Well, the austerity scam worked. Now on to education.
Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2013, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)
They got what they wanted. We now have either the sequester and its devastating social program cuts, or a Democratic President signing into law the vicious Social Security cuts he requested. The faux Shock Doctrine debt ceiling crisis of the spring was successfully orchestrated to guarantee austerity no matter what.
So, now that we are guaranteed the economy-slowing, pain- and desperation-inducing austerity that hundreds of economists warned against, what's on the agenda for the corporate thieves next?
Oh, the next one's a biggie. They're coming for our education system, at the expense of our children and our nation's future. They will make a bundle on thi$$$$$$$ one, and they will accomplish it under a Democratic President:
Education: The "Big Enchilada"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002967097
The World Bank as Prime Mover in the Global Privatization of Public Education: Mexico
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022434264
Education professor says Arne's plans not unique to U. S., previously carried out in Chile.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=219x28157
Arne says sequester will force large Title I, Special Ed cuts. Meanwhile billions go to "reformers"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022436415
Obama’s Universal Preschool Proposal = Race to the Top for Tots (more education deform)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022378733
The roots of education deform go way back, & current developments follow previously outlined path...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022281934
RAVITCH: Conservative think tank praises Obama for standing up to teachers' unions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101642419
The goal of education deform: "Public schools" to equal "Welfare schools"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021954716
= new reply since forum marked as read
What does Dr. Dean say about the sequester?
Educators at that level appear on panels all the time. That's what they do.
If they don't appear on a panel together, does that mean they are not crooks?
--imm
A pragmatist, not an idealist. He knows that Congress would be unable to make the kind of cuts he believes would be necessary, so the sequester was the easiest, most politically expedient way to allows those cuts to go through. He has never been shy about voicing his view of the need for serious cuts. He is the one that put together the Simpson Bowles Commission, looking for recommendations on places to cut. He got his cuts -- including big defense one -- just like he wanted. Sorry, that's just reality.
Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Obama doesn't want the cuts!!!!!
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
And Obama is desperately AGAINST cuts to Social Security!
Psssst. Someone had better tell Obama, because there is something really, really weird going on. He has a mysterious double around Washington who seems bent and determined on not only proposing them REPEATEDLY, but giving soaring public speeches about how necessary they are and how liberals need to get over themselves and swallow those peas!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022442981
In POB's Own Words:"Democrats have to accept the need for entitlement reform"
KoKo
Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:45 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3)
President Obama Speaks at a Business Council Dinner
February 27, 2013 | 9:26 | Public Domain
President Obama delivers remarks to the Business Council during a dinner.
Park Hyatt Hotel
Washington, D.C.
#t=0sWhat we should be doing -- and what I've been calling for repeatedly over the last not just several months, but several years -- is a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines some tough spending cuts, particularly focused on how do we deal with long-term trends on some of our entitlement programs, and a tax reform agenda that without raising tax rates further could in fact raise sufficient revenues that combined would yield about $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade; would replace the sequester; would bring our deficit-to-GDP ratios below the 3 percent threshold that we need for stabilization; that would stabilize our debt-to-GDP ratios for the next decade; and would lay the groundwork for more expansive growth because we would have simplified our tax system, closed some loopholes, broadened our base, seen an opportunity for corporate tax reform that could also make the whole system more sensible and give you guys a more competitive posture internationally. That's what we should be doing.
OKAY...SO GOOD SO FAR......
Now, you'll be happy to know that that's what I offered to my Republican friends back in December after my election, before the fiscal cliff. Many of you were involved in voicing support for such a balanced approach, even if you didn't sign on to every detail and every line item in our recommended budget. And what I've said is that that continues to be the offer on the table. I am prepared to make some tough decisions, some of which will garner some significant frustration on the part of members of my party, but I think it’s the right thing to do.
