Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
June 19, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     nsa     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Reporter Who Brought Down the 'Runaway General' Dead at 33

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's Supreme Court Warning

Warren Opposes Obama Nominee, Lawmaker Urges Gender-Role Class for Kids, and More

The Terror Con

Rachel Maddow Gives Emotional Tribute to Michael Hastings

Most Comments
Most Emailed




The Unwinding


Truthdig Bazaar
Bad Money

Bad Money

By Kevin Phillips
$17.13

more items

 
A/V Booth

Kucinich Says Obama Got the Deal He Wanted

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 4, 2011
AP / Mark Duncan

President Obama talks with Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, left, and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, center, in 2010.

Is the president a bad negotiator, or did he get the deal he wanted all along, as Rep. Dennis Kucinich suggests?

Also on this week’s Truthdig Radio in collaboration with KPFK: the phony Social Security scare, teaching Shakespeare in Iraq and more.

With health care, extending the Bush tax cuts and, now, the debt ceiling deal, President Obama has developed a reputation for giving away the store—but maybe that’s been his intention all along.

On Wednesday’s Truthdig Radio (airs Wednesdays at 2 p.m. on 90.7 KPFK Los Angeles), Kucinich said: “I don’t think the president of the United States ever accepted a deal he didn’t want.”

He also revealed that the compromise to raise the debt ceiling passed more easily than expected in Congress because of an unwillingness among Democrats to further weaken the president.

Advertisement

And despite all the fuss over defense cuts, Kucinich says that the legislation, with the help of a little creative accounting, will leave the Pentagon with more money than it wants.

Listen to the full episode, play individual interviews or continue reading the full transcript below.


Listen to the full episode:

Segments:

Kevin Pollack on prospects for the economy

Virginia Reno on the phony Social Security scare

Peter Friedrich teaches drama in Iraq

Rep. Dennis Kucinich challenges our perception of Obama’s politics


Transcript:

Peter Scheer: Welcome to Truthdig Radio in collaboration with KPFK. I’m Truthdig managing editor Peter Scheer. Today on the show, we hear about teaching drama in Iraq; with social security on the chopping block, Robert Scheer gets a reality check from Virginia Reno; and later, Dennis Kucinich gives us the inside scoop on the debt deal. Stay with us.

* * *

Peter Scheer: We’re back with Truthdig Radio. Before we get to the rest of the show, we’re lucky to be joined by Ethan Pollack and Robert Scheer in studio. Welcome to Truthdig Radio.

Ethan Pollack: Good to be here.

Peter Scheer: So, you know, we got word of this debt deal earlier in this week. And we’d heard so much about the debt ceiling, but what we’re really wrapping our heads around this week is the idea that we’ve killed the recovery in the crib, if the recovery was even … had much of a chance to begin with. So, dad, why don’t you kick it off?

Robert Scheer: Yeah. I mean, basically, your pieces have been quite pessimistic—that we’re going after a very small part of the domestic discretionary budget. And I was wondering, they are putting some of the defense budget on the table; does that impress you? Do you think that’s significant?

Ethan Pollack: It certainly could be. We need to remember that, first off, the caps … you know, so the first gauge has broad, top-line discretionary caps. But it only has a firewall between the security and non-security portion of the budget for two years. And I think we should also remember that it will be easier for Congress to—I think just because the military-industrial complex plays a much better inside game than the rest of us little people—and so I think it’ll be … it’s more likely for Congress to break the kind of either defense or security caps than it will be for them to exceed the caps on some of the other levels. So I think generally it impresses me a little bit to see them at least commit to making these cuts, but whether these cuts actually materialize—or at least to the extent that they’re supposed to materialize—I’m a little bit skeptical.

Robert Scheer: Your basic point is that we’re doing exactly the wrong thing, I guess—that we’re not dealing with the recession, we’re not dealing with the job creation, and we’re cutting programs that actually might help counter the recession. Is that still your view after the signing of this debt-ceiling increase?

Ethan Pollack: Absolutely. You know, one of the … the piece talked first about, the immediate job loss in 2012, which would be about—against what would otherwise happen, which we’re not sure—but that this would lower employment by about 1.8 million jobs. And that’s just in calendar year 2012. And then it talks about kind of the impact on cutting public investments, which really just transfers debt to future generations. What we really should be doing is increasing public investments. The cost of financing is so low; generally speaking, it costs more to repair a bridge now than to wait until it’s collapsed and rebuild it. So there’s cost savings there. And then, of course, we need the jobs right now, too. So there’s so many reasons why … the case for more public investments right now is overwhelming, and yet what we’re seeing is Congress moving in the exact opposite direction—not just cutting spending, but cutting spending in ways that actually make us poorer today and poorer tomorrow.

