http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-consider-and-promote-progressive-caucus-budget-plan-we-feel-it-most-equitable/10078lWf


This is a White House petition to "consider and promote the Progressive Caucus Budget".

If ever there was an issue the White House should be promoting, this is it.


Here's the 2013 Progressive Caucus Budget release from Reps. Keith Ellison and Raúl M. Grijalva ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/02/05/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/Balancing%20Act%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf


more coverage ...

Signed. Have you posted this as a standalone thread?

It really deserves it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022528986

It seems like there has been a lot of demanding going on during his tenure.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

He works for the people that put him in the Big Chair. Voters are just an irritation they have to put up with every couple of years.

what is?

The problems we are having all stem from the Obama decision to basically throw the party under the bus and run his own campaigns independent of the party. That's why the teabaggers rule Congress. That's why we are getting brutalized in the state legislatures. That's why the Republicans are in a position to rig the election math for the next 15 years.

The state legislature in Indiana is advancing a bill to eliminate the 4 at-large Indianapolis city council seats. These almost always go to Dems. Not that the legislature basically has a superiority in both houses, they can do whatever they want.

This is all on Obama, as I see it. I could give him a pass on the first campaign, but ditching the party on the second campaign is unforgivable.

Democrats?

Does he NOT know what that means in principle and in history?

I'm getting really sick of this clown.

But it's relatively easy to manipulate based on fear and greed before the bill comes due. I wish Obama wouldn't routinely leave that part out.

Don't participate. Your choice. Then again, stupid outrage based on false rhetoric has about the same impact.

is a euphemism.

all on his own with no input from the President. That's why he was fired.

"Sorry, Rahm did all on his own with no input from the President. That's why he was fired."

...you can tell the difference between Rahm and the President. It's also a good thing that you ignored his advice and voted against him.

I think the comment is offensive, inaccurate and simply a bullshit attempt to shit stir because you have no other response.

I don't live in Chicago.

He'll be running for president in a few years.

The technology age has made us lazy, I think. We need a million people to march on Washington united in purpose.

Every two years I wind up my House Representative Peter DeFazio with a vote, and he spends the next two years kicking ass on my behalf.

That's representation. Not "Oh, now that I'm in Washington all of you who elected me have to fight with the interests I swore to do battle with. If you don't do a good enough job, I'm theirs."

Fuck that nonsense.

PB

"Every two years I wind up my House Representative Peter DeFazio with a vote, and he spends the next two years kicking ass on my behalf."

...if you had called him, he wouldn't have voted against the People's Budget. Have you called him about supporting the current Progressive Caucus budget?

Voting is not the end, it's the beginning.

Like you are listening to us.

Sorry, but I don't have a couple of million$ to rate getting your ear.

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?

Both examples of issues with massive public demand, and he was nowhere to be found on either.

And then there's his repeatedly putting Chained CPI on the table, despite a majority of Americans opposing ANY change to benefits that hurts the recipients.

Really have to wonder what qualifies as sufficient "demand" in his mind.

demand that you take a politically problematic position. We demand that you promote and preserve the social safety net setup by previous Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson.

We understand that if you promise to not piss away the interests of the poorest Americans, you are assuming an enormous personal risk. After all, you just can't predict what might happen...uncontrolled prosperity might break out all across the place! I don't presume to tell you that such a predicament would not be pretty.

Again, we appreciate the danger, Mr. President. However, since you asked us to prod, poke, press and push you, well...we have to persist on the path on which you've placed us.

Preach progressive politics from the bully pulpit, Mr. President. Put on your walking shoes, pound the pavement, and promote populist progress.

Power to the people, because the people demand it.

than he is with doing the right thing.

He is truly trying his hardest to be the worst president in American history.

To be a great president, one must take risks. Obama wants to sell down the river the New Deal, public education, Medicare and Medicaid, the entire legacy of the Democratic Party, just so he looks good as a "transformative" president.

to even say a word, much less stop handing out billions of taxpayer dollars to banks and wall street, much less reinstate Glass-Steagall and eliminate the "Citizens United" ruling, much less jailing corrupt banksters such as HSBC who laundered international drug cartel monies...

