Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 19, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Obama Attempts to Justify Tax-Cut Compromise

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

Posted on Dec 7, 2010
YouTube

This just in: The rich get richer. President Barack “Hope ’n’ Change” Obama ticked off a lot of people Monday by helping the affluent and entitled stay that way with his GOP-appeasing tax cut plan, and thus, he had some ’splainin’ to do. Let’s see what he had to say for himself, shall we?  —KA

YouTube:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

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 reynolds, December 11, 2010 at 2:22 am Link to this comment

tell it, citizen suave. i hear the fife and drum.
horatio suave, laugh out loud.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, December 10, 2010 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

glider:

“So just what is this “difference in temperament” the product of,  if not genetics and environment?” Exactly that. All there is is nature and nurture. Difference in temperament is like difference in eye color, or nutritional health.

I recently asked someone on another thread to define “democracy”, just to be sure I understood what he meant when he used that term. I was scolded for such presumptuous pedantry. “Why,” he said, “I shouldn’t have to define it for you. You should ‘feel’ what I mean when I say it.” Or some such nonsense.

So, I’ll try it with you and hope for a better result. “Level playing field” and “entitlement” for starters. I can tell you one thing right away. By the context of your use of the terms, I’m afraid we are pretty far apart in our “feeling” of what they mean.

For instance, “They are doing their best to privatize education and make it an entitlement of the rich.  This is the exact opposite of the level playing field I describe.” You’ll have to ‘splain that’n to me. I could tell you what I think you mean, but I hate that when people do that to me here, instead of just asking me directly.

RayLan, please pitch in too. And then explain this one please, “Capitalism thrives on inequity - that’s what debt financing (leverage) is all about.”

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, December 10, 2010 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

Under the capitalist enterprise, there was never, nor is there, nor ever will there be a ‘level playing field’.
Capitalism thrives on inequity - that’s what debt financing (leverage) is all about. The banks leveraged themselves out of the ball park which is why when the bubble burst the government had to rescue them (corporate socialism).

Report this

By glider, December 10, 2010 at 12:13 am Link to this comment

Unless you are proposing something entirely new, humans are a product of their DNA and of their environment.  There is also a random developmental effect that can be ignored in our discussion.  So just what is this “difference in temperament” the product of,  if not genetics and environment?

Yes, there is a universal public education system that conservatives are doing their best to tear down rather than improve.  They are doing their best to privatize education and make it an entitlement of the rich.  This is the exact opposite of the level playing field I describe.  And you begin to go down a road in which disparities will be amplified with each successive generation.  Carry that to its extreme and you end up with the caste system of which you claim to disapprove.

You object to some accusations as being unrepresentative of your beliefs.  We started out this exchange with you attacking “progressives” as people who “hate wealth”.  In the context of this article being about whether to extend the tax cuts for the rich, I think it is proper to assume you want lower taxes on the rich.  So if you truly want a level playing field for education and opportunity, how do you propose to do it without taxing the rich and with allowing the rich to circumvent the public education system?  IMO, this is the same as advocating an unequal system, regardless of your protests to the contrary.

Report this

By reynolds, December 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

i was referring to the president. i know you’re pulling
hard.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, December 9, 2010 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

reynolds:

Indeed.

Report this

By reynolds, December 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

“stupidity has a knack of getting its way.”
- albert camus

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, December 9, 2010 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

Dillon:

You know, you’re making an awful lot of unfounded and unfair assumptions about me and I wish you’d cut it out.

“...that there is no obligation to help those who are less fortunate.” Show me what I said that gave you that impression.

“How about the millions of people who are out of work and can’t find jobs?  Should they be pushed under the bus because you don’t want to help them?” Show me what I said that gave you that impression.

“Very few people want something for nothing.  All they want is an opportunity to work and raise a family.” I could not agree with you more.

“I get so tired of this bullshit line that everyone is lazy and gaming the system.” YOU’RE the one who brought up welfare queens and GE, remember.

Conservatives have no problem helping people, they just object that “help” is currently provided with little obligation or responsibility from those being helped. If I’d lost a job through no fault of my own, I would probably experience two emotions- anger that I couldn’t control events, and shame that I was without work and dependent on handouts. But that’s just me.