Peter Scheer: We’re speaking with Ethan Pollack of the Economic Policy Institute. You were also a staff economist for President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. What was it—what’s the attitude like in the, or the prevailing attitude like in the administration?

Ethan Pollack: You know, I don’t know. The commission was very separate from kind of the administration; the administration took a pretty hands-off approach to kind of the commission’s work …

Peter Scheer: Did you feel like your work was taken seriously?

Ethan Pollack: I think that, you know [laughs], I wouldn’t want to take ownership of the entirety of the fiscal commission package. And if I were in Congress, I would have voted against it. I think that there are certain elements of it that are positive and certain ones that aren’t. And I think that, generally speaking, it turned out … I think it was a centrist package, and I think that the real shame here is that the budget debate has moved so far to the right that, at this point, the fiscal commission’s package is seen as left. Which is really sad, because if anything, it was probably a little bit center-right. And certainly if we had a Republican Party of the early ’90s or ’80s, then I think it would definitely be considered to the right. So I think it more just represents the sign of how much the debate has moved to the right.

Robert Scheer: Speaking of that, there was Richard Nixon, who actually accepted Daniel Moynihan’s idea of a guaranteed annual income for all Americans. Just give us your basic take on this, though: Have we been sold out by this debt-ceiling thing? Because on my reading of it, it looks like they’re not going to really be able to do anything very much about foreclosures, about jobs; we’re pretty much dependent upon the Fed to do it through some kind of quantitative easing, and that hasn’t worked for anybody but the banks. What is your basic summary of where we are?

Ethan Pollack: Again, it’s hard to say. I think that there’s two unknowns here. One is, the administration really hopes that if … that now they can pivot back towards jobs. And they’re going to be pushing an infrastructure bank; they’re going to be pushing an extension of unemployment benefits in the payroll tax holiday. And if they are correct in reading that political mood—I’m a little skeptical about that—but if they are correct, then it might have been at least somewhat worth it. I don’t know. But there might be a silver lining to this, where they actually do get somewhat of a jobs package.

Peter Scheer: We’re going to—sorry, we’re going to have to leave it there. But we’d love to have you on. This is really enlightening. Speaking with Ethan Pollack of the Economic Policy Institute. Thank you for joining us.

Ethan Pollack: Thanks. It was fun having you.

* * *


Robert Scheer: This is Robert Scheer from Truthdig Radio and Truthdig online. I’m interviewing Virginia Reno, a person who has spent her whole life, basically, adult life, in the world of Social Security. She was on various national commissions; she actually worked for key agencies. And she’s now vice president of the National Academy of Social Insurance. And let me begin with, to my mind, the key question: Has Social Security just been used as a political football here in this current debate about the debt ceiling?

Virginia Reno: Well, people do get confused about Social Security and its relationship to the rest of the budget. In truth, Social Security is the most fiscally responsible part of the entire government. Over its entire life, which spans more than 75 years, it has collected more in revenues than it’s paid out in benefits, and it has large reserves of about $2.6 trillion. So the big deficits that worry policymakers are exclusively in the non-Social Security part of the budget. That’s where the deficits are. Last year, Social Security ran a surplus of about $69 billion; the rest of the budget ran a deficit of nearly $1.4 trillion. So that’s where the deficits are.

Robert Scheer: So what in the world are we talking about with Social Security, a program—I looked at the audit, that most recent audit—that can fund at a hundred percent for the next quarter of a century? There are very few corporations, certainly government agencies, that can make that guarantee. You know, what is this baby boom issue and why is it coming up now?

Virginia Reno: Well, when people lump Social Security into the rest of the budget, they say, oh, look—it’s big. Well, it is big. But it’s also paid for by the American workers and employers who have been paying in over the past 75 years. So it’s big, and it is really a separate kind of social compact between workers, employers and beneficiaries.

Robert Scheer: So is there any issue—as I look at it, they say in the audit that 25 years from now, because of the baby boomer burden, that Social Security will only be able to pay 75 percent, not a hundred percent. And yet you look at the cap—I think the cap right now is $106,000? I may be wrong on that …

Virginia Reno: Yes, that’s the amount of earnings that workers and employers pay a Social Security tax on.

Robert Scheer: So beyond $106,000—even if you make $20 million a year, as some of the investment bankers do—you’re not paying Social Security. So if we have a problem with Social Security 25 years up the road, we could easily increase that cap. And those people probably wouldn’t even notice, much, the increase. Is that … ?

Virginia Reno: Well, certainly one of the most popular proposals on the table is to lift that cap. The only question is, how much? And it is true, if you lift the cap, it simply means that people making above the cap would pay the Social Security contribution—that’s 6.2 percent for workers and employers each—they’d pay it longer during the year. Right now they stop paying as soon as they reach the cap.