Wait, he DID so something when Occupy Wall Street asked of him...

He signed HR347, making it a Federal crime to protest where Secret Service are present, up to 10 years in prison, then signed life-time Secret Service protection not only for himself, but for the war criminal W Bush.

Points taken as presented, Mr. President.



Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Obama -- Highest Rate Since 1900
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/corporate-profits-have-grown-171-percent-under-obama-highest-rate-1900

"Average annual corporate profit growth under Obama is the highest since 1900, whereas profit growth declined during both Bush presidencies. As a share of the economy, corporate profits have never been higher.
Unfortunately, this profit deluge has not been shared by workers, whose wages as a percentage of the economy have fallen to all-time lows. Workers also got dinged by the recent increase in the payroll tax, which was large enough to wipe out a minimum wage increase in some states."


8 Huge Corporate Handouts in the Fiscal Cliff Bill
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/8-huge-corporate-handouts-fiscal-cliff-bill

"Throughout the months of November and December, a steady stream of corporate CEOs flowed in and out of the White House to discuss the impending fiscal cliff. Many of them, such as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, would then publicly come out and talk about how modest increases of tax rates on the wealthy were reasonable in order to deal with the deficit problem. What wasn’t mentioned is what these leaders wanted, which is what’s known as “tax extenders”, or roughly $205B of tax breaks for corporations. With such a banal name, and boring and difficult to read line items in the bill, few political operatives have bothered to pay attention to this part of the bill. But it is critical to understanding what is going on.

5) Subsidies for Goldman Sachs Headquarters – Sec. 328 extends 'tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,' which was a program to provide post-9/11 recovery funds. Rather than going to small businesses affected, however, this was, according to Bloomberg, 'little more than a subsidy for fancy Manhattan apartments and office towers for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp.' Michael Bloomberg himself actually thought the program was excessive, so that’s saying something. According to David Cay Johnston’s The Fine Print, Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds."


The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

Yes, Virginia, the Rich Continue to Get Richer: the Top 1% Got 121% of Income Gains Since 2009
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/yes-virginia-the-rich-continue-to-get-richer-the-1-got-121-of-income-gains-since-2009.html

U.S. banks in 2012 post highest profits since '06
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-fdic-earnings-idUSBRE91P0N820130226?utm_source=Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=de8376aab3-DD_2_27_132_27_2013&utm_medium=email#.US5jjkXSlU8.twitter

This Year’s Subsidy to Wall Street = the Amount of This Year’s Sequester Cuts
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/this-years-subsidy-to-wall-street-the-amount-of-this-years-sequester-cuts.html#.US_yiFwwnHY.facebook

Don’t Blink, or You’ll Miss Another Bailout
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100466032

America faces more than a dozen deadlines, all caused by billionaires and wealth transfer
http://americablog.com/2013/02/america-faces-more-than-a-dozen-deadlines-all-caused-by-billionaires-and-wealth-transfer.html

Bank Bailout 2: Obama Lets Mortgage Abusers Off the Hook
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/09-5

. . .you assume he's waiting for the American public to compel him - you assume he's waiting to do whatever you believe he should do when he knows well your position and likely has a different prescription - moreover, he's directing his remarks to the ISRAELIS and PALESTINIANS.

Your take on this is FOXworthy.

"Speaking as a politician, I can promise you this: political leaders will not take risks if the people do not demand that they do."

He's speaking in general terms, and he's speaking from his experience. Last time I checked he was POTUS.

He does indeed have a different prescription, and part of it is mollifying big business and Republican critics. That's not leading, and yeah, I do have a fucking problem with it. Sue me.

How 'bout that for starters?

because of course, Ralph Nader really got them what they wanted, didn't Ralphie?

Too bad the same people took it all out on Bill Clinton and set things back 50 years.

Bill Clinton would have had this economy humming by now. Obama has instincts that are counterproductive to risk taking.

I do give Clinton credit for recognizing his errors and acknowledging that the President's policies are have an impact.

