whyzol1—It was probably yesterday-I had trouble too. Thanks.

It seems to me that the route we are on now, globally, is not benefittng the people of the rest of the world any more than it is us. (well, maybe some). But, it is mostly the big multi-natls. It leads to Thanatos. I keep thinking of that word lately. Scary.

But, people still seem to take it as gospel…why??? MSM I guess..

I dont have any other quotes right now, but, thanks for the discussion.lol.

Kdelphi,
I’ve written two nice replies to you, now lost for eternity somewhere in the digital ether, thanks to Truthdig’s anemic server. C’est la vie!

I think “our faith,” expressed in its most rudimentary form, resembles the spirit behind this quote from socialist Charlie Chaplin, “In this world there’s room for everyone, and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goosestepped us into misery and bloodshed.”

To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, the reaction against the soul-destruction and degradation that can be visited upon a people by men imbued with the will to power, in its most elementary form, can be expressed in a single word: Love. That is the banner we wave—whether we realize it or not—as we seek to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the elite’s Capitalist-Imperialist Death Machine.

Peace, my friend.

“Economic globalization is neither in the human interest nor inevitable. It is axiomatic that political power aligns with economic power. The larger the economic unit, the larger its dominant players, and the more political power becomes concentrated in the largest corporations. The greater the political power of corporations and those aligned with them, the less the political power of the people, and the less meaningful democracy becomes. There is an alternative: to localize economies, disperse economic power, and bring democracy closer to the people. However, networks and alliances made up exclusively of Stratos dwellers are unlikely to articulate and pursue such an alternative. To the contrary, as we shall see in the next chapter, the Stratos dwellers are mobilizing the full resources of the world’s largest corporations behind an effort to consolidate global corporate rule.”

From link above—-right after my heart…thanks.

whyzowl1—Thanks, I will check them out. I am not sure I have any faith to begin with, but, I have a dogged personality—I never give up.

Debbs—(paraphrase)The Am people can have anything that they want, but, it seems that they do not want anything…

People deserve a good govt—I just dont know if they realize that , most advanced countries, would never tolerate the level of corruption and co-optation that we permit here.

They deserve the whole loaf, they have just bought into the idea that , even a basic subsistence, is no birthright, but must be struggled for individually, to simply maintain life. What bullsh*t!

To stop struggling is to die. Thanks…

It’s hard to be a radical in this nation of propagandized and often self-deluded conformists. But the radical tide is rising. Gerald Celente over at the Trends Research Institute is predicting a revolution, mass social unrest, right here in America as a consequence of what he predicts will be the “Greatest Depression” and the typically sadistic, cruel and stupid response to it of the ruling class.

As the great American socialist John Dewey once observed, “Government is but the shadow cast by business over society.” So any work-through-the-system reformist like Barack Obama is caught in a trap. I think he would like to do the right thing(s), but he can only do what is politically “do-able”—that is, whatever the corporate and financial aristorcacy will allow him to do. Therefore, he has to be an incrementalist. Universal care is, within the constraints of the system, becomes a necessary first step toward Single Payer. Better half a loaf than none.

Korten’s latest book almost certainly won’t be available on line. Try your free local lending library. But there’s tons of his work available online, particularly from his prescient earlier book, “When Corporations Rule the World.” Happy surfing.

Follow this link to read excerpts from that book on the excellent Third World Traveler website. There are reams of great info to be had there. For free! Just scroll down to the “W’s” to find “When Corporations Rule the World.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Excerpts/Book_Excerpts.html

Keep the faith, my friend.

whyzowl—I agree with most of what you say. It is a conundrum ( i hate that word—it is one neo-libs use to prevent action), but it is….I would actually LIKE the banking system to collapse—-but how many people would die?? If I thought that we had a moral society that would not allow this,,,,but, we dont. Not a majority, anyway…

SCHIP is an “increment” that will probably slow down universal heatlh care (which all civilized nations must ultimately go to)—but, what to do, let kisd die of toothcaches? (I waas very pleased today to hear that Obama has set up a committee to investigate the “transition to universal care”—it is not what I want, but, if he didnt believe in it, he wouldnt do this…if it’s stalling, we shall have to stop it)

So, the dilema of the anarchist. Being an ex-social worker, it is practically unsolvable.

I would have answered sooner, but, my old pc was screwing up (every couple days). I will check out the Common Dreams article (I started to read it the other day), NOW that I have found a way to get back on , after being banned like so many others. Thanks for your reply.

Is there any way to read the David Korten book online? If I google him?

Yes, f*ck the rich and the WEF and Davos.

David Korten is one visionary who has been working on these problems in a most constructive way for many years. Hese’s a link to his latest “Inaugeration Speech Obama Should Have Given” article. Get his latest book. I’m going to.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/19-7

Aside from that, our locus of focus for a vision of a better world should be the World Social Forum at Porto Allegre, not the World Economic Forum at Davos. Screw the rich: we need to take the world back from them in order to save it, and with it, ourselves, our communities, and our families.

Yes, we need to act, and the time is now. But I think we need to act on two levels at once. We have to act within the system-as-it-is to press our new President and Congress to shape whatever real changes they may have in mind or are capable of making in ways that do the most good for the working and middle classes. At the same time, we have to be building alternative political, economic and social structures that will result in a more egalitarian and democratic system to relace the dying current hierarchal and plutocratic one.