Robert Scheer: So this is a nonproblem? I mean … even 25 years from now, it’s a problem that could be addressed by increasing that cap on the wealthier people …

Virginia Reno: That certainly is an option, and even the Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended lifting that cap. And it’s something that could start fairly soon, because it affects a fairly small segment of the workforce; only six percent of workers make more than that cap of $106,000, but it could bring in a big part of the shortfall.

Robert Scheer: Right. And when you say only 6 percent, I mean, 2 percent of income earners have 40 percent of the wealth and 40 percent of the income. So we do have this skewing. There are whole categories of people that are exempt from any Social Security obligation, right? Like hedge fund operators and so forth. Is that another area where we could get funding for this program?

Virginia Reno: Well, Social Security is financed by the taxes levied on earnings and self-employment earnings. And so if people’s income comes in forms other than earnings, wages and self-employment, then that is not subject to the Social Security tax.

Robert Scheer: Yeah. So we could …

Virginia Reno: But one could …

Robert Scheer: Yeah, we could decide to include hedge fund operators.

Virginia Reno: … or income from wealth.

Robert Scheer: Income from wealth, and you know, it’s just a social contribution. The other question I have—you know, I have to tell you, I’m really furious about this because I think there’s so much misinformation. And as a senior myself [laughs]—I’m 75 years old—it is annoying to me to think, you know, I’ve paid in all my life and I’m still paying, because I’m still working …

Virginia Reno: Well, good for you! Congratulations. [laughs]

Robert Scheer: … no, but I mean, people forget—people forget that a lot of us older people are never able to retire. And we have to keep paying. And the other part that drives me crazy is I remember my mother collected Social Security, and I kept thinking, how would I have been able to stay in graduate school if I had to support my mother to that degree? And you know, she’d been a garment worker. And it’s always left out—it’s put as a generational thing. The fact is, if we didn’t have Social Security and if we didn’t have Medicare, the burden would fall on the children of those people, and the grandchildren, to take care of them.

Virginia Reno: Absolutely. Absolutely, and people without children or grandchildren, or with children or grandchildren who didn’t take care of them, would be in dire straits.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By betty jo ford, August 9, 2011 at 7:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I hope that Dennis tracks the coming coup and facilitates America’s response.We all know that it starts with the Koch brothers giving monies to Grover,who in turn bribes Congress.It is my allegation that the brother of Grover,David L. Norquist,through his Partnership at Kearney and Company,a privately held accounting firm, with offices all over the world,is advising Grover of everything that Kearney learns through it’s federal contracts.There is probably no fed department that Kearney is not into.David Norquist is Uncle Sam’s bookkeeper.The third Norquist brother ,Alan, owns a company called Veriphyr.It has put in a proposal to Darpa to gaurd America’s cyber network.Three Norquist Brothers,The Koch Brothers,an Arabic wife,a history of Arab terrorists being given acess to the Bush White House are all reasons to track the coming coup.

Report this

By Ralph Kramden, August 8, 2011 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A nation that does not elect those such as Ralph Nader or David Kucinich is a nation on a death wish. I did enjoy Peter Sheer’s parting shot at his father after Robert started trying to backtrack about how Kucinich was not their favorite congressman but only one amongst a few; I lovedhow he closed by saying “our favorite congressman.”

Report this

By SteveL, August 7, 2011 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

“Pentagon with more money than it wants”

Even if $500 billion were cut, how many countries would we still be outspending on the military?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 7, 2011 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

You do that and as your protest is ignored the more extreme Reich wingers will get in. You see they like fewer votes, less turnout and ridiculous actions like yours. Why do you think they keep pushing the myth of “voter fraud” to use it as a means to cutting off real Democrats from getting to vote? Your ignorance is breath taking. And your self destructive foolishness. Rethink now.

Report this

By Martin, August 6, 2011 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comes the next election - any election - and probably at least several after that, I intend to write in my own name for any and all offices listed on the ballot.

Yes, it’s a ‘throwaway’ vote, but - if EVERYONE did it - it’d send a loud and clear message that might get the message across that we’re totally fed up….

Report this

By Penn, August 6, 2011 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Last long paragraph in Kucinich interview:

“And this is the time for us to sound the toxin again and create for this country…”

Editors, the word is “tocsin,” not “toxin.”  The magnificent Rep. Kucinich is using it correctly.

That said, thank you for the interview and the transcription, which was very good.

Report this

By Rixar13, August 6, 2011 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

“Virginia Reno: Absolutely. Absolutely, and people without children or grandchildren, or with children or grandchildren who didnt take care of them, would be in dire straits.”

Thank you Virginia Reno…..

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, August 6, 2011 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

RE: Kucinich

Dear Robert Scheer,

I love you man, but I am puzzled as to why you continue to selectively interpret Reagan’s legacy, intent, whathaveyou.

Reagan stopped enforcing anti-trust laws. Reagan broke the back of the labor movement. The man was vitually on the wrong side of everything all of political life. His speeches were really f**king creepy, etc.

