We're screwed

After electing a Democratic President, after giving him large majorities in Congress, including a veto proof majority in the Senate, it seems as though the same ol' corporate games are being played. Yes, much like the Clinton administration, the corporate agenda has been dressed up in kinder, gentler clothing, but it is a corporate agenda nonetheless.

Health care reform is looking increasingly like a joke, with no public option and mandated insurance for all. About the only thing good that might come out of this insurance companies won't be able to deny pre-existing conditions. In exchange, we're handing them a mandated monopoly. Not a good deal.

The economy is still dragging the bottom. Sure the financial institutions are perking up, but damn, after throwing billions and billions at them, they should. Meanwhile, we the people, the ones who are paying for this bailout are left with rising unemployment and a shit ton of national debt. The stimulus, while welcome, was nowhere near enough since we gave away nearly forty percent of it in more tax cuts, those very things that helped get us into this mess. Businesses continue to close, people continue to lose their jobs, their homes, their lives. But hey, corporate America is coming out of this recession:eyes:

Meanwhile the war drags on, both of them. Despite his promises to bring the troops home from Iraq, it looks like we're going to be keeping 50-100,000 troops in Iraq to "fight terrorism" and "train Iraqi troops". Worse yet, it seems as though we're headed towards making Afghanistan a Vietnam style quagmire, Obama having already doubled down there and most likely he's going to expand it even more.

All of this and more points to one simply conclusion, the Democratic party no longer looks out for the interests of ordinary people in this country. It isn't their top priority, it isn't even their second or third priority. The only reason we continue to get crumbs thrown our way is for sheer political purposes, so that the Democrats can try and keep up a facade of caring for the people.

We the people no longer have any true representation in our political system, outside of a handful of our representatives and outside the token gestures that are made to retain our vote. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can bring about change. How to do that, well, that involves one of two options. Either completely remaking the Democratic party, killing a lot of the sacred cows in the party and rebuilding it from the ground up. The other option is to abandon the Democratic party for a third party like the Greens and building them into a viable force. Or we can simply do nothing and let the country collapse and rebuild it in a better image. The one thing that is crystal clear is that we can't simply continue down the road we're on, it leads to an ugly end.

:shrug: In the very first sentence too......

which we have

Filibuster proof majority, happy now? :eyes:

You forgot 3 dimensional chess, only 9 months in office whaddayaexpect, at least he's intelligent.

Just helping.

...don't forget the shelter dog.....
.
.
.
OOPS.
My bad.

this ain't a junior varsity pillow fight.

After 9 months in office, Bush had to make decisions that we're still dealing with. He got Congressional approval and funding for them all.

Even after we cast many Republicans out of their seats, and with Congressional approval, his programs continue to haunt us.

After 9 months, Obama owns it now, just like Bush did.

:shrug:

= 'D.C. Magic'

but you're speaking the truth.

Recced.

:)

Sorry, but we were duped again.

and if anyone can't see that now it's becasue they don't want too.

It doesn't matter whether anyone believed them or not.
The two remainders were virtually identical on policy, with the only major difference is that Obama opposed individual mandates for Health Insurance.....

.
.
OOPS.
My bad again.

Should read:

...the only major difference is that Obama SAID HE opposed individual mandates for Health Insurance...

Saying you oppose something,
and actually opposing something are two different things.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

And likely the trail experience to fight for them.

What have we seen from Obama except fancy foot work. We are all waiting for him to stop with the rope a dope and throw a punch. But maybe he decided to take a fall after his meeting with big pharma.

I suppose you think Kucinich was a mook too?

WTF????

mired in salacious scandals and would have been soundly defeated. Obama is moderate left, able to win the election and begin to push back on the disasters of the past 8 years. He can't do it alone, and has said he needs our support. Re-litigating the election is foolish and counterproductive. Being active at the grass roots level in trying to fight the RW attack machine and calling out the lack of courage in congress (blue-dogs) is where our focus should be. Corporate America has a lot of power, and I for one didn't expect it to suddenly be neutered under any circumstances. Look at some of the hopeful signs- Sotomayer,appointed by Obama, recently challenged the "personhood" rights of corporations. Obama is mapping out and going after strong regulations of the financial industry to prevent future to big to fail catastrophes. He's taken on the health insurance industry- even as congress is buckling under the pressure of lobbyists, he continues to lead with efforts i've never seen from a president. Compromise may be required, but we will be better off than we were. The bank bailouts, although unpopular, appear to have mitigated a worse recession. Jobs alway lag, and especially with health care still undecided, employers are holding off hiring. That will change when we have a bill, when the stimulus peaks, and the efforts to create green jobs begin to become more successful. For the first time in forever, the US is making headway on global climate change legislation and alternative energy development. Obama is re-evaluating Afghanistan after the latest report- changes make take place there. Troops are coming out of Iraq, slowly, but surely. We no longer accept torture as a method of interrogation. We are moving in the right direction and that is a hopeful sign and I for one believe Obama is the right leader for this moment.

are those rose colored glasses you're wearing? All of the "positive" aspects of the Obama administration you list still have a ton of "hope" associated with them. They're not actual, concrete accomplishments, rather a hopeful list of things that might happen if things go 100% Obama's way in the future. If there's one thing you CAN be certain of, it's that bipartisanship in Washington is virtually non-existent.

I've learned not to place much value on hope. Hope, and 50 cents, will get me a newspaper in the morning. I'd have to say that so far all the talk and hype of "hope" has been a major flop. It's still pretty much business as usual in D.C.

Sorry to rain on your hope parade, but the realist in me has seen this same old song and dance to many times to get excited about things that COULD happen. :shrug: Maybe I'm too cynical, but having lived through 11 administrations (and counting) pie in the sky wish lists don't mean that much to me anymore.

On the national level, besides Kucinich, there is not a singe politician in America who is left of anything, unless you mean left of somewhere between the middle and Hitler.

Do you mean that speech in Congress where he spoke sternly about their abuses, only to turn around and assure them that any "public option" would only be available those who could not get their product and gave them the big gift wrapped box of mandating that everyone else BUY from them? (thus, btw, assuring a huge beauracratic boondoggle that will benefit just about no one, be insanely expensive, while fattening the wallets of Insurance Cos - giving the Corporate Stooges more ammunition for "Big Gub'mt don't work.")You mean those meetings with all the big insurers in the room and the deal with Pharma? You mean his "give me a Bill, any Bill, so I can say I passed health care reform" stance? You mean his evident unwillingness to put the screws to bloviating fakes like the Senate Finance Dems who'se overt and in plain sight on the take protectionism of their corporate masters is working against the interests of even their own constitutents?

If that's "taking on" it's not even with kid gloves - maybe those little lace mitts the "ladies" used to wear. Some fighter for justice, that.

:dem:

-Laelth

Bush had a rubber stamp Congress thru most of his terms.

Have people forgotten how things work? Dems will never be rubber stamps.

The media still has twice as many Repugs on as Dems. Congress is, as usual, in a bubble.

The Health Care thing is a mess.... because of Congress. But it's also not over.

Who thought Obama was the greatest thing since sliced bread anyway? But he's better than Bush and so is this Congress....just not perfect.

he wouldn't have fared well in the election. Edwards would have insured that we got a McCain administration.

They made damn sure the masses were never allowed to hear him.

impact on the polls. I don't think he ever got about 5% among dems, and he would not have pulled in many independents or disaffected Republicans. It's water under the bridge.

The media either belittled or ignored him. Hell, they paid more attention to Mike Gravel

in the debates where is where I first saw (and liked) him, and learned about the other candidates. I know he didn't get much time (neither did my candidate), but enough, I would think, that if he had wide-spread appeal he would have fared better.

I think, honestly, that most people may have been afraid of him because he wasn't "political" enough, and he spoke good, common sense -- do you know what I mean?

When I was first online, he was the most popular candidate in every poll on the left. But the media never covered him and he was smeared on left-wing blogs (well, I thought they were 'left' blogs until I saw a few things like that) and people were told 'he can't win' so you 'better pick a winner'. There was a campaign to end any support for him and it worked.

I support him, and if he ran again, would vote for him now. We're past the point of being scared about not having a Dem in the WH. If Dems can't get done what needs to be done with a majority in both houses and the WH, it's time to vote your conscience.

And political operatives who seem to appear on blogs before every election, better have some new tactics to try to convince people that 'electing Dems' will save the country, because the old won't work, not this time.