Hell, welfare payments can now be received by direct deposit! Would it be too much to ask people who are getting free money to stand in line at an office somewhere once a month if only to go through the motions of explaining why they need the assistance? Should the unemployed and unemployable be completely insulated from shame? Shouldn’t being on the dole, for whatever reason, be stygmatized even a little? What would be the incentive to get off it if it became merely another valid lifestyle choice, even for a “very few”? And does asking questions like that “prove” to you that I don’t want to help people? If so, how?


What minimum wage, and what minimum set of “benefits” should an employer be required to provide his employees to satisfy you personally that economic “justice” is being served? Give me a number and a list. Then explain to me how that employer will get the money to pay those wages and provide those benefits without raising prices so much that no one will buy his products or services. Don’t give me utopian “if only’s”. Give me a wage and benefits that would allow employers, and therefore employees, to survive in the real cutthroat world we live in.

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, December 9, 2010 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

Rico

As far as I can tell, no one is taking away your right to make money.  But I always get the impression from you writing that you somehow think that all that money is yours ... that there is no obligation to help those who are less fortunate.  How about those West Va. coal miners who are murdered by the mine owners because they can’t be bothered with safety?  How about the millions of people who are out of work and can’t find jobs?  Should they be pushed under the bus because you don’t want to help them?  What about the millions who work at low wage jobs and can’t get any benefits?  Under to bus with them too?  What I find with conservatives is this propensity to pick out those who are gaming the system as an excuse for helping no one.  I’ve always suspected that conservatives would throw everyone under the bus just so no one is able to game the system.  I’m willing to tolerate some gaming just to make sure that those who need help can get it.  I guess that’s the difference between us.

I get so tired of this bullshit line that everyone is lazy and gaming the system.  The biggest gamers are the politicians and business leaders who are whining the most.  Very few people want something for nothing.  All they want is an opportunity to work and raise a family.  Is that such a terrible thing?  Is it such a crime that they don’t want to start a new business ... that they just want a decent wage for working hard?  Do you honestly think that paying someone minimum wage is even close to justice?  Or telling them that health insurance is too expensive so they should just die when they get sick.  What kind of sick society is that?  Yours?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, December 9, 2010 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

Dillon:

I agree with everything you said.

Almost. “...maybe your lack of ethics and morals but I digress).” You know nothing of my ethic and morals. And, “I believe that benefit carries obligations which you, unfortunately, deny.” Show me where I said or implied anything of the sort.

Love this- “You make your money because the system is set up so you can.  It rewards your hard work and ability…” Exactly. What’s wrong with that?

I especially agree with- “But you would have nothing without the “system” that makes your accumulation of wealth possible.” Exactly! Do you want to do away with that system to spite my successful use of it, or do you want to help make it available to everyone?

And this is good too- “It’s unfortunate that some take advantage of the system.  But is a welfare queen any worse than a large conglomerate that games the system so it doesn’t have to pay any taxes (like GE last year)?” Nope, no difference, and neither of them are criminals. (Are they?)

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, December 9, 2010 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

I hate labels so I’m not a progressive or a liberal.  I have my own views about what is right and wrong and they conform to no fixed definition.  But I do believe in moral and ethical standards.  I do believe we all inhabit this rock and bear some responsibility to care for each other.  Those who can work and make money have an obligation to help those who can’t.  To believe otherwise is narcissistic and inhumane.

That said, Rico, I have nothing against getting rich.  I have nothing against wealth.  But I believe that benefit carries obligations which you, unfortunately, deny.  You make your money because the system is set up so you can.  It rewards your hard work and ability (and maybe your lack of ethics and morals but I digress).  But you would have nothing without the “system” that makes your accumulation of wealth possible.  The social system that protects you, that assures your money is safe, that makes sure your flight doesn’t crash into a mountain in the dark, that keeps the society working.  You would not be able to make anything without all the protections that exist for you and everyone.  If you want to see what happens when those protections are gone, please fly your plane to Somalia and try to land it.  Try to walk the streets without someone blowing your brains out.  Can’t be done.

It’s unfortunate that some take advantage of the system.  But is a welfare queen any worse than a large conglomerate that games the system so it doesn’t have to pay any taxes (like GE last year)?  Or the oil company that gets to extract OUR RESOURCES and pays pennies on the dollar.  If you want to bitch about one side you have to bitch about the other.  Otherwise you’re a hypocrite.