Report this

By DaveZx3, August 6, 2011 at 12:17 am Link to this comment

By ETNIKS, August 5 at 6:19 pm

“Kucinich said it very well, but nobody seemed to pick it up and expand on it.  THIS IS IT!!  The government must create its own currency, interest-free and close down the FED.”
——————————————————————-

ETNIKS has made a number of extremely good points.  His assertions are backed up by literally hundreds if not thousands of books, among the best being:

“End The Fed”,  Ron Paul; 
“The True Story Of The Bilderbeg Group”, Daniel Estulin; 
“The Creature From Jekyll Island”, G. Edward Griffin; 
“The Secrets of the Federal Reserve”, Eustace Mullins; 
“Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country”, William Greider.

According to most of the above sources,  the primary owners of the Federal Reserve Bank are: 

1. Rothschild’s of London and Berlin
2. Lazard Brothers of Paris
3. Israel Moses Seaf of Italy
4. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York
5. Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany
6. Lehman Brothers of New York
7. Goldman, Sachs of New York
8. Rockefeller Brothers of New York

But who can confirm the above.  The Fed goes unaudited, so where their money flows is a secret.  They don’t pay any income tax, and they are not publicly traded.  We take their word for it that they operate on our behalf, but how can you actually tell? 

“Clearly the private ownership of the U.S. Dollar is by far The Greatest Crime of the Century.  The owners of this bank (Fed) have been responsible for instigating all the major wars and depressions in the last 100 years.  They own the bank, they own the dollar and they own all the major media channels, the military industrial complex and most politicians, judges and cops.”  “The privately held Federal Reserve Bank has not once been audited and never pays any income tax on their astonishing income.”
——Liberty For Life Association

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning”.
——Henry Ford

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency.. the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
——Thomas Jefferson

I am just pasting a couple of the better quotes from the following website:

http://www.libertyforlife.com/banking/federal_reserve_bank.html

There are a lot of good points for pondering in there.

Report this
ETNIKS's avatar

By ETNIKS, August 5, 2011 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

BRAVO!!!  finally someone mentioned the US government has the capacity to create its OWN MONEY!!!
and it had to be the BEST Congressman in this country.

From the Right to the very Left NOBODY is talking about the MOST important issue in this crisis, namely:
The Fractional Reserve Banking System.

AS LONG AS MONEY IS CREATED AS DEBT BY PRIVATE BANKS, we will NEVER get out of debt.

It has to be understood that within this fraudulent banking system, THE MORE WE PAY BACK OUR DEBTS, THE LESS MONEY IN CIRCULATION, and the less money in circulation, the more we strangle the economy!!!

Dollars today look the same as when they were backed by gold, but they are NOT the same.  “Dollars” today ONLY exist as long as the original loan that created them is not paid.  Once the loan is paid these dollars DISAPPEAR!!! and in order to grow the money supply to expand the economy to create jobs, we have to BORROW MORE!!!  It’s a vicious circle thanks to the Fractional Reserve Banking System.

It’s like a drug that requires you to consume it to feel well.  As soon as you stop (banks stop lending and currency flow contracts), you’re gasping for air and end up using more of what is destroying you.  More debt. More drugs.

Kucinich said it very well, but nobody seemed to pick it up and expand on it.  THIS IS IT!!  The government has to create its own currency, interest-free and close down the FED.

There are many other problems, but unless we STOP CREATING MONEY as loans, no other solution will work.

THE MORE AUSTERITY IS APPLIED, THE LESS CURRENCY IN CIRCULATION TO GROW THE ECONOMY.

Lincoln did it during the war of secession, he created the GREENBACK to pay for the war at NO interest to the government, and he intended to keep doing it but he was assassinated.

Dollars today behave more like IOU’s masquerading as money.  Once they are paid back to the bank, they stop their existence.  These particular “dollars” are gone and “new” ones have to be lent out into existence.

Links to support this view:

Debunking Money - 1 Myth and Machiavelli 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iBSBVew-3Y

RENAISSANCE 2.0   Damon Vrabel    
http://csper.org/renaissance-20.html


ONE GOOD CUT campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-LjL2yyVZo


THE MONEY MASTERS 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204#

MONEY AS DEBT
http://vimeo.com/3843038

Report this

By Basoflakes, August 5, 2011 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

I like listening to Kucinich, but I don’t see a solution from him.  Amy Goodman of Democracy Now had an article about the reluctance of the present congress and Administration to talk about the $5 Trillion spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts in these latest budget/debt ceiling talks.  That fell on deaf ears on Capital Hill.