"ahm here at this ere hedge fund studyin pahvetty for mah campaign...."
:rofl:

that did guerrilla marketing.

He got 17% statewide in Minnesota in 2004, thanks to brilliant guerrilla marketing and incessant badgering of the mass media so that they would cover him. (They covered Edwards talking to 25 people and didn't want to cover Dennis talking to 2500.)

The Wisconsin results were real interesting: 3% in supposedly ultra-left Madison, but double digits in Viroqua and Ashland---where there were clever and active grassroots group.

He also did well in Washington, Maine, New Mexico, and Utah.

campaign. Nothing in Iowa.

the summer of 2007 volunteering to get organized again. She never heard back. Other people nationwide whom I knew to have been involved in the campaign told similar stories.

About a week before he dropped out, I (and other people) received a phone call asking for money for the campaign. I (and other people) told them that if they weren't interested in our volunteer efforts the previous summer, they weren't getting any money.

Since the obvious technique would have been to build a 50-stage campaign using the techniques that were successful in 2004, a lot of us strongly suspect that conservative Democrats "volunteered" early on and sabotaged the campaign and that Dennis was too preoccupied with his new marriage to notice.

It's not surprising. The establishment chose Hillary and Obama early in 2007, and even though there were other candidates besides Dennis in the race, most people I talked to never heard of them, because the media were enjoying playing, "Do you want the first black president or the first woman president?" or "Are you more racist or more sexist?" The big boys funded Hillary and Obama as the two candidates least likely to rock the yachts, the ones least likely to give the big money boys the spanking they deserved.

...every schoolchild can name five famous generals and MAY get two peacemakers, you're not going to get any traction selling peace. Not like the corporate military/industrial industry and their financiers would allow such a thing to happen anyways. :( I don't like it, I don't HAVE to like it, but it is the nature of reality at least for now. Maybe someday that will change, but given the nature of our species...I won't hold my breath.

attention to. Then take a good look at the candidates that are being ignored by the press. Odds are one of the ones being ignored would make the best president and not just be a puppet for the corporations.

What does that have to do with the OP?

Help a guy out.

Keep buying them Hondas and Toyotamobiles.

Don

At least the Japanese pay their workers a fair wage.

*

Both of mine are ten years old, and it looks like they're going to last awhile longer.

But tell me, first, how can I "buy American" when so many things are no longer made here? Second, why should I pay out my hard earned money for crap, simply because it is made in America. Let me give you an example. This past spring my thirty five year old Troy built tiller finally gave up the ghost. A wonderful, stout machine, it had gone through hell. So I decided to get another Troy built. I went to the dealer and looked at a comparable model to what I had. The sheet metal was thin, there was lots of plastic on the tiller, there was no way to shift from neutral to drive without stopping the machine and literally pulling cotter pins and manually resetting the wheels. Furthermore, the model that they were trying to sell me wouldn't start up and after a dozen or so pulls by the sales staff, the plastic gas tank cracked and spilled all over the pavement. An obviously inferior POS. I moved on.

I looked around locally at a number of different tillers, both foreign and domestic, and all I could find were more cheap ass products. Finally, I traveled far afield and found the ideal tiller, a BCS, made in Italy. Thick sheet metal, very little plastic(metal gas tank), quality all around. Yes, I paid more for it, but it is worth it because much like my old Troy built, it will last decades.

So why should I spend my hard earned money on crap? I can't afford to buy a new tiller every ten years, nor should I have to. I expect all of my purchases, including cars, to last. Yet you're saying that I should buy cheap ass crap just because it it made in America. Tell you what, you can have an input on that decision when you start paying for that cheap ass American crap. Until then, I choose to get the best quality for my money, because I can't afford to do otherwise in the long run.

Just after all the good paying jobs are moved overseas don't be complaining about how bad the unemployment is here in the US.

Thats all.

Don

I have no problem with US workers competing with Japan and Germany and other industrialized nations that respect workers rights to some extent and provide a liveable wage.

Fair Trade not Free Trade, you can't trade with someone who doesn't respect your values.

Does this look like fair trade to you?



http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/09/1009/uf01.php

With lower wages, the American worker can't afford to buy merchandise, and with the 'free' trade agreements that are in place and protectionist policies of many foreign countries, we have no place to sell our merchandise," said Dave Chegash, a UAW Local 412 member and veteran industrial engineer who has worked at Chrysler's Warren (Mich.) Truck Plant for more than nine years.

Many conservatives and their corporate allies in Congress argue that the only way America can remain competitive in the global marketplace (and to protect the investments of Wall Street speculators) is to slash workers' wages and benefits.

Chegash said those who benefit most from these policies are Wall Street investors, CEOs and executive-level employees – not UAW members.

"Someone once said, 'There's no such thing as a free lunch.' The same thing applies to 'free' trade. Except this time, it's the American worker who pays and pays and pays," said Chegash, 57, who lives with his wife, Vicky, and daughter, Anne, in Richmond Township, Mich.

"I can't think of anyone who hasn't feared losing their job due to the unfair trade laws that affect U.S. jobs, especially in the auto industry," said Chegash, adding that his wife, an occupational therapist in the seemingly safe health care field, isn't immune to the threat of layoffs.

"With so many autoworkers laid off and retiree benefits cut, they simply cannot afford to pay for medical care and they don't seek proper medical attention. With fewer patients to treat, the need for therapists is reduced," he added.

I own a Ford Mustang

:shrug:

red herring.

Post this as an OP.

The American Worker will NEVER be able to compete until we have a Single Payer System.

they are losing their jobs and their pride in their work and products. politicians cover the rich asses and pretty well give you the finger. and thsi is done over and over and over again and still is not recognized for what it is.

so you are poor, sick and pretty well getting desperate as a nation.

but thats the way it is meant to be. there is much more money in making wars and having an uneducated, dull and incurious population in a military state support that war no matter what lies are told to them. the world watches in amazement as you keep telling yourselves you're number 1.

we are all being duped and screwed globally but only the idiot nation keeps chanting:
'we've no. 1!' 'we've no. 1!' 'we've no. 1!' 'we've no. 1!' 'we've no. 1!' land of the free. finest democracy on the planet. best health care on the planet.
huzzah!

Sounds to me like you're saying that we should buy crap American products in order to create jobs. Sorry, but that's not how capitalism works.

At one time American companies actually cared about quality, but over the past thirty years that is no longer the case. The auto industry took a huge hit, one that it never recovered from, all because it didn't produce high quality vehicles that consumers wanted.

If you live by the capitalistic creed, you can also die by that same creed. It isn't up to the consumer to subsidize American jobs by foregoing quality in order to buy American. It is up to the American quality to produce a high quality product in order to successfully compete. What you are advocating is more of a system found in Stalin's Russia, buy the crappy domestic products in order to subsidize domestic jobs. And we see how well that worked out.

No matter what service or product you provide I guarantee I can find someone else who will make that product or provide that service just a little bit cheaper and done just a little bit better.

So keep that in mind.

Don

In my consumption decisions I'm not looking for a cheaper price, I am looking for high quality. I'm willing to pay a higher price for higher quality. For example the tiller that I bought cost almost a thousand dollars more than any comparable American made tiller, but it will last for a good thirty years, unlike the crap that American manufacturers are putting out. I've found that by buying quality, in the long run, it costs me less.

I would be willing to pay for quality on domestic autos. But the last time I went car shopping, eleven years ago, that quality wasn't there, so I paid more for a foreign make. I recognize that American auto makers have finally pulled up their quality, so next time I need a car, I will again take an unbiased look at them. If the quality is there, I will buy one. If the quality isn't there, I won't.

It's all about quality, not just for myself, but for most US consumers. You can see this in the car market. More people are willing to pay more for a high quality foreign make than pay less for a domestic make. Spend a little more and raise the quality on domestic autos and people will pay that price.

Quality, it should be job one.

I run a medical clinic and for what we do, no one else comes close.

We are 1/3rd the cost of other clinics and we have better trained docs with more experience. (of course the reason that we can charge 1/3 of what other clinics do is that we do no bill insurance so we don't have that extra 66% overhead that you need to fight insurance companies in order to get paid or get appropriate treatment for your patients) And if someone decides to compete with us 1 on 1 then I will welcome it. There is always room for another good doc.