Yes, you’ve put your finger on an inherent contradiction in almost all American “left” or “progressive” discourse and policy prescriptions. Their mild reformism only serves to prop up a rotten system that in my (and your?) estimation requires radical overhaul or replacement. In that sense they’re little more than Judas Goats who co-opt the masses and bring them to do the bidding of their masters. That’s a classic Marxist critique of the bourgeoise left, and it will never lose its bite.

We need a real left political party in this country that represents the interests of the great mass of its people. The Democrats are nothing but the “Good Cop” face of a government of, by and for the plutocrats. We’re not likely to see any substantive change emanating from their camp. The title of a recent piece by Dean Baker on Common Dreams says it all, “The Purpose of Government: Keeping the Rich Wealthy.”

On the other hand, the collapse of the banking system is going to do irreparable harm to millions of our fellow citizens and countless millions of others around the world. So, what is to be done?

So, to you , “change” = “sticking with tradition”...

Of course they wont give it to us, but they sure love people that just give in.

My grandmother is from Norway…yes we cant? Well, then just give up. If we keep doing what we have been—we’re fu*ked!

We could do precisely what Norway did. Obama has TONS of goodwil right now (some , maybe undeserved).If he uses it to give more tax cuts for business, he will retain the good wil of the rich. I think that they can take care of themselves. I will not stand with them

The DEMS have all three branches . The time would be now. If not now, when? If now us, who?

Since we seem to be a country of “in slogans we trust” how about Kennedy—“some see things a they are and ask why. I see things that never were and say why not”.

Why cant we do it? And, before you answer, be certain that you dont mean that YOU dont want to do it.

I don’t mean “brother” in the sense of fellow black person of the male gender, but in the sense of the brotherhood of man. Brother… or is it sister?

I see the core constituency of the Republican Party as the unabashed representatives and champions of the scum of the earth (the ruling class). The Democrats are the abashed representatives and champions of the scum of the earth. They’re at least somewhat embarassed at being such bastards, and that’s an improvement, albeit a small improvement, over having no conscience at all.

Your wish list is our wish list—we both want the same things. But there is no Democratic Socialist political tradition in America with a history of nationalizing much of anything. What nationalizations there have been have been conducted by the establishment in the interests of suppressing the working class, not empowering it.

The fact is, every civilization since the beginning of civilization has been characterized by the programmatic exercise of power by men over men and governed by the law of intensification, or greed for more than one’s share. Democracy, Social Democracy in particular, is an attempt to change that basic social contract in an egalitarian direction and make the haves share with the have-nots. That’s why the members of the conservative core of both parties in this country detest democracy, and yield to the will of the people only under duress. And yes, that’s our role in this time of crisis: to provide that duress.

The contemporary model for a successful resolution of a total banking collapse is the Norwegian banking crisis of 1988-91. The US tends to follow a course that dovetails with the worst instincts of its ruling class, so some aspects of the Norwegians’ solution would be politically impossible here. And that’s ideally what our function should be: to extend the bounds of the possible to include Demopcratic Socialist policy alternatives to the “slop the wealthy hogs” approach so much in favor here in the good ol’ United Snakes of Amerika. We know what we need, but we have to take it, the Masters aren’t going to give it to us.

The first link (IMF) is not really known for “suceess” in helping the people that need it the most. The World Bank and IMF are good at pruoducing DEBT. I see Bernancke is listed many times—yeah, he’s great!

Yes, Denmark and the uK did bailouts, but they have strict govt control over what it is spent on and can nationalize the banks in a heart beat.

I dont see definitive evidence that bank bailouts work in either of the pdf links. I am not an economist, but, I just dont see it. Looks more like “The Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein, to me.

I se that the radio is the Village Voice—probably worth a listen

I have to get offline to listen to the radio program/(my pc is old and will log me off—I am relly trying here, guy!)

I’m not a “brother”, and, I didnt get food stamps 30 yrs ago—I get them now.

If we had enacted a wealth tax the way Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Marcy Kaptur, Sherman and others wantetd to do—but the Dems wouldnt even allow a vote on it..what happened to “yes we can”?

Who do you think will pay this bill? Right! The “children”! How is refinancing a bunch of banks going to “save the children”? If you want to help kids, pass SCHIP (they did—thank gawd), pass childcare subsidies, send some money to inner city schools, send some to state for medicaid ndn child nutrition programs, cut the military budget,(stop using tax money to pay for Junior ROTC in Junior High School!) reverse the Bush tax cuts to pay for it, etc. Make state colleges—already subsidized—free-=like they do in advanced socieities. Make sure that parents get paid leave for birth and child care. Take care of elderly so that people can take care of their kids…on and on. Refinancing banks and businesses for “the children”??? Youre right! I do have to look thsoe up!

I will listen (or look up_) those links tomorrow.But, it will be tough to convince me that, what hasnt worked—-works.

IMF working paper on the effectiveness of blanket guarantees
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08250.pdf
Effectiveness of Recapitalizing Banks
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08248.pdf
Behing the News Radio Show (scroll to October 4, 2008 show and choose your listening preference)
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html

It’s fun to consider things on a “This is what we should do—if wishes could come true” basis, but we have to be real. The American banking system is not going to be nationalized any time soon. Period.