Me, I would go back to Vietnam.  Not since WW2 has the US been attacked by a country that required our current Dept of Defence budget.  Although we had a committment in Korea and Kuwait, all other conflicts since the end of WW2 resulted in innocent civilians and soldiers on all sides dying for absolutely nothing.  Yes, the trillions that were spent should be discussed and the Defence budget should resultingly be cut in half at least, but the talks should always be ‘Who is benefitting from these conflicts’ so we can arrest the culprits to stop this insanity.

From the beginning, Obama proved to be a Republican and did nothing to show any courage from escalating Afghanistan fighting to a completely unprogressive health care bill, and now this latest debt ceiling bailout.  Nader predicts a contender for the 2012 Democratic nomination and that should be interesting.  However, this congress and Adminstration, as so many before them, has proven that the two party system is really the problem of America.

Report this

By juan, August 5, 2011 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Okay, we’re all seeing Obama pretty clearly now.  Are
y’all ready to consider that Al Gore wouldn’t have been
much different than George Bush? I remember Scheer
vilifying Ralph Nader for running in 2000.  Still does
as far as I know.

Report this
THE SNED's avatar

By THE SNED, August 5, 2011 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

Local Hero…..please expand on your statement…like a few facts.
He has yet to attack a country that did nothing to us (Iraq….Vietnam….Afghanistan)

Now unless you and I grew up in two different worlds, you are either a tea party patsy or the kind of hero that drives around with a flag flying out the driver’s side window, having never served this country a day.  (Not taking away an ounce from the real heroes who have served and fly the flag)

One sentence attacks spread little more than hate.  So take a deep breath and tell us what you know that we don’t know.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, August 5, 2011 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Good questions from the Scheers, good answers from Mr Kucinich. Alas, from my vantage point here in Northern Europe, it seems extremely unlikely that what has been said in this interview will have the slightest effect on the political situation in the United States. People in that country - and we others in the rest of the world who are so strongly affected by the policies chosen by those who run its government - are in for a very rough ride, indeed….

Report this

By Lafontaine, August 5, 2011 at 9:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Okay there’s all kinds of accusations being slung around against DK here and it seems to me that most of them are either bogus or grossly distorted. Read the comment by FRTothus to get what I think is a truer perspective. DK has always put the people before his own interests and he has proven that over and over again. If we had thrown our support behind him at the very start of the 08 campaign we might have had a really good chance to have a very different outcome in our situation today.

Report this
LocalHero's avatar

By LocalHero, August 4, 2011 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment

Obama is the biggest Neo-con, warmonger to ever sit in the oval office. He makes Reagan look left of Stalin.

Report this
Not One More!'s avatar

By Not One More!, August 4, 2011 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment

To Throw Off Such Government

“We hold these truths to be self evident, That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their creator, With certain unalienable rights to. Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these rights, Governments are formed , But whenever any form of government, Becomes destructive, It is the Right of the People, It is their Duty, To throw off such government”

~ From the Declaration of Independence

Report this
Not One More!'s avatar

By Not One More!, August 4, 2011 at 10:21 pm Link to this comment

Obama got the deal he wanted, and the people got the shaft, again.

On this issue Kucinch is absolutely correct.

However, I lost a lot of respect for Kucinich as a representative of the progressive movement during the 2004 election when he dropped out the week before the democratic convention, when he promptly fell into place with the democratic party. He let a lot of people down, and I don’t think he ever fully apologized for that letdown of supporters of the progressive movement.

And then the reversal on the health bill. Strike two.

Mr. Kucinich, if upholding progressive positions is secondary to being reelected or being a democratic party member in good standing, then you are not what the progressive movement needs. Good intentions must turn into action. There is no retreat.

And if you are just acting as the democratic party gatekeeper, well then, who else is left? Being a nice guy is not enough.

Of course this is easy for me to say. I realize that it is very difficult, when trying to uphold progressive policies, to always be on the opposing side, the minority, and be attacked for standing up for principles of peace and justice. But that is what is going to be needed. Kucinich has not stepped up to bat. When it would have counted, he sat back down on the sidelines with all the other democrats. 

The first step for Kucinich to be considered a serious progressive is to drop out of the democratic party. Even if he doesn’t get elected.

Vote third party, stop supporting corporate parties.

Report this

By Awi, August 4, 2011 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

The “o” is in fact doing exactly what he wants to do and to achieve.  He is a University of Chicago corporatist, head to toe.  The people that can’t get this through their heads are the Democratic clubbies.  If you have not moved past “o” yet, you are one of them.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 4, 2011 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

Kucinich duped as much as most were in 2008 and being a dutiful Democrat, but Joell aren’t you jumping the gun here? He hasn’t endorsed Obama and it isn’t 2012 so your whole idea is ridiculous. I don’t see him doing so this time.