Oh, one final question: who paid for your flight training?  Navy or Air Force?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, December 9, 2010 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

glider:

“why do you think that the wealthy should not have an obligation to give back to the community and to help provide a equal playing field for the generations to come?” What makes you think I think that?

I completely agree that there is vast inequality of opportunity in the US and I strongly believe it needs to be rectified. Yes there are kids born on third base and there are kids who can’t even find the ballpark. And that’s wrong. But helping that kid find the ballpark, in my opinion, is not made any easier by seeing to it that the rich kid can’t find it either.

“Why would you want to produce a world that rewards entitlement rather than personal capability?” You have it exactly backwards! Isn’t it you who wants to provide education, housing, food, medical care, etc as a reward for just showing up? All these should be entitlements in the progressive view. Am I wrong? (What is Obamacare if not a new entitlement?)

This is the deal that I think is keeping poor people poor- the government is saying, “You are entitled to subsidized housing, food, medical care, and education AS LONG AS YOU STAY POOR- don’t worry, we’ll make the rich, or the Chinese, or whoever, pay for it. Now, isn’t it nice being able to go through life with no worries or responsibilities? Feel free to thank us at the ballot box.”

“Would you be happy for America to go so far as to develop and “untouchable” class such that exists in India?” No.

The reason there is wealth and poverty, despite our common DNA, is because there is a difference in temperament between and among individuals- we are more or less ambitious, strong, energetic, cunning, evil, generous, intelligent, loving, creative, etc than others. Like it or not, since the beginning of settled civilizations, these differences have been made manifest in inequality of economic and political power. Only by totalitarian enslavement can these differences be contained and controlled. To believe that a given individual would voluntarily give up any advantage without some type of reward (tangible or not) is to believe in a human that has never existed.

The social structure is in place right now to get every kid to the ballpark- it’s called universal public education. Unlike many of my conservative friends, I believe strongly in public education (implying as it does national measureable standards.) Having said that, I also believe that US public education is a disaster. Conservatives aren’t fleeing public schools because they teach Darwin, they are leaving because they teach equivocation, non-judgementalism and the meaninglessness and contingency of simple language.

But I digress.

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, December 9, 2010 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

Wealth is not created ... it’s acquired.  Creation implies someone is in the basement printing money.  A person gets rich by performing an action that transfers money from someone else to him.  He forms a company which sells something others want.  He performs a service which others are willing to pay for.  He does not create something out of nothing.  So that is mistake number one by Rico.

The issue for most is this entitlement an owner feels he has to take as much money from his company as he can.  There is something about “owning” it that gives them this right.  But, and this is the essential question, how much of the actual value has the “owner” contributed?  If he sits at home all day or spends time at the country club but takes home the vast majority of the profits, is that right?  Where does one draw the line on distribution of company income?  Just because a company can squeeze the life out of its employees doesn’t mean it has the moral right to do so.  And yet that is what folks like Rico see as their right.

When workers spend years increasing the equity of a company (and that is what they do as no company can survive without the worker’s contribution) and the owner then tells them that he has decided to move their equity offshore, is that morally right, Rico?  We (and I mean you) have this distorted view that only ownership has value.  Well, try running your company without employees.  Try flying you airplane without a pilot or flight crew.  If you are the only employee, then by all means take all the money and run like hell.  But if you are squeezing your employees and safety and everything else so you personally can make more money, than I think we all know where you can shove that idea.

Report this

By glider, December 9, 2010 at 4:53 am Link to this comment

Rico,

I am no Socialist/Communist.  However, I do believe in a level playing field with which to place individuals into the game of Capitalism.  So I think it is appropriate to apply Socialist ideals in so far as they play into providing everyone with an equal opportunity to excel and contribute to society (or in your terms to become rich).  Immediately obvious to such a utopia would be to create a society in which individual merit would largely determine economic success.  In other words the “Steve Jobs” of the world would be successful regardless of whether they were born rich or poor. 

However, this is clearly not the utopia perceived by the Tea Party/Republican/Democrat Elitists.  In a world of privatized prisons, schools, health care, and toll roads, individual endeavor and competitive success is relegated to being born into entitlement, and independent of one’s capabilities.  Why would you want to produce a world that rewards entitlement rather than personal capability?  Such an attitude would require a super-racist viewpoint that would say that this unsuccessful class is inferior and a dead end and should be relegated to cleaning Republican toilets without any reasonable chance of advancement.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, December 9, 2010 at 4:50 am Link to this comment

When 2 percent of the people own most of the wealth, it isn’t a zero sum game - it isn’t a game at all - since the possible outcomes have been so restricted that we simply have a state of increasing inequity between the rich and the poor. Welcome to ‘free’ enterprise unregulated capitalism.