In the meantime, whatever we can do to diminish the severity, duration and depth of this recession/depression is likely to save millions of our brothers and sisters from being put through an economic hell. And that’s something… real. Sure our first reaction is to strike out against the malefactors of great wealth with anger and self-righteous indignation, but that’s not a solution, that’s nihilism. Save the children, brother. Save the children—first.

Libarchist—OK. Liberal.

Im a socialist.

KDelphi

_____________

A progressive is someone that wants to be a liberal—but because of fear is to afraid of liberalism.

Most change in the US for social—and civil rights cane from the liberals; if the politicians are to afraid of liberalism…. change is not likely to occur.

Whyzowl1, I too am interested and would appreciate links.

Let’s be very clear about what you are defending. It is so easy to get the specifics lost in abstractions like “stimulus” “bailout” “direct injections of liquidity” to the banks.

What you are saying is that working people who make ordinary wages will have money taken out of their paychecks and will also suffer inflation in order to pay for these handoffs to some of the wealthiest institutions in the world, the very institutions who brought on the crisis.

They will part with this actual money and see these actual price increases in the future based on actions undertaken in the present with nothing other than faith in some some vague undefined rising tide which MIGHT lift their boat enough NOW to get them some kind of job to hang on…

Now, it is a little harder to defend, no?

whyzowl1—Youre gonna have to give me a link if you want me to listen.

NO, I dont think that the Dems will do anything progressive, whether we try to get them to do what they should be doing or or not. But, I dont have to like it.

And I dont give a damn about Wall St. I dont care if it blows up. We already bough it anyway—we shoudl turn it into apartments.

If you cant link me. when and where did “direct injections into banking” work? (we dont need to “buy the banks”—we already did—we just havent taken ownership) Why didnt it work when Bush and the Dems did it? As far as I know, no one I know has had a cent put back into their 401k or IRA, and they dont think that they ever will.

So, then , what are you proposing? More money to banks? How much more will it take? Are there any left, that arent bankrupt or sitting right on it? If it “worked”—where?

•  “..Some time in the future they will ask for a “quid pro quo” from President Obama, namely his support for a pet project of theirs and his promise not to veto their earmarks…”

Well Dihey,

There’s no doubt this is the way business HAS been conducted in Washington, which is what Barack Obama has promised to change, and what many of us relatively main-stream folks already see happening. Yes,  it’s probably true that ‘some time in the future’ one or more of the reptiles still in the apparatus will ask for a “quid pro quo”. Ya see how that worked out for Blaggo though, right??

So here’s the thing, the CHANGE has already begun, and it’s obvious to any conscious person who takes even a few moments to consider it. Or, any person who has even the mimimal amount of political consciousness. It is my sense that the majority of Americans are very much invested in this critical change, knowing instinctively that it is our only chance for survival. This ‘sense’ is strongly upheld by the polls (yes I know, for whatever they are worth) and all of the other statistical data from the scholars of the Humanities. It’s boring stuff for most, but it provides a forest rather than a singular tree view, which is actually quite helpful.
So, we have a new generation that decided a while back (I’m putting it roughly after the 2004 (2nd) stolen election) to actually DO something to move this country in a direction that includes THEM, and NOT to the flippin’ cemetary or the bottom of the abyss, which we all know damn well is where we’ve been headed, for too long, and these last 8 years have wiped us out.
So this new generation/American phenomena created a movement to take some responsibility and accountability for their own futures, and to improve their lot. The ‘they’ in this story is the majority of the politically conscious electorate, and the result is what we’re celebrating now, even with the full knowledge of the realities of our crises and what it will take to survive it, and have a “more perfect union” – (on a 21st Century Model)
TBC

2 of 2

There will however, ALWAYS be the ‘naysayers & nitpickers’ who will maintain the blinders, because they are the same people who maintain the same narrow view (of the tree) and are either unable or unwilling, (sometimes it hard to determine the difference) to consider POSSIBILITIES of anything different from what they’ve ever personally experienced. Quite frequently, it’s because THEY DON’T WANT TO experience anything DIFFERENT from what their own small worlds’ contain. In other words, they’re perfectly content to just keep picking the bark on that same tree, because a wider view would just be too unsettling.  They DON’T WANT CHANGE, and that is exactly what Obama represents. In respect to Barack Obama himself, there could be a variety of individual reasons/psyches that make up the majority of his “Chronic Critics”; and they should NOT to be confused with his “Constructive and Supportive Critics.” Now the difference THERE, is far easier to discern. 

For instance, the issue with the “tax cuts’ influence” that Felicity mentioned, and the entire tax structure is of course of major concern to most Americans as well. So yeah, we’re gonna be looking at that very closely, along with a bunch of other things, because our survival depends on that as well. A hefty percentage of our electorate has spent some decades (like the past 4 at least) contributing to the tax structure that has ALWAYS been rigged against the middle class. The working and what used to be the middle class have supported this country for that long, while the wealthy have by and large NEVER paid their fair share. Or, at least not in my lifetime, and not directly into the common coffers. So that’s one of many huge fixes required, and it’s gonna cause some shit, because it requires something bold that the the established/entrenched power structure is going to reject, and in a kicking and screaming sort of way.