It is up to the people.

It takes a village is actually true.

If the people want it, most times, as in the 2,319(approx.guestimate) GREAT things that have happened so far have occurred.

Others want instant satisfaction which is just not, nor ever has been possible.

FDR had 14 years. Most happened in between the beginning and end years.

The public school system is failing my son and democrats are doing nothing to fix the problem. In fact they are in bed with the corporations privatizing it. I will most likely sit the next election out.

I often gripe that he has no vision and I don't understand where he is trying to lead us. I suppose I can't figure it out because that's not what he is trying to do.

He is a caretaker POTUS playing defense and not much else. He expects the crowd to raise him up but the populace is too busy and uninterested. Sad.

"Well that's not what a leader does, but I guess he thinks that's not the role of the President?"

...leaders rally support all the time. Remember FDR's: Make me do it?

Here's some information to help. It does include strengthening Medicare.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223211
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022424843
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381931

President Obama: It's up to the people to demand politicians take risks.

Response: Eff that!

So far what I'm seeing is talk of compromise with the devil and putting Social Security and chained cpi on the table to make the Congressional Republicans do what they need to do. Oh, aren't they taking another two weeks vacation? Forget FDR, I'd like to see what LBJ would do to them if they had pulled half the crap on him they do to this President, who still wants to compromise and meet them "half way" except that half way is giving them 98% of what they wanted in Boner's own words.

Sorry, "you can have an opinion, but you can't make up your own facts" as the saying goes.

"Except when FDR got the message, he did do something.

So far what I'm seeing is talk of compromise with the devil and putting Social Security and chained cpi on the table to make the Congressional Republicans do what they need to do. Oh, aren't they taking another two weeks vacation? Forget FDR, I'd like to see what LBJ would do to them if they had pulled half the crap on him they do to this President, who still wants to compromise and meet them "half way" except that half way is giving them 98% of what they wanted in Boner's own words. "

...no "except." As your comment shows, nothing Obama has done will be acknowledge by those who believe he has done nothing.

He did something in his first term: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223211
His policies are haveing an impact: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022424843

Know why Republicans are so dead set against ACA? It did the unthinkable: raised taxes on the rich.

There is a debate about the impact of the recent tax deal, but simple arithmetic shows the reality.

Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.

Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s. Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.

Do the math.

That is "something."

. . . mostly gridlock and resistance afterward.

LBJ was from a different era, as well.

This is all about votes which are still in the hands of who we manage to elect to Congress. Obama is subject to the makeup of the legislature. It makes perfect sense to appeal to the public to pressure them with the most relevant lever of political power in our democracy; our votes and support.

I seem to remember when he took all those polls and ALL the top questions were about pot and he refused to even talk about it. He did make a stupid stoner joke however..

If they're waiting to see which way the wind blows, before they decide what principles they will take a stand on, they aren't leaders, they are followers. Or fence-sitters. They are weak.

Not to mention, there's a faint whiff of blame there, aimed at the people. He won't stand up for principles because we didn't make him? And what are the risks he won't take? The risk he won't make millions from the powers-that-be in his post-presidential years, I'll wager. What a disappointment this "transformational" man turned out to be.

few years on him. I think it's the wrong job for him. He would have made a wonderful Supreme Court Judge though. It suits his temperament.

"Elizabeth Warren for President" stuff, for example. Or anyone who does one thing that we like. We need to see how people deal with various political situations, over time.

He still could be a SC justice. He's young enough. I have a suspicion that his future ambitions don't lie with public service, though.

Love that word, and hardly a better place to apply it.

He's a moderate Republican.

Unless you are conceding that he really doesn't have the courage of his convictions after all.

He's managed to push a whole lot of right-wing policy while blaming it all on "compromise".

He might even be able to top it all off with the right-wing holy grail of domestic policy goals: cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Brilliant politician. Wish he was on our side.

first President in decades to actually do something to address inequality: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022552023

Give credit to the "moderate Republican."