Report this

By FRTothus, August 4, 2011 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment

Kucinich fought the economic hit-men out to defraud
his city, his constituency, and won. He fought the
financial blackmailers and he beat them all.  He has
the right vision, is aware of the fraud of the FED,
and is competently aware of the real issues, the ones
the press and the ruling class will not discuss. 
Look for real heroes all you want, you won’t find
any.  Look for saviors, they are only in children
stories or Obama campaign ads.  Look for a politician
that isn’t compromised in some way, or dirty in
others, and you won’t find one among the majority of
both parties.  But SOME flawed human being, SOME
politician, not some Prince Charming, IS going to
fill that office, of that there can be no doubt. 
Which flawed character shall we allow? Obama of the
forked-tongue?  The one who gives away the store, or
maybe a real care-taker, who agrees with the core
human values that is the only legitimate purpose of
ANY government of, by, and for the people. Kucinich
may only be speaking the language of populism, may
turn out to serve the corporate overlords once
elected, exactly as Obama has done, but Kucinich
actually has a track record of FIGHTING, and WINNING
against the corporate attack dogs, references the New
Deal and Social Justice, makes all the right noises. 
Sure, Kucinich had to hold his nose and vote for a
bill he was against, like everyone else playing the
dirty game of politics, because his district, the
people he represents, the citizens of his district,
were being played as pawns in a game of chicken, a
vote against would result in funds due the district
being denied, held for ransom, just like the debt
“deal”, the blackmail (or greenmail) is common in
legislation.  Vote no, you win the battle, but lose
the war, having much-needed funds denied. Navigating
through the corporate-state requires making such
horrible, and in an imperfect world, regrettable
choices. Someone is going to make them.  In the real
world, you take what you can get, do the best you can
for the people (in Kucinich’s case), not the
corporations (as with most others) you are elected to
represent, and try to do them the most good and as
little harm along the way as you can manage.  In this
regard, Kucinich has shown himself to be a giant. He
works for his constituency, those who elected him. 
The man is no Saint, granted, but why are we looking
for saints in the first place?  Kucinich is a very
capable, and in many respects, an extraordinarily
honorable man, who displays a bravery and conviction
that is far too rare among his fellows. It is
precisely this integrity that so threatens the power
structure, puts such fear into the corporate lackeys,
makes them so insecure, that they will fall all over
themselves to tell us how un-electable he is, how
lacking he is in what it takes, make up whatever
excuse works to distract from the vision of the
purpose of government that he adheres to, the one
that has the support of the overwhelming majority of
Americans, that he has espoused his entire adult
life.  Kucinich is one of the few out there for whom
the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are not
radical documents.  Kucinich WILL take on the
corporate take-over of our county, the theft of the
commons, to the best of his ability, and faithfully
execute the Law of the Land, a feat for which the
current incumbent has proven entirely unwilling and
incapable.  Perhaps even a return to legitimacy and
sovereignty.  Whatever he might be after election,
Kucinich’s track record shows every indication that
he consistently walks his talk, and has the right
frame of reference.  In terms of character, few can
come close.  He is the real deal.  He fights for
regular people.  He has backbone.  The same certainly
cannot be said of the current excuse in the White
House.

Report this

By grokker, August 4, 2011 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

@tropicgirl Obama appointed opponents of Social Security to the Deficit Reduction Commission. Chumps like Republican Senator Alan Simpson and ex-Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, so you could see where he was planning to go all along. The same with all the ex Bush and Clinton Wall Street toadies he brought in to his Administration. He is a Wall Street Democrat—
what used to be known as a Republican.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, August 4, 2011 at 4:45 pm Link to this comment

So then. We need to ask why our heroes, Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are not running against Obama?

Unless of course MK77 is correct.

Of course MK77 is correct. Dennis Kucinich proved himself with the corporate healthcare bill.

Understand people. Kucinich and Sanders are ALLOWED to be there. The corporate owners want you think that we have a representative democracy.

We don’t. They are simply the window dressing.

See you all October 6th

Report this

By al, August 4, 2011 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich should sit down and STFU. The highlight of his legislative career has been to rename a post office. He and Ron Paul are the most ineffective members of the House.

Report this
anaman51's avatar

By anaman51, August 4, 2011 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

I sincerely hope Kucinich is wrong about his assessment of this issue, because if he’s not, then that would pretty much make Obama a two-legged carp.

Report this
david451's avatar

By david451, August 4, 2011 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

Obama was always going to deliver for the monied interests that put him in the
White House—the same interests that he is now trolling for his re-election
funds.

From 2008 on, he has been consistent in both his statements and his actions
that he intended to tackle the social contract with Americans.  The Simpson “cat
food” commission was an early flag; the G20 Summit Declaration of last year
(lead by the US and Canada) said “The advanced economies have committed to
fiscal plans that will at least halve deficits by 2013.”; and recently he met with
conservative luminaries to assure them of these very actions.