But, that’s a different public discourse engagement than we get from this small minority of “Chronic Critics” who are still in whatever view they were 2 years ago or a decade ago, or 4 decades ago, and determined to remain there, no matter what. There’s a difference between healthy skepticism, based on what the realities of the day, (and the realities of history) tell us, and the mentality that says nothing that happens now or in the future can possibly be any different than the past, and so there’s no need to expect it; OR..the inherent personal biases that for some people, can never be overcome.

These people don’t want change. Or, they don’t want change that they cannot directly control themselves. Some actually thrive (in a pathological way) on such negativity and pessimism, eyes and ears peeled at all times for ANYTHING, anything at all, on which they might put a negative spin, such as this pettiness about a threatened veto. It’s petty. But it is also a part of the fabric, (admittedly the ‘fringe’) of the society that we are now, in this change that WILL happen, whether the kickers and screamers want it to or not.

Of course it goes without saying that it would be a far more efficient and successfully managed transition if as many people as possible could be positively and constructively involved. But at the bottom line, this CHANGE will continue. Now we can either adjust, just as we are expected to do as we age and our systems/bodies/psychologies change, and we call those adjustments growth; or we can spend a considerable amount of energy denying it, or trying to ‘hold it back’. Considering the scarcity of nearly all resources, both personal and collective, it just seems to represent a complete WASTE to do that.

Just my humble opinion.

Kdelphi,
  I don’t mean to be harsh, but if we want to see a powerful progressive agenda enacted in this country (and we do), then we have to go out and build a powerful progressive majority within the American electorate to fight for it. You can’t be operating under the delusion that the Democratic Party as it is presently constituted is, in any way, shape, or form, a “left” or progressive party, are you? You KNOW the Dems always “run to the left” to hold their progressive base, in the same way the R’s “run to the right” to try to hold theirs, and then rush to govern from the “center”—which in this country IS The Right.

I really wish you’d listen, at least, to Doug’s commentary from the show I mentioned. Sure, he says, we all agree on some level with what Edmund Wilson said regarding the last Great Depression, “One couldn’t help being exhilarated at the sudden, unexpected collapse of that stupid, gigantic fraud,” but the unemployment rate was 25 percent in the Thirties—is that what you want, really?

We have to save people first before we can even think about such exotic projects as organizing them into a potent Left cadre. There is absolutely no reason to believe that any truly revolutionary change in this country would tend to be in a progressive direction, and plenty of reasons to believe it would be likely to go in the opposite direction—potentially all the way to fascism.

We’re entering a period of chaos in the World System, and that means anything we do to affect real change will be magnified in its effect. So, let’s just get to work on it—and of course that starts with providing relentless pressure to push Obama, his team, and their policies to the left.

We can talk about nationalizing the banks after the smoke clears. Right now we have to put out the fire.

Wall St. {hearts} you

The Democrats have all “three branches”. No more excuses. So what…there was “fierce resistance” (and will be) to anything progressive.

Unless you just want a prettier face painted on the last eight years. If you cannot “change” things, dont get peoples’ “hopes” up.

Anything worth doing, meets with “fierce resistance”.

When those “promises” were made, the Dems couldnt have even hoped for the majorities that they got.

Like I said—they are in charge. And people are sick to death of excuses.(not as sick of it as they should be) “You gonna bite doggy, or are you just gonna bark all day?”

We have been there/done that tax cuts. What, you want to bill it to all those kids who didnt get to watch the inaugeral music today on HBO, because they cannot afford it?

I love Dave Sirota; his bleeding heart is always in the right (that is, “left”) place. But, we must consider the possibility that his head may be in an altogether different place, a place typically surrounded by toilet paper pills and hemorrhoids.

Admit it, most of us are economically illiterate; and, therefore, most left commentary on The Current Economic Crisis (including our own) falls somewhere between being dangerously uninformed and just plain dumb. I’m personally convinced that Chicken Little was a leftist.

So then, where is one to find the kind of sensible, informed commentaries on The Current Crisis we all so desperately want and need? I vote for economist Doug Henwood over at the Left Business Observer site, and his weekly radio program on WBAI, Behind the News (Thursdays at 5:00 PM EST, and now also on KPFA Saturday mornings at 10:00 PT),. The program’s archives are also available for download on the LBO website. BTW, I’m just a fan, not a paid shill or connected to Doug in any way.

Wondering if To bailout, or not to bailout, is, in fact the question? I point you to the BTN of 10/04/08 on KPFA that featured Doug’s comments on the economic situation, plus a typically intelligent interview with Leo Panitch and Sam Genden (available in the LBO or KPFA archives).

On that show, Doug mentions an IMF working paper (it’s actually a non-ideological database) by IMF economists Luc Laeven and Fabian Valencia that examines all 124 banking crises of the last century, what was done to correct them, what worked, and what didn’t. Turns out direct injections of liquidity to the banks has quite a good track record, buying up their toxic assets does not. So, now we know… something, at least.

At this point, all this speculation about what Obama and his team might or might not do is just that: speculation. Their agenda is clearly going to be driven by events, not ideology or their past records. Look, if Obama appointed a bunch of lefties, even mainstream lefties like Krugman, Stiglitz, etc., to his economic team, ANYTHING they wanted to do would be met with fierce resistance. On the other hand, if his group of conservative insider advisors propose what would otherwise seem to be wild-eyed leftist policies as necessary to defuse the Looming Depression, their proposals are going to have some credibility on the street—the only street that matters: Wall Street. Think about it.

cyrena - the ‘influence’ of tax cuts should be carefully looked at.  Recent tax cuts for the richest one-percent of us amounted to around an extra $1,000/week in one’s pocket - to them chicken-feed which they could probably lose and never even realize it.