Whats the name of the medical clinic you run?

I would like to do some price and quality comparisons.

Don

.. in these products is that their manufacture has all been shipped to China.

So they make them cheap, and sell them cheap to dumbasses.

I'm with you, I will pay whatever it costs to get a quality product that won't line a landfill in 2-3 years.

Are manufactured and assembled here in the US.

My Toyota was built in Fremont Ca.

No they are not UAW jobs...But my purchase put a paycheck in an American pocket.

On Edit: Find me a 1986 Chevy,Ford or AMC automobile that has been as reliable,durable and as Rust Free as this one...

Let me get this straight. He bought a tiller from a company that is in Italy. It isn't headquartered in the US and moving operations overseas, it's in Italy and coming to America to provide jobs here.

And your beef with this is what?

Better you should call the US companies moving operations overseas and tell them why you aren't buying from them anymore, and you should also call your congress critter and tell them that you want them to repeal the tax laws that REWARDS US companies for moving operations overseas.

And for the record, I will complain about the unemployement all I want but, unllike some, I will make sure that I am bitching for the right reasons.

He wants us to go to the old Stalinist system, where we are forced to buy crappy quality domestic products in order to subsidize American jobs. The thing is, if American companies would return to their glory days of high quality products, people would pay more for that quality and domestic businesses would thrive.

US companies have been drinking at the low, low prices fountain of KoolAid for far too long. As has been shown with the auto market and equipment market, among others, people are willing to pay more for quality. They don't want to replace a tiller every ten years. They don't want to replace a car every three years. They want things that are high quality, that last. If American manufacturers would get on board with this, then they would make a ton of money. Instead they're trying to follow the Wal Mart model, and that's going to lead them straight out of business.

I was talking about automobiles not tillers. After the OP pulled his tiller bait and switch crap I din't fall for it.

You did.

So whats your point?

Don

The quality of domestically manufactured goods, be they cars or tillers, vs. the quality of imported goods. You seem to be of the mind that everybody should by domestic goods, no matter how poor the quality, in order to subsidize jobs in this country. That is a Stalinist system. In a capitalist system that's not how things work, the consumer buys what they feel is the best bargain for their money. If a company wants to attract customers they need to improve their quality.

One thing you never addressed was how many products are simply not made in this country now. So what are we supposed to do, go without.

Sorry, but you don't get to lay out the terms of debate, especially after the case. Get over yourself.

I don't buy cheap ass stuff, whether it's made in the US or foreign. You might be surprised about what you don't need. Do you really need a tiller? Research says yearly tilling is actually decremental to soil structure.

And I've owned two cars in my life, the 1969 Mustang I bought new and my late mother's 1992 Buick LeSabre. I still have both. The LeSabre is in fine condition, the Mustang is hanging in there. It will not be the end of the universe, although a lot of chaos will ensue in the transition, if people wind up buying a lot less overall and learning how to fix, make, and grow things themselves.

Hell, I started out my adult life homeless, and thus learned how to make do on less.

But a tiller, yes, it is something that I need. No-till gardening is fine some of the time, but for fresh ground breaking, or adding manure, or tilling in green manure, nothing is better than a good rear tine tiller.

I have always been good with my hands, and have fixed, made and grown things myself for a long time. As I said, my current passenger car is eleven years old. The one I owned before that, it's over twenty two years old and still running. My truck is also eleven years old. I only have a handful of furniture items that I bought new, most are used, some are antique.

Trust me, I know how to make things last, but there comes a time when it is time to buy something new. Unlike your Mustang, where you can get remanufactured or OEM parts with ease(check out Hemming's Motor News for that) virtually nobody makes parts for Troybilt tillers. Sure, I could cut out the tranny gasket myself, but making the carb kit for it, that's an entirely different matter.

Trust me, I'm already living the life you talk about. That's one reason I moved to the country.

will acknowledge that all the government bailouts in the world are not going to work in the absence of customers. Just how high will unemployment have to get before the whole thing grinds to a halt, with barter taking over for a cash economy and everybody trading services for second hand goods and other services?

The PTB have already taken one hit in the wallet with the drop in the stock market. The next hits will be a reduction in dividend income and the loss of items in their portfolios as companies go under. How bad will it get before it finally dawns on them that the economy works from the bottom up and always has?

Until dawn breaks over Marblehead, forget about getting anything through Congress in the way of a reinstitution of progressive taxation and a significant reduction in the moneys lavished on the Pentagon black hole.

and the parasites realize that fleeing to another country isn't going to be the best option.

The idiots don't understand they need a base of operations. Perhaps they will try to move into Europe?

The Chinese certainly aren't going to take them.

Corporations are going to have to get over themselves and start biting some bitter pills FAST.

NOTHING is built from the top down. NOTHING. It's absolutely amazing that there are people on DU that think recovery has to happen before hiring does. NEWS FLASH: If there is no HIRING, there's no SPENDING. We don't MAKE THINGS anymore. We're a consumer economy that's rotated around financial speculation and debt . . . the kind of economy that's all but destined for failure. You need people to buy your products and services. If they cannot DO that, you have no business.

That's not even Economics 101, that's Common Sense 101.

The fact that many people have their retirement invested in the stock market means a lot of retirements are going to go crumbling down.

The reforms FDR enacted did not materialize out of thin air. They were made because the system collapsed.

Hmmmmm, that answer would be

WHO: Three laissez-fail-lovin' Republican Presidents in a row who taxed low and leveraged high - something you cannot do when middle classers are investing heavily on margin accounts. Again, the economy tilted in favor of financial instruments and debt. The first two put the long-fused bomb in place and lit it up. The third, instead of stepping on the fuse, threw gasoline on it by trying Republican economic solutions to fix a giant Republican-created economic error. The ensuing result was made up for over time by a couple of FDR administrations.

WHAT: They employed what was later to be the basis of the Laffer/Friedman/Hayek debacle known as "Disaster Capitalism" - Regressive taxation systems, have the hoi-polloi buying high in mass amounts on margin, deregulate industries, etc. Sooner or later, it will fail. They just didn't know how massive a fail it would be.

And as per usual, Americans failed to read history, let alone LEARN from it . . . and put these same Friedman/Reaganomic hustlers to enable corporate fiends like Jack Welch and Al Dunlap to pocket large sums of cash while outsourcing all of the manufacturing work to pocket even MORE dollars. Manufacturing has suffered greatly, we're the biggest debtor nation in history, job creation has been plain AWFUL for 10 years, corporations pretty much run every facet of life, industry and culture, and we need to rely on the easily-stupefied masses to NOT put these same assholes in office ever again.

After all, Clinton did more financial deregulation that Reagan/Bush combined.

I have always referred to Clinton as the best Republican president in the second half of the twentieth century.

. . . albeit, you had to have about 2 or 3 to make up for the cost of living . . .:)

I was definitely no fan of Clinton's economic non-progressiveness. His ears were filled with far too many corporate fiends left over from the Reagan years.

. . that in this journal entry, the best statistics in the past 10 years as far as average monthly job creation came during the tail end (1999) of Clinton's presidency. If it wasn't for that year, these stats would be off-the-charts suckage instead of merely miserable.

You have to hit bottom before you can start moving up.

In other words, I think that the US will have to colapse before we can rebuild her. "Hi, my name is America and I'm a corporationaholic."

'green' jobs supposed to fill that void, albeit temporarily?

... but common sense ain't too common. No jobs = no money to buy good or crappy american-made. Therefore no consumer base. Who do these corporations think are going to buy their products? That's the $64,000 question (or is it around $50,000 now?) If they're thinking that the dwindling rich uber-minority can continue to support their profits, then they're as dumb as doorknobs.

is there a list of approved abbreviations for this site?

Maybe?

why are some people so fucking lazy when it comes to typing actual words?

but I go to great lengths not to type words. I copy/paste from places to avoid it.

I didn't know though ptb wasn't listed. I guess users can edit that thread, maybe someone will put PTB there.

(no copy/paste was used on this response)

*I do use spell check. Why are some so lazy or in a hurry they won't use spell check? I often use The Google to see if words are spelled right when I'm not using DU.



I noticed you spelled all your words correctly.

They just don't care to disguise it anymore, maybe, considering the mechanism of capitalism, they cannot.

They have been doing it to us at a slower pace because they need the US Military.