As Matt Taibbi recently said in his blog, Obama delivered exactly what was
expected of him.  And he did it with a misdirection, a manufactured crisis. 
Rahm Emanuel has said: “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste…its an
opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”  In this case,
Obama used a fake crisis over the debt ceiling to push through austerity
measures that no Republican could have realistically imagined.

For more, please go to: http://cororateconstraint.blogspot.com .

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 4, 2011 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

Why is anyone surprised at Obama’s behavior?  Look at the people he’s
surrounded himself with, the people he appointed to his economic council, the
people he hasn’t. Do you see any progressives on his staff?  Do you even see a lot
of diversity, like black people except for his valet, Valerie Jarrett and Holder? 

Obama’s slogan for 2012—Vote for me. It could be worse.

Report this

By MK77, August 4, 2011 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

“Rape counselors are not on the side of the rapists!”

Their ROLE is that of rape counselor, making a show of pity and concern for those raped by legislation like the Healthcare Bill which THEY voted for.

It’s all a game, and unfortunately too few of us are on to it.

Report this

By Gmonst, August 4, 2011 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Thats a load of hogwash MK77.  Even on this debt ceiling vote Sanders and Kucinich voted against it, and Boehner and Cantor voted for it.  To suggest that Sanders and Kucinich are just part of the problem really misses the mark.  We need to support those who speak the truth not shoot them down.

Rape counselors are not on the side of the rapists!

Report this

By MK77, August 4, 2011 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

Kucinich and Sanders are just as useful to the corporate system as anyone else in Congress.

It’s just that their role is a little different.

They serve as rape counselors, consoling working stiffs and other unfortunates when necessary.

When it really matters, however, they vote the same way as Boehner, Cantor, Hoyer, and the others. They’ll cry and grieve after the voting is over and the bill becomes law. Their colleagues, on the other hand, make no show of caring about “the little people” and are thus more honest.

Report this

By grumpynyker, August 4, 2011 at 11:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh please.  You fake progressives KNEW Barry Soetero was a Reagan loving, Republican WHILE he was “running” for President.  I’m writing in NONE OF THE ABOVE if the plutocrats allow another bullshit election come November.

Report this

By Amerikagulag, August 4, 2011 at 11:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Certain people are put in certain places, to say certain things, to give the appearance of opposition, when, in fact, no opposition exists at all.

As with John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a plethora of others, there no longer exists an opposition to anything the Crime Syndicate of Washington DC intends to do to the American People.

Dissolve the Federal Reserve and this ‘debt’ would magically disappear. That’s What Lincoln, Garfield and Kennedy, both John and Robert wanted to do. Look what it got them.

It’s all a shell game. Wake up America.

Report this

By lasmog, August 4, 2011 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

This is a tough crowd. I would happily vote for Kucinich as a primary challenger to Obama.

Report this

By Gmonst, August 4, 2011 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

I am a big Kucinich fan.  I don’t agree with his healthcare vote, but I recall him being one of the only politicians to stand up and try to get the public option into the bill.  I also understand that he felt if the bill did not pass it would be a long long time before we could do anything on healthcare, and the bill was at least a small move in the right direction.  I don’t know if I agree with that conclusion, but I am not going to dismiss him just because of that.  Based on the current state of the house, I am not going to outright dismiss his judgement even if I felt differently at the time.  He has been one of the biggest fighters for the public good.  He takes being ridiculed and marginalized but keeps on fighting and speaking the truth.  For that he has my respect and support.

Report this

By George, August 4, 2011 at 9:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So just how much, and why, are we to value the opinion of Mr Kucinich?

The Brand: Dennis Kucinich the Vegan opposition to the awful conservative movement.

Anyone here heard about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act? A piece of legislation that has been used to imprison non-violent opponents of corporate animal cruelty including the “shac7”. http://www.shac7.com/

Dennis Kucinich was present with five other congressmen when that legislation was passed under a suspension of the rules. Kucinich alone could have stopped it with a no vote; instead he made a little speech to protect his brand and allowed the legislation to become law.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act

I’m no fan of Obama and will not vote for him again, but the opinion of Mr Kucinich carries little weight with me. He is just another self-serving politician willing to sell out his putative constituency at any time.

Report this
entropy2's avatar

By entropy2, August 4, 2011 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

@madisolation - couldn’t have said it better myself… *but* (imo) don’t hold your breath waiting for DK to “man up.”

Report this

By MK77, August 4, 2011 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

Molly,
I listened to the interview before commenting.

One of the big problems with the American electoral system is that there are no consequences for casting bad votes.

Sanders and Kucinich voted to increase the powers of corrupt insurance corporations—the truly bad actors in the healthcare system—and yet they are still held in very high esteem, their reputation as left-wing mavericks completely unsullied.