For the rest of us?  Our tax cuts amounted to about an extra $1.50/week. I actually can’t think of what $1.50 would buy these days - other than 2 apples maybe?

Cyrena

Because of the way business is conducted in Congress it is perhaps equally interesting to know who the Republican Senators that voted “aye” were. Some time in the future they will ask for a “quid pro quo” from President Obama, namely his support for a pet project of theirs and his promise not to veto their earmarks.

Dihey,

I didn’t even notice the typo!! So, not to worry, I do the same. Some days my hands and fingers work better than others. 

And I agree that Obama badly wanted to have the funds available on January 20th. But keep in mind that isn’t unreasonable given the fact that there isn’t a single moment to waste, and the past 4 months have been exactly that. They’ve blown the first half, and I’m inclined to ‘envision’ Obama pulling his hair out and hoping they didn’t blow the rest of it. He already knows Paulsen fucked it up, and has said as much, in a far more diplomatic way of course. (Which is why I could never be president.)

So yeah, I would EXPECT him to want the money immediately available. He went along with the bailout 4 months ago, with the logical assumption that he’d be in a position to do something with it to actually address the crises.(Instead of bailing out banks)I have to admit, I’d be pissed as hell if funds already legislated and handed over 4 months ago to the real bandits is now all of a sudden off-limits to the incoming Administration.

So, I take that into account, even with the Senate count of only 46 Dems. I’ll have to go and search it up, to see who those Dems were who did NOT support him. I have a feeling I probably already know, but I’ll check it out here in a bit, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Cyrena

I am sure that you did catch my typo of 36 Democratic Senators which should have been 46. The three is right next to the four on my keyboard and I am a lousy two-fingered typist!

Perhaps my “ominous” was a bit too strong. Nevertheless, these were funds that PE Obama badly wanted to have available on January 20 and it was the very first Congressional test for soon-to-be President Obama. I still find it slightly alarming that he got only 42 Democratic votes at the virtual start of his governance. If not “ominous” then at least a worrisome “omen”!

1 of 2
•  “Perhaps I am wrong but this looks like an ominous sign for President Obama that substantial numbers of Senators and perhaps Representatives of his own party will not always go along with him and not because of the “whining” of the Sirota’s but because they and their constituencies don’t like his proposed legislation.”

Dihey, I agree with your overall theory, but this may not be such an ‘ominous’ sign at all.  I say that because Senators and Representatives of his own OR the ‘other’ parties may NOT always ‘go along’ with him, for perfectly legitimate reasons,  such as you’ve cited here…the constituencies may not like his proposed legislation.
But that hasn’t come up yet, so we don’t know. What we’re talking about NOW, is the distribution of funds that have ALREADY BEEN LEGISLATED, and the ‘threat’ of the veto had less to do with HOW the remaining funds would be distributed, than it does of the “response” from those who don’t want him (Obama) to use the money AT ALL!!

Now if at some point in the future, Obama or his admin comes up with some legislation that certain constituencies don’t like, they can be expected to raise objections. That’s why it’s up to him to create such proposals in a way that are attractive to most constituencies. In fact, from the purely academic (political science) perspective, that is (theoretically) one of the primary functions of the POTUS.

It is the job of the President to come up with policies that are acceptable across the board, REGARDLESS of political party, and beneficial to the largest part of the US constituency. That’s politics minus the partisanship.
As of now, there is no indication that Obama isn’t up to the task. If anything, what we’ve seen so far is that he is QUITE up to it, or at least is laying the groundwork for exactly that. Because if Congressional representatives (and that includes all 535 of them)are considering what is best for their respective constituencies rather than their partisan power power interests, it’s not all that difficult a task.

ALL Americans need housing. ALL Americans need health care. ALL Americans need education. ALL Americans deserve the benefit of a modern physical infrastructure. All Americans need jobs or some other form of economic social security, and on and on, which has nothing to do with partisanship, or at least it shouldn’t.

2 of 2

You’re concerned about Social Security, along with me and the millions of other Americans who rely on it and will come to rely on it in the future, as the boomers continue to leave that side of the grid, (the pay-IN side) to go to the other side, which is the collection side. I suspect that there will need to be a restructure of the PAY IN part of the system, if it is to remain a viable system. But I’m overwhelmingly grateful that Bush wasn’t able to destroy it entirely, which was a cornerstone of the neocon agenda from the beginning. It was the American constituency, (Republican as much as Democrat) that prevented his dismantling of the SS system as we’ve always known it.

The evidence says Obama has rejected such plans as vehemently as the rest of us did, so I don’t know where your concerns come from in that respect. There’s been no indication that Obama plans to use those funds for anything other than what they are intended.

