Has Obama finally come out as a closet Republican?

JDPriestly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-29-11 07:05 PM
Original message

Has Obama finally come out as a closet Republican?

Here is the link to the press conference and speech Obama gave today to which I am responding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=385&topic_id=596416&mesg_id=596416

Obama's fundamental assumptions about the motives of the Republicansare wrong -- terribly wrong.

He stated: "Nobody wants to see the US default." That is false.

Every economic change creates winners and losers. Who might win from a default by the US government? Well, as Obama says, a default would probably cause an increase in the interest rates the US would have to pay to borrow money. And, hey, lots of people would lose, but lots of very rich people could win. People who are flush with cash would win.

When you read about the many American businesses that are cash-rich but won't hire or invest? Well, if I were one of them, if I were up to my ears in cash, I would not loan it at today's interest extremely low interest rates. Ask any farmer. You don't sell your cattle at the market low.

I would hold out on lending in hopes that the rates would go up. So there is a constituency of people who would love to see the interest rates on American debt go up.

Examples are people who have lots of cash in their control (as well as those who could get lots of cash) and who live in countries in which they can buy a good life for very few American dollars. Well, they would love it if our government defaulted.

Some of the best examples of cash-rich companies and individuals who would like to get a higher interest rate on their loans to our government (Middle East oil wealthy, e.g.) may have a stake in the Chamber of Commerce or may have purchased more direct influence over members of Congress or key members of Obama's administration.

So Obama's assumption is false.

It follows, of course, that Obama's assumption that Republicans are negotiating over the deficit in good faith is simply baloney for the reason stated above. The deficit has replaced "terrorists" and "Al Qaeda" as the imminent scare of the moment. These threats are a tool, a gimmick the Republicans use to terrorize voters into believing all the Republican lies even when contrary to the voters' interests. Apparently with regard to the deficit they have struck terror in Obama's heart too.

The simple solution to our federal deficit is to revise our tax code to raise taxes on the wealthiest while giving big tax breaks for hiring Americans. It's easy when you put aside fear and confront the self-interests that want a default.

So, I will call Obama "naive" in thinking that the Republicans in Congress will "rise to the occasion." Chances are that Obama will be fooled and strike a cruel bargain that will cost him his presidency.

And then lets look at the programs Obama is ready to cut -- Medicare -- Social Security.

Why did Obama name Alan Simpson to this deficit commission in the first place and why in heaven's name is Obama citing Alan Simpson as an example of wisdom? Alan Simpson is a slightly (I'm being nice here) senile has-been -- an old coot. Sorry but that is what he is.

For Obama to show so much respect for Alan Simpson, for Obama to mention Simpson in his speech and responses greatly reduces my respect for Obama.

Remember Simpson's allegation that Social Security recipients were sucking at the teat. Obama should have written Alan Simpson off at that point. There is no individual more offensive to seniors who receive from Social Security based on their payments into the program than Alan Simpson. Simpson is a disgrace. Please Mr. President. Forget Alan Simpson.

The president misses the point on Libya. Whether his action was justified or not is not the question. It's about process.

Had the president been a litigator instead of whatever he did as a lawyer, he would understand that process -- due process in our justice system -- is the foundation for the rule of law. He has violated the process that Congress set up for presidents who want to involve the country in military actions. That process was set up to facilitate cooperation between Congress, authorized by the Constitution to declare war and regulate and fund our military and the president who is, under the Constitution, the Commander in Chief. Some process has to exist.

It is unlikely that Obama's request for authorization for his action in Libya will be denied. But he needs to respect the process.

As for trade agreements, I cannot think of a recent trade agreement that has lead to a rise in American jobs. Trade agreements just lead to more outsourcing, more importing and worse unemployment, especially in the manufacturing sector, in the US. I would like to see the evidence that supports Obama's claims about trade agreements.

Specifically, Obama points to the fact that we import lots of South Korean cars but South Korea does not import very many of our cars. He seems to assume that a trade agreement will change that imbalance. So what does he base his assumption on? Please tell us, Mr. President.

In fact, the failure of the South Koreans to import our cars may be because South Koreans can't afford our cars. Or maybe because our cars are impractical for their driving conditions or perhaps because they simply don't like our cars. Let's don't just jump to overly optimistic conclusions. I want to see the market research on just what products we could sell to South Korea that we are not selling now, just how much would a trade agreement benefit us. Show us the evidence.

As for the agreement with Colombia, it has drug deals and more corruption written all over it. For a few weeks in the 1960s, I worked for a small shop that imported all kinds of items from India. The boss was mostly absent and seemed to be in something of a haze a great deal of the time. Odd thing was the boss insisted that he alone open the boxes of stuff we were importing from India.

I found another job and moved on shortly after some strange individual came into the store and asked me if I knew where he could buy drugs. I didn't and, along with everything else in the place, was put on notice that working in that environment could end badly for me. That's just my personal experience with foreign trade, but it made me very aware that a lot of stuff can come in with imports that we might not want.

And we are going to ease trade with Colombia? That is either perverse and corrupt or naive.

Obama's little aside about how we can't have labor and management fighting just summarizes everything that is wrong with Obama. Why did he go into politics (or law for that matter) if he doesn't like to argue, to fight for principles.

That statement showed me just how anti-labor Obama really is. He does not understand that the structure of the American workplace is hierarchical. Laborers, workers are at a huge disadvantage in the struggle for decent wages and working conditions. They are not just being naughty kids when they demand union recognition. They are fighting for a decent way of life for themselves and their families and communities.

Scolding unions for causing trouble as if they were Sasha and Malia arguing about what TV show to watch is insulting to American employees and an indication of just what an insensitive, uncaring, unDemocratic man Obama is. Talk about arrogance. He should just switch to the Republican side right now and get it over with. That remark gave him away. Shocking.

As for taxes on the rich being the lowest since the 1950s. I have difficulty believing that the tax rates on the rich were lower in the 1950s than they are today. I think you might have to go back to the 1920s to find them at the depths that they are today. Anyone know the numbers on that?

Did lowering payroll taxes actually stimulate the economy or increase hiring? If not, why repeat the mistake. It just depletes the Social Security trust fund.

And Obama has totally given away his plan to screw seniors -- both on Medicare and Social Security.

The only hope for the Democratic Party is to field a true Democrat and ask Obama to yield to someone who can speak for Democrats.

We don't need a confused Republican in the White House. And that is what Obama is. "Compromising" on labor issues, on justice in taxation, on Medicare and on Social Security? In other words giving in on the very pillars of the Democratic Party's platform since 1932.

Creepy. That' all I can say.

Sorry this is so long, but the speech was over an hour.