...to change it can be declared an "enemy combatant"--dragged away, sequestered
indefinitely and without the right to an attorney. Obama campaigned on reinstating
Habeas Corpus, and that has yet to be done, which means that the government isn't
required to produce a 'body of evidence' that supports your arrest.

You'd have to be delusional to think that this hasn't been planned. Just as they
go public, and make it clear to We The People that democracy is dead--they've got
a web to stop and trap anyone who dares to spew out one negative peep. AND...it's
all legal.

But as you say, it has become increasingly obvious.

I'm likely to abstain from voting unless I can find a candidate to vote FOR. No more voting for candidates just because they have a "D" next to their name. No more voting for the best of two less than desirable candidates. Been there, done that. All it has done is undermine my own needs and interests.

Meaningful healthcare reform is my line in the sand. It is unacceptable to me that a Dem President with a Dem majority in the House and a Dem majority in the Senate cannot deliver that. Dems seem to be lacking in humanity, in political skill and leadership, in intestional fortitude, and in party discipline. Hopefully we'll get our shit together before the 2010 and 2012 elections.

.. the only items of lasting value are going to be firearms, canned food, land owned free and clear, and other essentials. Our currency is headed for a crash.

On highways ,and Ships and exotic proximities.

that's what I don't understand about the corporatists' advantage here. They're about to lose the one reason they exist: profit and income. If no one can afford to buy anything where are they going to get their money?

and not a message a lot at DU want to listen to. I think a solution to a lot of this, or at least a start is publically financed campaigned. If we can take the private interest money out of it maybe those in Washington would be a bit more beholden to us and in the case of the Democrats, Democratic principles.

It's to bad the ones who'd have to implement it are the ones on the take.

Campaign Finance will never be passed by the party in power (they are the ones getting all the campaign cash).

Wall Street hedges its bets.

100% legal graft, all out in the open, normalized. Can't have real democracy, the unwashed do not have the same priorities as the Important People, but a dog & pony serves nicely.

With most people being marks.

Would we have different policy economically under a McCain Presidency. Not exactly sure, he might have been less generous on the unemployment programs but than again, that would risk social unrest. The stimulus wouldn't have been passed, but in hind site it was too little too late.

International policy would have been worse, but than again the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't really changed, there is just a better salesmen. Our European allies are still pulling back from those wars.

Let us be honest, there has been no real action on economic reforms necessary to return the entire nation into prosperity. There won't be action until there is a critical mass.

Your 3rd scenario is probably the most likely development. However, Hate Radio and Cable "News" have people brainwashed so thoroughly that even when things hit rock bottom, the Limbeciles will be happy because a Repuke is in the White House.

Actually there is another option but I don't think enough of us have the stomach for it. Personally I think there are enough decent people in the Dem party, even those in DC, to save it and the nation. However, it would require a lot of us in the rank and file doing some pretty down-and-dirty work versus the worst of the other side.

That's in any capacity. No contributions and no commercials.

need to put forth the referendum. Which of course they won't do. This system isn't going anywhere.

If you can get enough signatures on the petition. They have to put the question on the ballot and allow the voters to decide.

For the rest, it would have to go through state legislatures, and we know how well that would turn out.

indecent exposure. Controlling all houses but having their loyalties hanging out for all to see. Now special interest lobbyist have become elevated to congress and masquerade as populist. Barf!

:applause:

I vote for your third-party option. The corporatism and corruption in the Democratic party is far too deep. We end up fighting on two fronts and we're gaining nothing. If I'm going to have to fight a battle on two fronts I might as well do it from a third-party position. Call me crazy but I think we actually DO have a lot in common with the teabaggers, we're just too polarized to see it. They're suffering the same unemployment, foreclosures, lack of health insurance, etc., that we are. I honestly don't think it would be that difficult to come together, at least on economic issues.


And remember, the major political parties rely and even encourage that polarization. People have been trained to demonize the other party while ignoring the GLARING CORRUPTION of their own, all in the name of partisan politics. Rah rah our side and boo boo the other side. The major Political parties have devolved into nothing more than convincing people to work for, donate and vote for people who will ultimately vote against OUR interests. It's time to stop this stupidity and look at other options.

Populism is that no man's land where right meets left and finds common agreement. We're seeing those on the far right starting to head in that direction, perhaps we'll see the same sort of movement on the left.

It was populism during the Great Depression that forced FDR to make the stunning achievements he did, maybe it will work now:shrug:

Will be the center of any combined movement. Both the left and the right hate it.

Honestly I've begun talks with local tea baggers about our equal hatred of that institution.

My brother in laws are all die hard AM radio fans (and we know what that means - a steady diet of Rush) but on the subject of the FED we are all 100% in agreement.

To the best of my knowledge the US is the only country without a central bank/treasury that authorized money. We are the only one that allows private entities to decide our fiscal policy.

Cripes, Canada is almost debt free and they have a central bank. Heck the State of North Dakota has a central bank and they are one of the few states that are running surpluses. Everyone I know in both places have good jobs with great benefits. Me, if I didn't own a company (hanging on by our teeth some weeks) then I would be homeless.

I just don't see Obama as the Great Populist as much as he is the Great Corporatists. I think a populist movement is one that will have to be built from the ground up as we won't be able to rely on the current legal/political structure to be of any help -- it's just too stacked against us. The bad news is that it takes time to build a populist movement. The good news is if it catches fire changes can come fairly quickly.

I came back to read this a day later and found my own words of wisdom: "I think a populist movement is one that will have to be built from the ground up . . ." Oy vey! :eyes: What I MEANT by "the ground up" was to infiltrate from the lower-tiered political positions, i.e., making sure liberals are on the Water Board, the School Board, City Council, County Board of Supervisors, etc. The support, of course, would come from the ground up 'cause it's a, you know, POPULIST movement. :blush:

'We', overall, will be perfectly fine. But you're screwed. You're screwed because you think in narrow ways. You're screwed because of closed minded zealotry. You're screwed because you'll never be satisfied with anything ever, and everything has to be idealistically perfect for you because you don't have the ability to look at a circumstance and use objective reasoning to actually understand it logically and realistically. That's why you're screwed.

But we? No. 'We' are not screwed. We'll be just fine.

The talk of someone who has yet to lose their job and go into the job market looking for a new one.

And a pension. It's the old I-got-mine-to-hell-with-you syndrome. I

from your fellow human being and talk about how hard you work.

I'm screwed because I've spent the past four years getting a degree to teach. Yet it looks like, given the state of the economy, that I won't be able to get a job in my chosen profession next spring when I graduate. Tax revenues are down, teaching positions are either being cut or going unfilled in every single school district within a thirty mile radius of where I live. Oh, and don't come back and say I should move, since I've already bought a small farm years ago and have life long roots in the area. Moving is simply not an option.

You're right, I'm screwed, because living in the Midwest, I live in one of the areas that traditionally recovers from recessions and depressions last. The recession of '91 lasted until the mid nineties here. The bust of the tech boom in '00 sort of blended into this current recession, as we have been suffering from a general economic malaise for years now, only to get hammered by this current recession.

You're right, I'm screwed, not because I'm looking for ideological perfection, but because I've been misled by the Democratic party for the past thirty plus years. I was blinded by the reputation of the party, the party of the New Deal, of Truman and even Johnson, the party that would reward the left for its hard work on behalf of the party with at least a few crumbs. Yet frankly that party has done increasingly less for the left and frankly the crumbs disappeared during the Clinton years and haven't been seen since. I'm not looking for ideological purity, I'm looking for crumbs, and there are none. More tax cuts, not public option, no crumbs there.

You're right, I'm screwed because I'm now supporting a party of bully boys like yourself who demand absolute loyalty to the party without any independent thinking. Bully boys who demand that I support politicians who work against my interests. Bully boys who mock and scorn because I dare to think outside the box, because I dare to think independent thoughts.

You're right, in my current relationship vis-a-vis the Democratic party, I'm screwed. That's why I'm moving on. And as more and more on the left come to the same conclusion that I have, the Democratic party will have one of two choices, either listen to and take actions on the concerns of the left, or go the way of the Whigs.

Then it will be the Democratic party that will be screwed.

you're screwed even if you moved! It's the same situation, everywhere. School districts are paying substitutes less with minimal benefits to do the same job as a certified teacher. Why not? It makes perfect sense for them and the students suffer.