Report this

By glider, December 9, 2010 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

Rico,
Yes, economic activity is not a zero sum game.  On the other hand there are limits to resources and clearly not all of the Earth’s 7 billion inhabitants can have a Mercedes in their garage.  But all this is not relevant.  Man is not an island.  He is a social creature whose makeup was ingrained in small tribal groups in which individuals had to cooperate with each other to survive.  There was no extraordinary gap between rich and poor under the circumstances in which our DNA blueprint was produced.  Bearing this in mind, why do you think that the wealthy should not have an obligation to give back to the community and to help provide a equal playing field for the generations to come?  Over the past decades the percent contribution of the wealthy (per individual) has dropped.  Just how far down do you want to drop these rates to fit your utopia?  Would you be happy for America to go so far as to develop and “untouchable” class such that exists in India?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, December 9, 2010 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

Let me assume that most “progressives” (except for Hollywood and MTV types) don’t care about getting rich. In fact, they despise the concept on philosophical grounds. Am I right so far?

Now then. It is an incontrovertible fact that economic activity is NOT a zero sum game: Wealth is constantly being created, and there is more and more of everything to go around. Which means that if someone gets richer, it’s not because he stole from someone else and made him poorer.

So. Why do those of you who hate wealth so much even give a shit about those who want to accumulate it (except for the Hollywood and MTV types)? It’s no skin off your butts. If you want to be a slave to, and dependent on, the government tit, have at it. It’s easy to ride in the wagon. Just turn over your soul to Uncle- he’ll tell you where you can’t live, which doctor you can’t see, what not to teach your kids, what you can’t eat, what you can’t drive, whom you can’t work for, whom you must work for, whom you can’t hate, whom you can’t love. Your life will be completely worry free.

On the other hand, if you want to be TRULY free, get a fucking job and help pull the wagon. But please, quit complaining that those who are already pulling the wagon aren’t pulling hard enough.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, December 8, 2010 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

It’s perverse that the only time Obama finds a spine, is when he attacks his own Left. Where was all his hutzpah when he campaigned on letting the tax cuts for the rich expire. This isn’t a compromise - it’s fraud.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, December 8, 2010 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

It’s perverse that the only time Obama finds a spine, is when he attacks his own Left. Where was all this He campaigned on letting the tax cuts for the rich expire. This isn’t a compromise - it’s fraud.

Report this

By knute, December 8, 2010 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a diabolical scheme those in power had in selecting Obama as their inside mole. They knew with Bush’s dismal popularity ratings that they needed a cardbord cut out for change, but they wanted the status quo to remain intact, in fact escalated, starting with the transfer of billions upon billions directly to them called a bailout.  Had alot of us fooled into thinking he was going to make a change. Can anyone name a single time he has stood up against the repug.s ? They got him to commit first to never prosecuting Bush & Cheney, then the biggest looting of the taxpayers in history followed. They’ve gotten everything they wanted from our first black president.

Report this

By the worm, December 8, 2010 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

It’s been reported with some sense of incredulity that Obama ‘lashed out’ at
liberals.

Well, you shouldnt find it incredible; Obama has ‘lashed out’ at the American
people for 23 months now:

1 The American people wanted a government administered plan like Medicare -
for everyone. (72% - CBS/New York Times poll June 2009)

1A. Democrats gave private sector insurers a windfall: mandated customers,
with a taxpayer-paid overhead rate of 20% for ‘mandated customers’ (20% of
our premium spent on administration, CEO salaries, bonuses, sitting on Boards
to set rates and decide who’s covered, lobbying for the insurers’ benefit,
advertising and propagandizing to redefine more and more as ‘health care
service’ while delivering fewer and fewer services—- essentially, we’re just
giving our tax money to insurers to do with it what they will).

2 64% of the American people opposed expanding the war in Afghanistan and
wanted to disentangle from Bush-era ‘War on Terror’ and ‘preventive war’
policies.