Meantime, I’m not at all influenced or otherwise distracted by the loose use of the term ‘tax cuts’.  Neo-con “Tax Cuts” as determined by the Rove Agenda were directed at those holding all of the wealth, who weren’t paying their own fair share of the taxes to begin with. Obama’s so called ‘tax cuts’  (and I don’t even call them that) are directed at the part of the population that actually MAKE UP the tax revenue base. In other words, the middle/working class; the group that has been footing the bill all along. It is for THAT group, that these so-called ‘tax cuts’ are intended.
That said, there is definitely going to be a widening of the deficit, unless Obama can restructure the tax system to actually start collecting tax revenue from the ones who don’t pay it, and for all intents and purposes, never have. That seems to be his plan. So if you’re among the 10-15% of the wealthiest Americans, then you might be worried about losing some of your wealth, and of course I’ll pray for you and maintain an alter of sympathy much like Felicity has committed to the Friedman family, now that they’re down to their last $10 million.

But if you’re not, then I suspect you have no worries. So here’s a promise: if Obama starts making noises like he’s gonna mess with our Social Security, I’ll have a ‘talk’ with him. OK? Godmother style. 

Larry Summers has been “proven” (to be on rhe side of Hedge Funds), and , is said to be the person that convinced Obama to put more business tax cuts in the Stimulus pkg. (which isnt really out , yet, and is being revised, I think, with more for states, unemployment, or so I hear)

It is my opinion, that we have had ENOUGH tax cuts—period! We need revenue, the Congressional Budget Office says that we do (number one cause of the deficit), and, many “less neo-con” economics pros say so.

I wish Obama would appoint Krugman…

Not to defend (or critisize because speculation is always untethered from fact) Obama’s choices of economic advisors, but Robert Reich is also an advisor.  He recently wrote that democracy can exist with capitalism but there must continually be a carefully guarded border between them. 

Hopefully there is more than one Reich among O’s advisors.

felicity,

I share your concerns for the pooor Friedman family. I have good news. Your arithmetic may indeed be off. I just read in Vanity Fair that the fortune is under $25 Million Dollars. Poverty to be sure, but not the crushing deprivation that $10 Million represents.

Dare I audaciously hope that they get a piece of the bailout funds? Or perhaps Thomas can help start another war and invest in something mnore stable this time, like weapons for Israel. That always works.

felicity—and Dubya says he needs to “go home to replenish the coffers” (with speeches and such—if you can call them that), because he only has $25 million left!

MOst presidents are multi-millionaires when they arrive, All are when they leave!

Joe Magner - I just read that Thomas Friedman’s wife’s family fortune WAS $3,500,000,000.  As of recently, 97 percent of it is gone, lost…(I never have figured out where ‘lost’ money goes, but nevermind.)

My arithmetic - EXTREMELY unreliable - says the family has only around $10 million left on which to subsist. They’re in my prayers.

yrena,

Your atention to the veto part of Sirota’s argument is a dodge. The veto is discussed to make the following point:

“Perhaps [Obama] thinks the gravity of a veto threat will, for a second time, trick the nation into reluctantly accepting theft.” - Sirota

Obama is party to this trick, and this theft, pure and simple.

I do not demonize him. He is, as I have said many times, an amazing man. He was positioned for the presidencey to help the corporate/military/intelligence elite dodge populist outrage from the right and the left, and I think he believes he is going to broker a deal between us peons and our corporate masters, and I believe he is sincerely trying to get us the best deal he can.

He still is helping the richest people in this country steal public funds. He is helping to indenture the rest of us to the banking/credit/tax system for the rest of our lives and the lives of our children.

That is bedrock, and that is what Sirota is saying, not simply complaining about a veto maneuver.

Cyrena: I agree, the threat that Mr. Obama uses the veto power is indeed nothing to be alarmed about. Of course he should/must use it if some idiotic piece of legislation reaches his desk.
However, the most salient “pick-up” of the recent Senate vote on the release of the remaining TARP funds, a release that PE Obama wanted, is that only 36 Democrats voted for and the votes of six Republican Senators were needed to pass the release. And 52 votes is not even filibuster proof!
Perhaps I am wrong but this looks like an ominous sign for President Obama that substantial numbers of Senators and perhaps Representatives of his own party will not always go along with him and not because of the “whining” of the Sirota’s but because they and their constituencies don’t like his proposed legislation. A veto cannot undo a defeat of important legislation. I fear that lots of water will therefore continue to be added to the wine of progressive legislation. The huge tax breaks of the proposed “stimulus plan” are a forerunner of what is coming I think. Next may be tampering with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to spare the rich of having to ante up for his huge deficits.

I’m late to the party here, so I’ve only just read the article, only to then read the comments and realize that none of the comments have appeared to pick up on the criticism in Sirota’s piece, which is a petty and moot point in the larger context.

The point of the article (if there is one) is to suggest that Obama’s language in terms of dealing with this particular issue, which is (for better or worse)  ALREADY PASSED LEGISLATION, (TARP) spells a future of doom from an Obama administration, because he dared use the 4-letter word veto.

It’s true that vetoes are very rarely used by Presidents, and in the past 8 years, we’ve have 700 SIGNING STATEMENTS AND SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDERS. So who needs VETOES?? I mean, if a VP legislative bully could overturn every single piece of legislation he didn’t like with the power of a little signing statement or an executive order, why would he use the CONSTITUTIONALLY TRANSPARENT procedure of a VETO? Not when he can just get David Addington to write up a signing statement or EO, and get Georgie to sign it. THAT is the way to literally rob a country and its economy dry, and that’s what has happened to us.

