issues.
The question is, have we dogs been given enough bones? That has been the question every since this good cop/bad cop condition arose, which has left the 1%ers pile of dough growing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/06/this-viral-video-is-right-we-need-to-worry-about-wealth-inequality/
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1
I'd certainly be hesitant to call your pov inaccurate or unreasonable if it is confined to those issues.
He's been the worst socialist/income redistributor ever, and has failed to shut off the "trickle up" spigot.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but I'd say it is the fear of rightwingnuttery that makes the whole thing work, whether orchestrated towards that end or not.