To judge teachers based on those thrice cursed test scores, to go to school year around, on and on. I'm student teaching now, and love being in the classroom, yet I'm seriously considering using my degree to get a job outside the classroom simply because I don't want to deal with the shit storm I see coming in the education field.

an advanced degree, do so in a marketable field. Much luck to you in all your endeavors.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation. You, as well as many others, have been or will be screwed by the mess of an economy we have. This hardship; however, is not a product of Obama nor the current Congress. No. It is a far deeper problem traced back to republican scumbags as well as society itself. So yes, you and many others have been or will be screwed due to our current economic situation. But your rant is so indirectly related to that circumstance that it renders your rant ignorant. Obama, nor the Democratic party, are to blame. You cannot nor will not see this; however, due to the idealistic and overzealous tendencies I had described previously. So you are not only screwed circumstantially, but you also have screwed yourself mentally.

I just wrote a bunch of lines below in an attempt to explain what is to blame and why those you attack are not worthy of your rant; but then I just deleted them all (I wasn't finished yet) after realizing I was merely wasting my time since I'm already aware of your inadequacies as it relates to understanding situations like this objectively. Nothing will sway you, which is why you're screwed not only situationally but also mentally. I have no doubt you'll continue to rant from your idealistically righteous but severely flawed perspective. I'll continue to sit back, read it, and shake my head from side to side knowing how much of a shame it is that you and some like you simply don't get it. Oh well. Blame on.

:thumbsdown:

You're correct, much of our current problems can be traced back to actions by Republican presidents and Congresspeople. The trouble is, you suffer from bipolar, black and white, good and evil thinking. Not everything bad is associated with 'Pugs, not everything good is associated with Dems.

Let's take a look at our current economic mess. Yes, much of it can be traced back to Bush and the Republicans. But a lot can be traced to the man who deregulated the financial sector more than Reagan or Bush combined, Clinton. This is the man who, among other things, got rid of Glass-Steagall, which opened the floodgates to all sorts of shit that we're paying the price for now. Don't believe me, then go check in with well respected economists like Krugman and Reich, they'll tell you the same.

Or let's take a look at the "deeper problem" of how the Midwest gets screwed in economic downturns. After the '91 recession, the Midwest continued to suffer. Well paying manufacturing jobs started to hemorrhage from the Midwest, fleeing to Mexico, then on to the rest of the world. Why? That lovely bit of law known as NAFTA that Clinton signed. Not to mention he gave China most favored nation trading status and allowed a record number of H1-B visas to flood this country, taking away even more well paying jobs. Yes, under Clinton a record number of jobs were created, but he gave all the well paying jobs away which meant that we the people were stuck with low paying McJobs. Oh boy, let's try to feed a family of four on two or three of those:eyes;

As far as my personal situation goes, most of my problems with it are ones in the future. Again, a lack of tax revenue is forcing teaching jobs to be cut. But where has the bulk of the bailout money and stimulus money gone? Oh, yeah, into the pockets of Wall St. financiers and other such fat cats, never to be seen again. Meanwhile Obama cut out sixteen billion dollars from the stimulus package slated for school construction all in a futile attempt to claim bipartisanship. Instead of a powerful stimulus bill we got one which was made up of forty percent tax cuts, sacrifice proven spending methods to appease Republicans. That's definitely a "deeper problem".

Furthermore, since right now education is my chosen profession, I look at Obama's education proposal's and immediately start thinking about fleeing the profession before I get started. Instead of getting rid of NCLB, which all the unbiased experts in the field state we should do, Obama is hell bent on making it bigger and better. Instead of supporting the public part of education, Obama and Duncan are taking us down the road to privatized education. And now the man wants to have year around classes. These are all "deeper problems" that reside in the present or future, and have absolutely nothing to do with the 'Pugs.

So go ahead, read this, shake your head, do what you will. But one thing I want you to do is break out of your bipolar, black and white mode of thought. You are well known for your extreme partisanship, for you, anything that the Democratic party does is golden. They could serve you shit and you would lap it up claiming it was fine fillet. Go out and educate yourself! Open your eyes! The Democrats have been bought up by the corporations just as much as the Republicans have. Wake the fuck up and smell the coffee. Otherwise you're going get down the road aways and find yourself in for a rude awakening when it finally dawns over Rock Mt. that you've been played for a sucker.

Republicans have maybe one or two. With our good ones getting our support I think we can keep growing it.

But I agree that it seems a lot like business as usual. I know it's the way things are done in Washington, but I really want to change that!

It's possible that I might be wrong, but at this time I think that he really is trying to make things better. He was one of the few Senators who stuck with ACORN and he really does seem to be trying to insist on a strong Public Option.

If you check out his web site, you can find a lot of reasons to support the work that he's done so far.

However, when you see what so called Democrats like Baucus do to screw us over, it does tend to get frustrating. There are way too many wolves in Democratic clothing.

If you get a chance, please check out Sen. Casey's site.

http://casey.senate.gov/

These are all good people. There are a few left in the Dem party. Not that I'm voting for any Dem in the future who isn't a progressive like those.

watch when republican's regain control, it will be a blood bath and we will have ZERO to show for our four years.

Obama is proving to be a completely ineffective leader. Long on hot air, short on policy results. He pretends he is above "politics" and refuses to acknowledge democrats as the constiuents who work so hard at the grass roots level to elect him.

This is a looming disaster and like Carter's unfortunate term will define democrats as weak and unprincipaled and unwilling to stand up to corporate and cogressional bullies giving increasing amounts of leverage to the hard right wing of both parties.

RIP democratic party. We are officially single party rule. We have no opposition party in congress and no public representation. Its all about stuffing your own pockets with corporate cash and our president and congress and supreme court are a monolithic bunch of corporate whores.

Judges have offered rulings on issues like eminent domain and medical marijunaa far more fair minded than what the Democratic SC justices have offered.

I still have fingers crosed that Sotomayor will be decent. Here's hoping.

is probably the last step when moving from a near fascist corporate run government to living as subjects in a fascist state where corporate interests exploit citizens with the support of all three branches of government.

Sotomayor has used language in the past that talks about rights of people and corporations. This has really bothered me given the DLC focus on corporate sponsored activism in Government.

But then she really is not my choice for the position. On the other hand, many here would admonish me if I said we can judge her already. She has, after all, just gotten into office.

You do know what a Republican is, right? How can you even compare him to those amoral health reform obstructionist, climate change denying, fossil fuel gulping, military industrial complex worshiping, teabag enabling,lying corporate shills?

really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6688198&mesg_id=6688321

A corporatist. Look here <http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638>
And here: <http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424>

Compare the two, in every single category that they have in common, Obama raised more money. With that kind of massive outlay favors will be expected to be returned.

While you're in the neighborhood at those links, check out the bundlers for each candidate. Ooo Finance and Law as opposed to Finance and Misc. Businesses. Health Insurance as opposed to Construction.

So our corporate masters got rearranged again. When will we have a presidential candidate bought and paid for with public funds as opposed to corporate funding?

According to your source, 88% of Obama's 750M in contributions were from individuals- So by your logic he should be beholden to...individual Americans. Some of those contributions were "bundled" and listed by organizations, but it's a small percentage of the total. McCain had only 54% individual, with 23% matching funds and 23% "other" which is who knows what, the devil?. I don't see Obama's policy influenced as much by contributions, as by reasoned public policy, political pragmatism and long term strategy. Our corporate overlords (reflected by Republican and Fox news criticism) are not happy with Obama- that's evidence enough for me he's working more for us.

And frankly Obama got a lot more than you think. What is listed there is only the top bundling amounts, many others were paid into the campaign.

And if you don't think that there is a quid pro quo, you're horribly naive in the ways of American politics. There's been a quid pro quo like this almost since the beginning of our country.