So now Sirota is whining about Obama using the word “veto”  which he (Sirota) intentionally couches as a ‘threat’ of a legislative bully. It’s more hyperbolic spin action on a moot point. This huge ‘bailout’ was passed 4 months ago, and as expected, the Cheney-Paulson team has fucked it up, and there has been NO relief from the distribution of the first half. That was a ‘given’ when it was allowed to pass without ANY oversight provisions.

Fortunately, (maybe…since it remains to be seen how it will be used) half of it is still left. (or so they tell us). So, Obama quite OBVIOUSLY wants to use it to hopefully accomplish at least SOME of what this huge ‘bail-out’ was supposedly intended for to begin with. To BAIL OUT the rest of us; to throw some crumbs to the remaining survivors that might still be hanging on in this rescue-recovery-triage operation that Obama is expected to oversee.

Meantime, it’s STILL a moot point. Congress has OK’d the money (AGAIN) and there will be no need for Obama to do any ‘vetoing’ – at least on that.

Have the alarm bells gone off in the Obama team? If not, they should have because only 46 Democratic senators voted for the release of the remaining TARP funds! If President-to-be Obama cannot muster an available majority of his own party in the Senate, his programs will be in for a rough riding.

With the passage of Federal Reserve Act in 1913, the banksters got to control the nation’s money supply.  With the passage of the 16th Amendment in the same year, the government got the right to tax personal income.

With the globalization of world trade, jobs were shipped overseas, enabling employers to reap higher profits.  As a result, U.S. workers earn less wages, and are unable to afford life’s necessities.  They are forced to work several jobs, and/or buy on credit.

Basically, the banksters, the largess of government, and the large corporations support each other, while feeding on the life blood of the middle class.

Is PE Obama “just keeping his enemies closer”, when he has lunch with George Will, Charles Krauthamer, etc.

I mean, moderate GOP, maybe. These guys??? You have to be kidding me. Their vision of the US is as different from “progressive” as, well, Dubya. What is to be gained? More tax cuts, so that they can fight SCHIP on the House floor??

Have some dignity, for chrissakes.

sirota is pretty epic.  i love him just for how much he
pisses off obamatron dems.  those dems hate anyone honest or to the left of them the way a nazi hates a jehovahs witness or jew.

I have never had a course in economics.  I have a simplistic view of how to balance the budget.  Stay in the black.  I believe it is legally REQUIRED by the U.S. Constitution to use a Federal Budget that is the taxes collected.

Now comes an Incumbent who is, to my eyes, a non-performer with no achievements to his credit, saying before he was even “elected” by a “majority rule” of voters who were offered, to my knowledge, at a “mainstream media level” ONLY TWO choices, both incumbents, both warmongers and powermongers against proper public safety and public interest policy which is the only proper use of taxes.

The media has pretended they do not comprehend Ralph Nader’s accusation of “Corporate Rule.”  It is when you put the greed of private profit as the reason to enact a law that favors not the public but the CEOS’ who collect unconscionable salaries for a product that, in the case of the military budget, is entirely unconscionable.  Red ink for red blood and wars not wanted by the majority, but they vote for the candidate forced on them and wishfully expect bailouts not to be as bad as they sound.

Red ink and bailouts?  This is not proper budget in balance, everyone knows it.

It is not helping, everyone believes it is supposed to, when they cannot see that red ink and weapons increased (YES, OBAMA WANTS INCREASED MILITARY, and he is willing to stoop to phony money, no doubt, because there is no other way to get soldiers for his 90,000 troops who want to pretend his policies are backed by the majority RULE of voters who allowed incumbents as the only valid media warmongering claimants to the Bush Throne.

I voted for a democratic Constitutional candidate who is able to do as the Oath requires and able to deliver the agenda wanted by the nation in lip service but not in the election proceedings, YET. 

How far is this phony election result going to go?

ONLY Democrats and Republicans RULE this country?

Who believes that?

167 million registered voters and there are 100 million who are not registered in a party.  24 states (82 million) do not register party, they register voters as a non-partisan initial status.  Party activities are outside the registration process.  26 states allow “party declaration.”  But, of course, ELECTIONS are supposed to provide QUALIFIED CANDIDATES from any party that claims the significance level to arrive on the ballot.

In Nader’s case, his fame is beyond the level of any candidate in the past three elections, but the media didn’t want his limelight to challenge the rule of two corrupt parties, when an outside challenge is ALWAYS valid, and certainly by Nader.

So, we have a railroaded election.  And, the resulting candidate is mystifying many as to why he is supposed to be representing a new and valid change needed for America!

Why indeed.  The media wanted NO DEMOCRACY to happen.

The people need to demand the NEWS of the IMPEACHMENT and that it is Constitutional STRENGTH to impeach Presidents!

Congress thinks the media is the same as the public opinion.  It is not.  And, it is not more principled.  And it is not responsible, but they take the power of information from the people instead of offering them the proper duty to inform and present valid news of candidates who would offer agenda change to net a nation ON TRACK not OFF TRACK.

Money for weapons via bailouts when cutting weapons and military is what is needed, has to be forced on the criminals who seek the money.  No deficit spending is allowed for red ink already way out of bounds.

Here is what the right wing kook site, http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/01/paul_krugman_is_encouraging_ba.php  (John Hawkins)

is saying about Krugman’s sugggestion that they prosecute Bush , et al.“Let’s do “be clear what we’re talking about here:”
” Paul Krugman wants to criminalize political differences between the Democrats and Republicans. That is an extraordinarily dangerous road to go down—and I mean that not just figuratively, but literally.