2B. Democrats gave us an expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

3 The vast majority of Americans opposed the transfer of taxpayer wealth to
cover private company debt – the bailout.

3B. Democrats kept the 6 too-big-to-fail banks – now bigger than ever; kept
deposits at risk by maintaining huge grey areas between commercial and
investment banking; didn’t ‘punish’ the financial industry - now even more
profitable, with bonuses among the biggest ever.

There are some ‘self-described liberals’. I think about 20% of the populace or
so. Liberals may be the ones Obama dissed with his rhetoric, but ‘liberals’ are
the ones Obama has dissed with his actions.

Obama likes to malign ‘liberals’, but the simple fact is that 55-70% of
Americans backed policies that Obama opposed. Obama dissed just the vast
majority of the voters. Can he seriously wonder why he is not supported?

Scape goating ‘liberals’ is not going to get him where he wants to be.
Supporting American voters - the middle class - will.

Report this

By the worm, December 8, 2010 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

Discussing Obama in terms of his ‘not risking’ or ‘inability to negotiate
effectively’ or ‘giving things away to early’, ‘capitulation’, etc. misses the point.
By assuming Obama is a liberal with the intent to govern in the manner the
electorate expected, we are simply mistaking Obama.

People voted for Obama believing he was ‘different’, that Obama represented a
real change from the Bushies, etc.

But the people misunderstood Obama. Perhaps, because we wanted so
desperately to believe the nation could change, we projected on to Obama the
qualities we wanted and the policies we hoped for.

We were mistaken.

Now, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, we continue to believe, and our
commentary reflects our mistaken belief.

Obama is not politically inept in his ‘bargaining’; Obama simply represents the
moneyed interests, not the middle class.

Obama does not stand for the policies we believed him to have; Obama is
simply someone who ‘goes with the flow’ and, in our system, ‘the flow’ is
controlled and directed by the lobbies in DC.

Obama does not have the leadership qualities we believed he had; Obama is a
‘go a long to get along’ guy.

So, please, let’s stop putting Obama on the couch and pretending to analyze his
actions as if they were the result of some ‘weakness’, ‘ineptitude’, a ‘character
flaw’ or his potty training.

Our interests are not protected by the President, simply because he finds them
to be less important than the interests of the wealthy and the corporations.

It’s not difficult to understand, requires no Freudian, Machiavellian or global
conspiracy theories. Obama simply cares less for the well-being of the middle
class than he does for the well-being of the wealthy - his policies and actions
reflect that belief.

Report this

By the worm, December 8, 2010 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

Discussing Obama in terms of his ‘not risking’ or ‘inability to negotiate
effectively’ or ‘giving things away to early’, ‘capitulation’, etc. misses the point.
By assuming Obama is a liberal with the intent to govern in the manner the
electorate expected, we are simply mistaking Obama.

People voted for Obama believing he was ‘different’, that Obama represented a
real change from the Bushies, etc.

But the people misunderstood Obama. Perhaps, because we wanted so
desperately to believe the nation could change, we projected on to Obama the
qualities we wanted and the policies we hoped for.

We were mistaken.

Now, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, we continue to believe, and our
commentary reflects our mistaken belief.

Obama is not politically inept in his ‘bargaining’; Obama simply represents the
moneyed interests, not the middle class.

Obama does not stand for the policies we believed him to have; Obama is
simply someone who ‘goes with the flow’ and, in our system, ‘the flow’ is
controlled and directed by the lobbies in DC.

Obama does not have the leadership qualities we believed he had; Obama is a
‘go a long to get along’ guy.

So, please, let’s stop putting Obama on the couch and pretending to analyze his
actions as if they were the result of some ‘weakness’, ‘ineptitude’, a ‘character
flaw’ or his potty training.

Our interests are not protected by the President, simply because he finds them
to be less important than the interests of the wealthy and the corporations.

It’s not difficult to understand, requires no Freudian, Machiavellian or global
conspiracy theories. Obama simply cares less for the well-being of the middle
class than he does for the well-being of the wealthy - his policies and actions
reflect that belief.

Report this

By the worm, December 8, 2010 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Yeh! It’s all about bi-partisanship !


Mitch McConnell is an Economic Terrorist.

McConnell is supported by an elaborate network of pseudo-think tanks,
corporately owned ‘media’, lobbyists, etc. This gives his pronouncements great
gravitas and the appearance of legitimacy.