And let's see here, he hires some of the top crony financial folks in Geithner and Summers, yet you see no connection between that, the amount of money paid into his campaign by the financial industry and the bailout. What, are those ebony colored shades you're wearing?

your claims of quid pro quo in the Obama admin are wanting. Of course QPQ is business as usual in American politics, but your examples fail to meet any standard of proof in the Obama admin. You could more easily argue that they were chosen for their positions because they were the most qualified for the jobs and their actions, along with Bernanke, were based on historical models from the depression, where NOT supporting the banks led to a financial collapse and a decade of economic depression. The imminent financial collapse was averted and in case you haven't noticed, we are in rough shape, but NOT in a depression. Summers, who was the most prominent democratic economist living today, and was associated with the Clinton "group", was a fellow Harvard alumni, has not worked for any of the contributors to the campaign. He either been a professor, Harvard U. president, and besides a short stint at the World Bank, has been a public servant in a variety of treasury positions. Gietner has also no connection to the contributers, having worked at the IMF, and NY Federal Reserve,as well as several public service jobs in treasury positions. So there are NO direct quid pro quo's evident from your examples. Now I do agree that there is a bias because they work in that world of high finance- but an ideological bias is not quid pro quo. If he was truely offereing a quid pro quo for donations, the University of CA, his largest bundled donor, would have been bailed out from their financial crisis.


Look, we all know corporate money and power has too much influence on public policy. I agree there. But I see no evidence that Obama has engaged in quid pro quo, rather he has been a pragmatist in policy, recognizing the political reality of corporate america, chipping away at the edges. Expecting that Corporate America could be suddenly neutered by one man, in one year, now that is naive.

"Ebony colored glasses"=dark colored glasses=a play on the saying rose colored glasses=meaning you can't see a damn thing, wake the fuck up and look around. Stop trying to play the race card when nothing is there. I was trying to make a word play, the fact that you jump to racism says more about you than it does me, and none of it good.

I could argue with the contention that they were the best in the business, except for the back room meeting/deal between Geithner, Paulson and a handful of other banking heads concerning the bailout?
<http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/07/15/goldman/index.html>
Oh, and what about Geithner's Chief of Staff? Oh, yeah, former Goldman Sachs lobbyist. Now isn't that cozy:eyes:

Oh, and Summers, yeah, he's sooo qualified. After all he was Clinton's point man in deregulating the financial sector, which is what got us into this mess. But hey, we're supposed to believe that he's here to clean up this mess and do what's right for the country? If you believe that, I've got a fine bridge to sell you too.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact of the matter is that there is just as much quid pro quo in this administration as in previous ones, and that this administration is just as much corporately controlled as previous ones. For you to think that this isn't the case simply goes to show up your own bias and how naive you are.

Oh, and as far as prominent Democratic economists go, how come Krugman, you know, Nobel prize winner, etc., wasn't tapped? Could it be because he is an honest broker, unlike Geithner and Summers who are bought and paid for corporate whores. That's my guess.

You are utterly blinded, utterly naive. Wake the fuck up and look around you. This administration has been bought and paid for, just as others have been in the past sixty years. The only difference is who their corporate masters are, that's it. The sooner you accept the truth, the sooner you can help change the situation. Otherwise all you are is simply another zombie citizen, blindly cheering on the corporatists who are actively working against your own self interests. Wake up.

calling me "utterly blinded, utterly naive, and telling me to " wake the fuck up and look around you" is unnecessary hyperbole and says more about your temperament than my knowledge or experience. You don't know the first thing about me and your insults don't address my critique of your argument. Your "ebony glasses" comment whether you meant it or not, is objectively more likely to be viewed as supporting Obama just because he's black, than your explanation. Ebony is as i'm sure you are aware, is commonly used as a euphemism for African Americans, not dark opaque glasses. your "word play" and explanation fail.

There are compelling financial reasons why AIG was bailed out besides that is was some kind of quid pro quo for Goldman Sacks. I would have rather seen them not bailed out, but again- we will never know if that letting them fail would have caused a tsunami meldown in the financial sector. Again, i point out that the policies enacted have likely averted a depression. I agree that the Goldman Execs at the table used their position to their financial advantage, but i've heard criticism and calls for regulation by GEITNER for these payouts. Have you ever heard him speak, read anything he said, heard his testimony? I would suggest you study the man before you jump to conclusions based on guilt by association or hearsay on internet posts. Paulson, a different story- he is a corporate shill. Krugman, a brilliant scholar, writer, commentator, who I've read regularly, admire and often agree with, but he has no government experience. So even though i prefer his point of view, and was aware of Summers deregulation during the Clinton admin (for which he has stated he learned from and has publicly called for more strict financial regulations), Krugman was not initially an Obama supporter and lacked experience for the treasury and was not close with Obama. Summers is an adviser, not the Treasury Secretary. He privately lobbied for the Fed Chair position, but Obama reappointed Bernanke instead. Quid pro quo?

To say there "is just as much quid pro quo in this administration as in previous ones" diminished the unprecedented depth and breadth of corruption in the Bush/Cheney Inc.admin. Their revolving corporate door, pay for play, cronyism, with people in jobs they were utterly unqualified for. There is no comparison in scale of the Obama's admin, it's starkly evident.

That's rich, especially since you have done everything but call me a racist. And speaking of not knowing people, you certainly don't know me, don't know my racial or personal background, thus you have no grounds to be judging whether or not I am a racist.

As far as stating that you're naive, that you need to wake up and look around, well the truth may hurt, but there it is. You're obviously blinded by your partisan bias in this matter, which is showing badly. Furthermore, you yourself admit Goldman Sachs was using its "position" in these bailouts to pursue their own agenda. Gee, and part of that "position" was closed door meetings with Paulson and Geithner to figure out how to divvy up AIG and who knows what else related to the bailout. You don't know these details, I don't know these details, but gee, Goldman Sachs certainly seems to have benefited handsomely from it, don't you agree.

As far as Summers goes, sure, he's pulling a mea culpa for public consumption, but are we seeing any sort of movement from him or this administration to re-regulate the industry? No, just pious mouthings and little else.

And while yes, the Bush/Cheney administration to reach unprecedented levels of corruption, to use that comparison in order to claim that the Obama administration is clean is misleading, to say the least. Just because this administration has yet to reach the levels of the last administration doesn't mean that there is no quid pro quo. Sorry, but quid pro quo has been the mother's milk of modern American politics extending back decades, and continues to this day. One has but to look at not just Obama's economic appointments, but other Cabinet positions to see the corporate influence that surrounds Obama. Vilsak, Salazar, along with many others have extensive corporate ties and friendships that shapes their worldview and political actions.

But hey, if you want to keep your head in the sand and deny the reality of the world around you, be my guest. Just don't complain when you wake up and find that this country has been sold out from underneath you.

come on. Most of Obama's cabinet appointees are from the pubic service sector not corporate boardrooms. Salazar was Governor of CO and before that Attorney General of his state. if you are going to claim that he is a corporate shill please provide evidence. Speaking about selling out from under us, the previous Bush interior secretary sold off large tracts of public land for private exploitation. when Gail Norton resigned in 06 she took a job with Shell oil. She's being investigated by the OBAMA justice department, Eric Holder, for what? quid pro quo.

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/former_bush_interior_secretary_takes_job_as_attorney_for_shell/C38/L38/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/19/bush_interior_secretary_investigated/

What about Steven Chu? An Energy Secretary who isn't a oil company front-man? a nobel laureate, a champion of alternative energy and conservation who believes global climate change is a serious problem? what a novel concept.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/04/steven-chu-obama-climate-change-drought

Bush's choice? a chemical industry exec who was one of the 5 worst polluters in his state and global warming denier.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0116-09.htm


Do a side by side comparison of cabinet appointees in the Bush admin and tell me that we don't have a better shot at getting policy that is not completely run by corporations.

I said in an earlier post that i was not naive enough to believe Obama could turn the titanic of corporate control by himself, and not in one term. As Michael Moore has said "we've got your back Mr President". Even MM (who has made his lives work going after corporations) believes Obama is a good man and has a chance to change things for the better. But he realizes that Obama cannot do it without grass roots support and pressure on congress. The right noise machine will win if we sit on our hands and simply criticize Obama because he's not progressive enough. We agree on the influence of corporate lobbyist money and quid pro quo in politics, I just believe the most effective way to reduce that influence is through practical gradual evolution rather than unrealistic radical revolution.

As far as "pious mouthings" let give it a year and see where we are. An administration must first start with rhetoric and then move to policy and legislation. It's not going to be easy by any stretch to regulate the industry given it's power and influence, and especially now that they are making big money again. Obama, Bernanke, Geitner, and Summers as well as leaders in congress such as Dodd and Frank have all called for regulations and enforcement to avoid future financial catastrophes. The strategy seems to be to wait until health care is settled and the economy is more stable before tightening financial regulation. Legislation also takes time and is not an overnight phenomenon.