What I can’t do is to abide by a set of decisions here in Washington that would put the entire burden of deficit reduction on our seniors -- making their health care more expensive; students -- that would make their student loans and going to college more expensive; that would gut our investments in education and research and infrastructure -- all the foundations for long-term growth.. That’s not what we’re going to do, because it wouldn’t be good for the country and, frankly, it would not be good for your businesses.
's for this one...
BUT THEN HE SAYS:
Now, the question then becomes how do we get from here to there. And I was telling Andrew before we came out the issue is not technical, the issue is political. And the question is whether or not we are going to see a willingness on the part of all parties to compromise in a meaningful way. And what that means is Democrats have to accept the need for entitlement reform. But it also means that Republicans have to accept the need for additional revenues if we’re going to be able to actually close this deficit and provide the kind of certainty that you need to make your long-term investments.
Whether that can be done in the next two days -- I haven’t seen things done in two days here in Washington in quite some time. On the other hand, the good news is that I think the public is beginning to pay attention to this, and one thing I’m certain about is that the country as a whole is weary of Washington for presiding over a manufactured crisis every three months. It’s not good for business confidence. It’s certainly not good for consumer confidence. It’s unnecessary.
"Not Good for Business Confidence...Not good for Consumer Confidence. It's unnecessary." (Why is it always about BUSINESS and CONSUMERS?"WE ARE THE PEOPLE!
MORE at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/02/27/president-obama-speaks-business-council-dinner#transcript
Man, the denial is thick and brazen. You can't make this stuff up.
Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2013, 11:34 AM - Edit history (3)
Oh, that was rich.
Really, that's supreme irony, to offer your argument based on "reality," when your entire post is predicated on the jaw-droppingly absurd assertion that Obama, despite ALL his repeated comments, press conferences, public denigration of liberals, passionate speeches, and multiple formal written offers of cuts,...in *reality* does not want cuts in Social Security.
Nope. In Third Way "reality," he secretly opposes them with all his heart and soul and all the principled outrage of any good Democrat. He LOATHES them.
I love these sorts of posts, because they expose the utter garbage of the Third Way's attempts to play both sides. Obama reeeeally, reaeeally believes in the same things we do, but his administration just cannot seem to help doing the opposite, over and over again. They are like the posts that insist that he secretly abhors the war on marijuana and really and truly would rather be prosecuting criminal banks, too, but he just cannot seem to control his Justice Department ("It's a SEPARATE ENTITY!!!11!!" .
As to your stunningly ridiculous question to me: Are you seriously pretending that DUers are that naive, that they don't see the money flooding our electoral system and Washington? Are you seriously suggesting that DUers are so pathetically stupid that we don't understand how elections are financed these days, the deluge of corporate money that is involved, and the loyalties and obligations that engenders? Are you seriously suggesting that we are not aware of the power of lobbying and the corporate and banking money that floods Washington in both parties, through the halls of the White House and Congress, every single day?
And do you seriously think we haven't noticed how elections work these days? Two corporate candidates, and the Republican is always worse. Who ya gonna vote for, suckah?
Let me drop my sarcasm for a moment and speak to you plainly, because this is important. America is sick and tired of being looted, and we are especially sick and tired of being lied to by the ubiquitous corporate media machine, forever droning that "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" and that our representatives are still doing their Very Best, in every way, on behalf of our interests.
We are, again and again and again, in every permutation possible, being sold out by both parties, in a country that we were raised to believe would always have our best interests at heart. And the problem is SYSTEMIC, occurring across party lines.
We have been here the whole time, remember? We remember how all this started. From the faux debt ceiling "crisis," to the inevitable orchestrated outcome of two options, either of which will benefit the one percent and soak the rest of us, this was perfectly executed Shock Doctrine from the start.
Don't "trickle down" on us and tell us it's raining.
You're blowing the Drunk's buzz. 
Socially liberal, but hawkish and all about Wall Street. 
My least favorite kind of "liberal".
It's just too bad that nobody could've predicted this turn of events.
it's the democratic way. 
it didn't do much for him...
Just sayin'