Their stock should have been downgraded after that single awful vote.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, August 4, 2011 at 8:33 am Link to this comment

Dennis knows the score, i.e. the deception that is the Obomber Regime (meet the
new boss, same as the old boss); and he knows how far he can go and still survive
politically and physically - e.g. Wellstone, anthrax, the Kennedys, MLK, et al

Report this

By madisolation, August 4, 2011 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

When Kucinich apologizes for his vote on the Mandated Corporate Insurance Bill, maybe then I’ll take him seriously and listen to what he has to say. Until then, his words are only words, because when the chips are down, he’s proven he’ll cave. It was a punch in the gut when Kucinich voted turned out to be nothing more than another cowardly politician. All those phony speeches he gave about caring for the working men and women went by the wayside. I remember thinking: “That’s it then. There’s no liberal voice in Congress left.” As far as I’m concerned, he has to redeem himself if he wants to stay relevant. He has to express his views on everything going on in Congress and not worry about what the other members of his party think. And it all begins with an apology. Come on, Kucinich. Be a man. Let’s see if you can stand up for the people.

Report this

By weindeb, August 4, 2011 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No doubt, despite some minor concessions, the health-care insurance industry
must be gleeful beyond description, as no doubt the pharmaceuticals were when
under Bush we got Medicare part D without a single negotiation for better prices.
Plus ça change, etc.

Report this
tropicgirl's avatar

By tropicgirl, August 4, 2011 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

Of course Obama got the deal he wanted. He is a fake.

And if you think he didn’t take the second major step in destroying SS and Medicare, (the first being the health insurance bill), LOOK again…

One of the things that will be “triggered” is a huge cut in entitlements. Entitlements paid for by American taxpayers and stolen from to the tune of $( Trillion, over the years.

Obama is out to destroy entitlements, labor unions, good medicine, peace, freedom and intelligence, and everything else good. It takes very little research to find these things out about him. For example, just “Google” “Obama Union Buster”.

I agree with the comments on Kucinich. I don’t really think it is possible for him to repair the damage he did with his votes with Obama, especially health care.

What Kucinich did, which is much more serious than even the vote, is what all “heroes” do, when they crash and burn… they demoralize others.

The compromise of the true liberals to the fake progressives and left-wing crooks, is extremely heartbreaking to watch, and it is the reason there is NO more anti-war movement. Any anti-war action will now come from the right, if it even can. Pretty sad.

But I’ll listen to anyone willing to speak the truth or do the right thing, even if it is for the moment. And with Kucinich, it will be just a moment in time.

Report this

By MollyJ, August 4, 2011 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

MK77, I was disappointed in Kucinich’s vote for the health care bill, too.  I took a big chunk of my respect for the guy.  But listen to this article.  He’s laying some great things out here.

He actually gives a cogent overview of how a lot of pieces fit together here and this is well worth listening to.  But really, though he is a voice in Washington, he himself is pretty marginalized.  And he is an important person BUT not more important than we, the people.  We are swiftly getting the government we deserve.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, August 4, 2011 at 6:15 am Link to this comment

Giving up hope can be a difficult thing to do…..Like Heroin, hope can make you want to
believe in things that are unreal, because reality can seem much too painful to bear…

The many ministers of hope, keep you mainlining, the delusions, that turn you into a
neurotic mess, unable to deal with the world as it is. Those delusions have become a
cult of ideas, a cult of unfulfilled wishes always about to come true, if only you will keep
believing.

What will you do to get your fix? Even after you’ve paid those politicians, with the lives
of your children in Iraq, and Afghanistan, the home you used to own, your social
security, your Medicare, you still line up to buy. There a whole in your arm where all the
money goes…....

Hope for happiness, hope for happiness, hope for happiness and it won’t come at all.

Report this

By Dr Bones, August 4, 2011 at 6:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. O is doing more damage than Bush could ever dream of to social services.  America has turned into a big club economy.  The knuckle dragger with the biggest club to beat people over the head, wins.

It is not surprising that Mr. War is Peace would extend Bush tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires and then put his boot on the necks of the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, the sick, and the elderly to balance his multi-trillion dollar welfare for the rich and untaxed global corporations.

Worst President ever.

Report this

By MK77, August 4, 2011 at 5:40 am Link to this comment

Truthdig’s “favorite Congressman” voted for a bill that would force every American to buy private health insurance. (That bill is now law and goes into effect in 2014.)

Only in America could such a man be considered left wing.

Report this

By FRTothus, August 4, 2011 at 5:07 am Link to this comment

Kucinich for President.  It’s time to put an adult in
the White House.

Report this

By joell, August 4, 2011 at 4:51 am Link to this comment

2011 Kucinich criticizes Obama on budget deal   and a few weeks   ago on the war in Libya.

2102….Kucinich   ENDORSES and CAMPAIGNS for Obama.

Consequently, Kucinich is as much a   part of the   problem as Obama and the Republicans.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.