I never claimed the Obama administration's was "clean". I just suggested that they were substantially better on QPQ than the Bush admin, and that you hadn't provided solid evidence of quid pro quo. If you are going to make these claims calling me naive and that i have my head in the sand is just a lazy way to make your point- show me the evidence.

btw- never called you a racist- just that your word play sounded racist and your explanation sucked :)

people thought they were voting for when they first appointed Bush II.

Let's hear him give a speech about how proud he is of his DEMOCRATIC supporters and long standing LIBERAL values that made this country great. Let's see the bold leadership with bold initiatives. These are desperate times and we have triangulating leadership and cross between Harvey Milquetoast and Neville Chamberlain at the helm.

Neo-democrats are very much like early neo-cons. The DLC has transformed the party to be more free-market republican because republicans did all the heavy lifting to stake out and defend their positions and principals. As foul as they are, they are transparent in their motives and deeds. Help the rich, punish the poor. That message over and over and over has transformed us as a nation into a mean-spirited dog-eat-dog culture where we celebrate the suffering of others. This message over and over is now taken as gospel with people.

So, because dems don't have a message nor leadership, we ride in the slip stream created by republican media monopoly who is doing the hard work, dems are just staying slightly left of extreme right. So we can call ourselves "democrats" while appeasing our corporate benefactors.

Let's see Obama use the word liberal and democrat and push through the change we voted for. That is his job. Instead its bi-partisan "centrist" bullshit.

There is nothing more dangerous than an unprincipled triangulating moderate centrist reacting and capitulating in real time to the latest right wing attacks. And that is exactly what we have with Obama. He is so lofty and condescending to liberals - always lumping liberals in with the "extremes" in both parties. HUH? Last time I checked we don't have an entire global media network of extremist sewage spewing 24/7.

Obama is above "politics". This lofty and unattached behavior its growing old and turning into a f'n disaster that will take another 30 years to recover from and enable the next right wing nut job to continue the scorched earth policy of past republicans.

The democratic party is dead. Obama is killing it twice. We are all republicans now.

That you just summed up a lot of my thoughts.

I have been and am angry about some of the criticisms leveled at the Democrats, but this one is not unfair.

Almost 2 trillion has been thrown into the financial system. 2 trillion. Much of it has been thrown at the big players who caused the crisis. Many of the smaller, more conservative institutions that are now providing reasonable credit at reasonable rates to a lot of small businesses and consumers are being taxed extra to support the larger and very irresponsible institutions. Goldman Sachs gets to be a bank and get government insurance on its deposits???? What the hell? There are a lot of hidden subsidies to these large institutions that the taxpayer will be paying off for a generation.

If the sky-high consumer credit card rates won't give us all a clue as to what is wrong here, what will?

Nobody in this country, right, left or middle really wants to be forced by law to deal with an industry as corrupt and isolated from the normal actions of law as the private health insurance industry. Nobody. By law they even have immunity from the regular tort system. You can sue the bastards, but you can't get anything back for your costs, so they basically can deny all but the most expensive claims with impunity. I cannot support a "reform" that gives them more power. I also cannot support a "reform" that creates a new public option with very limited enrollment.

So far what I have seen of reform is an utter nightmare that really does seem to have been written by insurance executives. So is this another case of giving a failed industry more subsidies? And if so, how is this reform?

The net impression I have is that the country is increasingly skewed toward the interests of big banks, big companies, and major industries with a lot of lobbying power, a lot of money and little understanding of the whole picture.

I'm very worried. Further, I am extremely worried about the unwillingness of a Congress controlled by Democrats to listen to the people. I thought the GOP Congress had set new records for arrogance and indifference, but when I hear of Democratic politicians basically refusing to even let the public read the bills before they vote on them, my heart sinks.

Representative democracy is inefficient on the surface, but very efficient in reality because of the open public debate. If a Democratic Congress does the same thing that the GOP Congress did, it's impairing the fundamental process of democracy. I do not believe that the average person in the US is too stupid to understand the issues if given the facts, and I do believe that the average person can figure out they are being screwed if they get the facts. I am driven to the unhappy conclusion that the facts aren't being disclosed precisely because the average person would reject what is being proposed.

I don't want to see the GOP back again. Just switching between the two parties hasn't gained us much, and it is unlikely to help us in the future. I either want a very strong reform and reconstruction of the Democratic party or a third party that will be more like the old Democratic party.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can get there?

And this reminds me why. Sorry. You're blaming Democrats for all the problems of the past decade (as you usually do, I should add) and your only solution is some kind of childish revolution nonsense.

Sorry the world doesn't work the way your fantasy life demands. Back on ignore with you. Grow up a little, perhaps. :hi:

No, I mentioned what Obama has done. I mention what Clinton has done. I mention what the Democrats have done, even with large majorities in Congress and control of the White House.

Sorry that you can't stand the truth, but hey, go ahead, put me on ignore and live in your own little happy bubble. We all cope with reality in different ways, some deal with it head on, some try and hide from it(though it eventually finds them in the end). Seems like you're one of the latter, but hey, that's OK.

I thought it was so totally unfair and not nice when that lady space marine asked if you'd ever been mistaken for a man.

Few are left in the system that I now have any hope in –– Kucinich, Grayson, Howard Dean, John Conyers, Maurice Hinchey? If things go on the way they are, more citizens might give people like these a more serious look.

I doubt the Dem party can be rebuilt or reformed, since tptb own the machinery.

And as long as > 95% of the media are owned by conservatives, it will be v. tough going.

Edited to add: Not to mention, so long as conservatives own much of our election machinery: see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x514342

I'm not giving up on anything, but there's a lot of work to be done.

http://www.commondreams.org/print/47770

It says it all. Probably the best summary I've ever read. I highly recommended reading the entire piece.

We need Instant Runoff Voting with paper ballots, and an end to corporate campaign donations (perhaps public campaign funding ONLY).

The only way to change things is to cut off the toxic influence of lobbyists from Congress.

But continuing to do the same thing over and over again, while getting the same result is one definition of insanity.

By supporting the Greens en masse, at least the left would be putting those campaign finance issues on the table. At least they would be putting the Democratic party on notice that we're not to be taken for granted anymore.

Or we can simply continue the insanity until this country implodes. Then, perhaps we can rebuild it in a better image. Me, I'd like to do something pro active now, and that won't involve the Democratic party, since apparently they're part of the problem.

After the joy we felt in November and at the inauguration, we have seen almost all of our hopes for a new era fall before our eyes, killed, not by Republicans, but by corporate, sell-out Democrats, including the ones in the White House.

I'm sick over it, and don't know where to turn.

Phone calls and e-mails have failed so far.

We need to organize a new movement, that seems abundantly clear.

war crimes and the lies of the Bush Administration while covering up photos that would expose torture. Of course 9/11 could use a new investigation as well after all we've learned about the previous admin.

Sooner or later I am afraid the only chance we have is a massive national general strike where we give no compromises on the requirements which must be met. Organizing and solidarity is the key. Unfortunately though I do not see enough of either yet. Presently all I see is a big cat & dog fight promoted and instigated by the oligarchs in a classic divide & conquer strategy. And while they are winning they're laughing all the way to the bank with huge amounts of our share of the wealth.

A success for corporate giants.

But still, it's less than a year into his presidency, and let's not forget that Obama inherited a cesspool.

is to not allow corporations to lobby or contribute a dime to candidates or those in office.

Of course there is one huge problem with this and that is the politicians have to make it law and they are in the game.

It won't be a loss, more like a win for the American people. I guarantee if we end both wars, this countries economic boom will be historic. Besides the money we will save, and lives, this country will actually be able to spend real money, not credited money, on things like Healthcare for all and huge small business loans. Seriously, we can't afford these 2 wars anymore, time to give back to the American people.

"When politics enter government, nothing resulting there from in the way of crimes and infamies is then incredible. It actually enables one to accept and believe the impossible."

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise."

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Mark Twain

Thanks.
:patriot:

Thanks for stating my feelings - it's nice to be able to express this insane situation as sanely as you have :nuke:

The 2004 Democratic Party Platform was "WIN the WARS, and MORE Free Trade".
The same Party Platform as The Republicans.
And THEN the political party that actually contested the selection in Ohio was the Green Party.

We moved to The Woods in 2006 and planted a BIG veggie garden.
Our focus NOW is local humanitarian issues, and finding ways to deny funding to the Corporate Machine that runs our government.