It’s one thing to go after a public official for something we all agree is a crime, like taking a bribe or perjury, but when jokey, made-up, ridiculous, purely politically motivated charges like, “the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq,” may result in a jail term, it threatens the continued existence of democracy in the United States.”

. The title is, “Paul Krugman Is Encouraging Barack Obama To Risk American Democracy To Prosecute The Bush Administration”.

Sure, let them get away with it, Dems. Nothing will please the neo-kooks more…

At this point, I still have hope. From that point of view, I will be waiting, and hoping that there will be change.

I will be holding my breath, in case anyone decides to screw things up, The Dem’s themselves, The Republicans…or the economy some other country like the PRC imploding…

One only has to look at our own government in California, to get a good look at what happens, when the people cannot prevail in the legislative process. But I can forsee something similiar happening in Washington.

It’s no small feat that is country has survived 8 years of Mr. Bush, however many of us are bruised, bloodied, paranoid, and far worse off.

If the corporations continue to take the Lions share of this countries wealth then the outcome will be certain.

We will all find out in the next few months how it’s going to be.

Despite some minor differences, Democratic and Republican economic policy have essentially become one - tax cuts and welfare for big corporations, shrinking opportunities and benefits for the rest of us. This is exactly what Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney have been talking about for the past year.
Let this be a lesson for liberals: you can support Barack Obama and plead with him to support you, but the Democratic leadership only cares about the folks who are coughing up the big bucks.
The solution to corporate-dominated politics? Register Green, vote Green, and organize Green. Stop getting fooled again and again, and vote your values instead.

WaPo’s Appelbaum and Schneider say, “Bank of America and Citigroup together have now received $90 billion in taxpayer investments, plus federal guarantees limiting their losses on assets of $424 billion.” What are the terms received by the taxpayers on the government’s bailout largess, I assume, like before, not very good. The financial ruling class and the slimy-on-the-take politicians stick it to the people, yet again.

Obama is continuing the neoliberal imperialist policies of Bush becaue the same ruling class funded them both.  He favors the same bailout swindle as Bush and has put gutting Social Security and Medicare at the top of his economic program, as Bush did.  The money is needed to increase the military to promote the imperialist policies of the War on Terrorism which Bush initiated with the 9/11-antrax false flag operation, and which Obama is continuing.

It will be time for pitchforks, torches and perhaps the double-barreled 12 gauge if Barack blow off the people who elected him on principle.  US is about due for another revolution anyway - the moneyed interestes (18th century France, anyone?) have gotten far too comfortable and powerful - not just in the US.

B-I-N-G-O, Mr. Sirota.

Not only do you ask the devastating questions which, considered soberly for thirty seconds, from either the left or the right, give the lie to the entire US political process, you also demolish in one stroke the tiresome sleepy response of the kneejerk Obama defenders: “Give him a chance.”

He is using his chance already and he seems hellbent on indenturing me and my child to the corporate war machine for many, many moons.

jackpine savage has a great point though. Maybe we just dance with it till the whole “we’re the rich and we get to print the money” farce just plays itself out.

If this next 350 is handed to the same corps who have raised my interest rates or threatened me with astronomical ‘Default’ charges, I will be getting my pitchfork and heading down Pennsylvania Ave.
Obama and Congress had better realize they are standing on a powderkeg with a blow torch in their hands.
for anyone NOT in the top 5%, it has not been 8 yrs of economic oppression, it has been almost 30.I tbegan with Ronny’s Union busting & ‘Trickel Down’ (Feudalism), though Clintons NAFTA and right into Bushies transformation of granting Corps to citizenship Rights and priviledges.
Funny how there has been this rhetoric which separates ‘American Taxpayers’ from ‘American Workers’...How can you be a taxpayer if you have NO JOB! It astounds me how Stupid,esp Repugs, think We are..WE realize We are One in the Same!!
WE don’t need no stinking ‘Credit’ we need to get back the money we have been swindled out of for 3 decades! Until Citibank and AIG start sending ME monthly payments on the LOAN we gave them, I’ll be ready and waiting for the ‘rider’ to come through signally the Revolt has begun.Ya think Citigroup, and their Politcal whores, would get the hint if I charged a double barrel shotgun?

And, there is a saying, in China, I’m told, “Much noise on stairs, no one appears”.

Again and redundant, the two party system is a dinosaur and like the automobile crank has outlived its’ usefulness.
This Black shill of the elite is no different than any of the other wanna-be-president. It was so sad to see the dimmos pile on to Obama as the “The Great Black Hope”, too bad the presidency came down to skirt vs. skin and integrity was nowhere to be found.
Like nature, the good news is things will get better, but as the saying goes ” There will be Blood”.

Mr. Sirota simply reveals that all of the election nonsense about “change” was merely a cosmetic one. A new attractive family couple who will protect and preserve the status quo.

Hey, it’s just money right?  The faster we print it and give it to the banks, the sooner it will become useless and then we can start over.

Or we can put our money where our mouths are and stop doing business with all these giant banks.  Put into local credit unions and the remaining small, local banks where it belongs.

If you don’t like the beast, quit feeding it.  And then tell your elected representative and his/her pet (or is it the other way around) to go shove it.