It's like even when he takes baby steps in the right direction (such as with health care and decreasing unemployment) there will still be somebody on the Left calling him a corporatist or some bullshit, and saying how the country would be better off with somebody like Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders as president, knowing damn well that Pres. O is basically dealing with a Congress of domestic terrorists who want to block his agenda.

LMAO at the cringing, crouching, hand lickers.

It means that political leaders can respond to demands they want to, and ignore those they don't. Just pretend that people HAVEN'T been demanding those things all along.

Here at DU, we spent 4 years being told to "give him time." "Demands" weren't appreciated.

Some of us made them anyway, but clearly not enough to make a difference.

All things Peaceful have been tried--Massive Protests All Over---Old People, Veterans, Parents, Kids got beat-up, tossed in jail-always met with "Riot Police"...to Silence our voices.

So, what Needs to Be done that has Not been tried to get You to Hear Us and act on Our behalf??

You can beg and plead, write letters and sign petitions, protest and march until you're blue in the face and your feet grow blisters on top of blisters, but if your government ignores you then none of it matters.

It takes money in this country, for example, to get the attention of "leaders". Get pissed at me saying that or not, fact remains that the more money I have to offer in campaign contributions, the more attention I'll get from a politician that wants my money. A politician will gladly take 5 dollars, 10 dollars, whatever I have to give - but that amount will not buy me an audience. That amount will not move my shared concerns to the top of the list...or even get them a hearing....maybe we'll get a passing word or two over time. Maybe.

Sure. We should all be the change we want to see. But my treating people decently or demanding equality won't keep government from waging war or cutting benefits or even simply considering another view.

It's an inspiring thing to say but what's the real practical value of demanding anything from a government that refuses to listen?

It keeps you busy, making all those demands. It causes you to feel like at least you're doing something. But what's the end result? What changes?

People shouldn't have to constantly demand their government, year after year, for justice, for peace, for equality. How fucking dumb is a government that doesn't already see the need for such things? And if the government isn't dumb, then something else motivates them....and it for damn sure isn't the needs of the people. Otherwise, the good of the people would be considered and their demands acted on.

Nice speech. But it relies on the goodness of governments which, if you have to constantly demand over and over for the same things, isn't all that good.

Thank you.

It does have an impact within my very (very) tiny circle of influence. But it still won't matter to a government that refuses to listen.

Thank you, 99Forever.

They simply pretend we are not here.

I kinda thought that I didn't have to tell him what his job was, his followup on campaign pledges seems to be about 50/50.

I'm not the one with the limo, pal. Get out there and earn it.

We demand repeatedly. He ignores. He's not the worst President of my lifetime (arguably, he's the best) but he's certainly the most politically-deaf. As much as I hate to say it, even Reagan and Dubya were less politically tin-earred.

We do not want a consensus presidency in which you insist to cooperate and work with assholes bent on destruction of the American way of life and the middle class. Fuck your team of rivals approach; Kearns Goodwin is a second-rate historian, her book on Lincoln is dreck and that approach didn't work for Lincoln either; Abe woke up one day filled the conviction of what was right and took risks to achieve.

You good sir are no Lincoln and will never be a Lincoln until you go to war with the forces bent on the destruction of this union. Stop kissing Boehner's ass and start running roughshod over that burnt sienna motherfucker. Do not cooperate with the House; let them obstruct until they burn their chamber down and have ashes in their mouths, make them go home and explain the failure of governance to their constituents.

That is a win. They will obstruct themselves out of office and another Democrat into the White House in 2016.

we do. That's how it works in America.

on DU of this visit. And DU'ers posts about Obama are usually so Supportive...but, what I saw didn't have substance...compared to the clips that were available.

Anyone?

There has never been a movement that reflected a majority or even a significant number of citizens united in support of Obama or any piece of any agenda. Polls sample very small numbers. DU and the various occupies do not reflect anything close to a majority. I would like to believe that there is a majority who agrees with me, but it's not so. It will take a lot more than even 1 million names on a petition.

I think maybe our best bets are to focus locally. Run for local and state offices get on their commissions. If we want to drive the agenda we have to get more people on our side. A good start is to make our voices heard within institutions of government.