McConnell’s done much more damage than ‘high-tech terrorists’ to whom he
refers. McConnell has been complicit or led the following:

The largest shift of debt (i.e. losses) from the private sector to the public in
American history.
And
Billionaires enjoying all the benefits of our country, but pay only 15% on their
incomes (carried interest).
And
$ 3,400,000,000 or $ 3.4 BILLION in ‘loans’, bailouts and guarantees given to
Wall Street from the public coffers.
And
Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s, pre-emptive war (starting wars to avoid wars), torture,
renditions, etc continued.
And
Non-reform of the financial industry - six largest banks still too-big-to-fail,
and investment and commercial banking functions still greyed - so, your and
my deposits are at risk.
And
The supports the manipulation of the system allowing banks to borrow from
the government at 1%, then buy government bonds that pay banks 3.4%; thus,
‘making’ 2.4% by simply shuffling paper. (This is a great trick! And illustrates
clearly why a huge finance industry provides nothing to the nation)

So, sure, there are ‘techno-terrorists’, but there are those who manipulate our
laws and policies to terrorize and victimize the middle class. Which is worse?

Our prosperity and well-being is more threatened by McConnell than the
‘techno-terrorists’.

After ‘the compromise’, you can add Barak Obama to the list of economic
terrorists.

Report this

By the worm, December 8, 2010 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST !

    2012 REPUBLICAN TICKET

  Mitch McConnell for President
                  &
Barak Obama for Vice President

      Campaign Slogan:
“MORE FOR THOSE WITH MORE!”

Report this

By leigh45, December 8, 2010 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

It’s time to ignore Obama.  He is an accomplished deceiver, a “bait and switch
artist”!  I will not vote for him, ever, again!  I want a Bernie Sanders or Russ
Feingold for President?  It’s a war out here for my family.  I have no time or
patience for Obama’s nonsense!  Jerry Leigh

Report this

By Alan Attlee, December 8, 2010 at 4:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The settlements “back-off” comes at the same time as the
tax policy capitulation.  There is a much bigger story here than
either one of those stories in isolation.
The Obama administration, some kind of Manchurian candidate
administration, is simply imploding or exploding or both, it
is careening off every wall and cannot seem to find
any single straight line.

Report this

By FRTothus, December 7, 2010 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

purplewolf, I fear that we would need someone that is
untouchable, someone whose wealth is old and deep,
willing to betray their own class interest as FDR
did, albeit with a capitalist’s eye.  Still, we
cannot keep hoping for leaders, when the only ones
allowed the national stage are the followers, those
who have been compromised so long they have
internalized and held themselves blameless in their
own narrative rationalizing their own debasement.  I
suspect that the choice between “lead or gold”: a
bullet, or wealth and power (illusory, generally-
speaking, mistaken by proximity).  This is enough
incentive for most candidates and “officials” to
choose the latter.

Nonetheless, I believe this search for someone from
those quarters and those that aspire to be among them
is fundamentally flawed, based as it is on hope for a
savior.  We must unionize.  We must organize against
the organized syndicate arrayed against the working
man, as it has always been.  Join a union.  Pay dues. 
Organize.

Report this

By Jim Michie, December 7, 2010 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s face it, really we must face the ugly fact that Barack Obama is little more than a caretaker bowing to the whims and dictates of the global corporatist oligarchy.  Welcome to Amerika!  Did you know that you and the rest of us “been-hads” are in freefall?  Well you know now!

Report this

By samosamo, December 7, 2010 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

****************


purplewolf,

They feel themselves entitled because by stealing
their way to affluency they think themselves
entitled for special privileges to further set
themselves from the lower classes. Don’t forget
that for any fortune, there has to be or is an
incredibly ruthless, greedy, selfish person adept
and willing to use skullduggery for their benefit,
damn any and everybody else.

Report this

By purplewolf, December 7, 2010 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

“by helping the affluent and entitled” and just whay makes them “ENTITLED?”

Obama forgot his campaign statement of starting to rebuilt the country from the “base” up first, rather than from the top down, which never works. We all see that it was the top, who really didn’t need it the bailout as they gave themselves even bigger raises, yet continues to steal what is left of America all in the name of greed.

Hello America,the newest third world country. Just what the rich wanted.

If the dems were smart, they would immediately find someone other than Obama, one with a backbone, to run in 2012. That would really screw up the repugs as they are so concentrated on running against Obama, they probably have given no thought about a different person running for prez and they would be unprepared changing horses in midstream.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.