WE are no longer Good American Consumers.
Next year, we will "consume" even less.

bribery called "campaigning financing" and allow public financing of ALL elections. At bottom this is the problem. Nothing will change no matter how many third parties are created, because the corporations will buy them all.

I'd like to see Buckley v. Valeo reversed by the high court where it pertained to corporate spending to influence elections. That decision which said in effect bribery was a form of free speech was and is a disaster for American voters.

One of the big problems is the DLC. Let's start by giving them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't really there to destroy the Democratic Party that was supposed to look out for the little guy. Where they have gone wrong is the Republicans for decades have pulled the political debate in the country to the right. The DLC has made the mistake of thinking when they say 'the Democratic Party needs to appeal to the centrists and the independents' that the center they are talking about is actually politically in the middle. Right now that 'middle' is still substantially to the right of center. If the DLC truly wants to be a centrist voice first they have to get the focus of the debate back to a more balanced state and then look at what the true centrist to slightly left position should be. Of course this is giving the DLC the benefit of the doubt if you think they are truly just the corporate whores of the Democratic party then my suggestion won't work.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=485393&mesg_id=485566

What is your favorite line?

beyond... that keeps a republican out of office.

I'm sick of that shit and, honestly, fuck them if they deny a public option to the American people. I will stay home. I have voted in every election for which I was eligible, but I have applied for over 100 jobs, only to find libraries are closing or freezing budgets, I have no insurance, I do not make a living wage, I went back to grad school after a divorce to get a better-paying job and what I have to show for that is a lot of student loan debt.

Democrats want American people to die too.

fuck this shit about BUYING a health care policy when you cannot afford to pay the bills you already have.

I did not do ANYTHING to deserve what has happened to me except that I was the mother of two children and kept my ex husband from killing himself and made sure he got the health care he needs. He's like the govt... he doesn't give a shit if I die, even tho I saved his life FOUR TIMES.

It's enough to make you want to check out permanently. I have thought about it because... what are my options?

Sorry madame, there are no trains, planes or cars available this lifetime for early checkouts. You'll just have to wait in line with rest of us. Just enjoy watching the crazies, the entertainment is free and we know you'll find something you'll like.

Those are two things I think that could be done.

:thumbsup:

You can find that out on the New Top Tens Page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

Look through the history of this nation. The most a third party has ever gotten since the very first election in 1792 is 88 electoral votes, and that's when the third party was running Teddy Roosevelt as president. (You can't have a stronger candidate.) The most it has ever gotten in popular votes is 27.9 percent, also by Teddy Roosevelt.

The electoral system is not structured to encourage political parties. You need to change the Constitutional System to do that.

Your other option of letting the country collapse and letting Repubs take it is not an option. You see at the tea bag marches those people are mostly just ignorant and won't know what they've done to their children and grandchildren until it's too late. They've been lied to by Limbaugh, Beck and others, who are really the only sources they now trust. Limbaugh and Beck, meanwhile, are nothing but hired propagandist.

If we give in to the scheme that we are seeing now, it's hard to tell if the right wing state is going to look like: Tom Delay's Mariana Islands, Perot's Argentina, Franco's Spain, or Pinochet's Chile. I don't like the that risk. There's no telling if it will ever end.

Giving in to it with Global Warming and widespread environmental destruction right now would be the equivalent of committing suicide and hoping for a good afterlife.

Whatever needs to be done has to be done within the Democratic party or not at all. I think the first thing to do would be to form a Democratic Party sub-unit with the idea of taking the corporate influence out of the party.

Or Unemployment Insurance. You can thank the Socialist Party for that. They became enough of a threat to FDR's first reelection bid that he felt the pressure to nick a couple of their party planks and make them his in order to woo enough of the left back into his coalition. It worked and we wound up with the largest legacy of the New Deal.

This is but one example where a strong third party bid effected how this country was governed. Get enough people pissed and organized and things will change, one way or the other. Hell, that's the core philosophy of democratic politics, enough people getting pissed and organized.

After all, by voting either for the RepubliCrat or for the DemoCanic Party we have made so much headway.

Puhlease.

As Emma Goldman famously said "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

In spite of that, I remain optomistic; otherwise I couldn't cope at all.

Your gonna have a fucking nervous breakdown!

Psssssssst, by the way, in case your not up on current events. THERE ARE DOZENS OF THESE FUCKING THREADS ON HERE, what
makes yours so pertinent?

Nor do I claim that my thread is pertinent, I just decided to post something political that's been on my mind for the past decades. That is, after all, what a politically based chat board is about.

Speaking of nervous breakdown:shrug:

the 4th estate. the media is still under republikkklan power.

is that I've recognized people associate themselves with the democrats for no other choice. The Democratic Party has earned a mantle for representing the unwashed, but more often than not has assuaged its powered constituencies. You don't attain influence without its stains.

We live in a society that rewards the power brokers. What society hasn't?

We like to think Utopia, but are rewarded with the realities of human nature; survival, even egalitarian survival, rules.

As I consider the Tribe, Indian (American), Afghan, Tahjik, et al, nothing is really any different here in America. Allegiance matters.

We had some forward thinkers in the 18th Century, products of the Enlightenment. A bright shining moment in history. Nonetheless, they couldn't overcome the concept of property and the defense of it.

Until humanity recognizes the decorum of deference and the utility of a light pack, we will fight.

Fighting is the protein of evolution. It is the bane of civilization.

nt

Slowly rotating from left to right since Inauguration Day.

(clip if you don't get the reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7xX7KcRYjs )

It's one of the reasons I didn't want to nominate him, as I read on his campaign website that he was very much for an increased troop prescence in Afghanistan. He also mentioned sending troops to Pakistan, if I recall. This is why I supported Kucinich, Edwards (sigh lol) and Clinton over Obama. I supported him 100% for the general and support him now, but I didn't expect much change in anything except not having a batshit-insane fundie for president or vp.

but what's really scary is the equivocation on climate change. what they're doing is like telling people they can only go out and pick up 4 fish, not 5, in the strange outgoing tide, and please don't worry about that long black line getting bigger on the horizon.

we need a government that solves real, critical, scientifically measurable problems. we have some that could easily end life as we know it, sure as cancer. looks like that's too much for the dems.

Unless they change their tune very very soon, I'm going Green.

they can't figure out that severe climate change might mean the end of mankind. Profits mean nothing if you can't exist on the planet. If Democrats don't step up to the plate right now, I'll be more grateful than ever I don't have grandchildren.

Our destiny is up to us individually.
Collectively, if the USA goes down, so does the rest of the world.
Economics count for a lot
However ICBM's have the final say.

There is not much chance of needed change

I agree that both parties are in the end serving their true masters, the corporations. That is why we need a Supreme Court that will recognize that the Founding Fathers never once mentioned any rights for corporations, partnerships, businesses, etc. Any enumerated rights are in living breathing human individuals. When the Court recognized certain rights in corporations, including political speech, we were doomed from then on. Corporations only exist at our will. We, the people, through our elected local, state and federal representatives create them. Business entities at their most fundamental level are creatures of state law. Until corporations are restrained in their political speech of lobbying and contributing huge amounts into the political process both Democratic and Republic parties are their slaves.

I'm not quite as pessimistic as the author in that I see some signs of hope. Obama addressed the equal pay for equal work issue in the first weeks of his administration. There has been significant overhaul of credit card regulations that once enacted give cardholders at least a fighting chance. I wish the bill had not had such a long transition period as cc companies have used that time to screw their current cardholders. But at least on a going-forward basis things may improve.

I see in the shaping of climate change and energy policy more hope. Business interests will ultimately press their concerns on Congress and I expect legislation will be less than idea. But I think in these two areas businesses realize that reform and modernization is ultimately in their long-term best interests and that the people are fully onboard with this.

Health care is where businesses have drawn a line in the sand. They funded and fueled the summer's great theater that has scared any Republics that might dare consider supporting meaningful reform and several moderate Democrats. And those elected representatives, especially in the Senate, have sold their souls to the United Health Care, Aetna, CIGNA, etc. devils.

That does not mean that they have to offer the insurance at rates that you can afford.

Insurance companies are allowed to charge higher premiums or fewer benefits or both to different "classes" of insured. By using this distinction they avoid discrimination laws. Imagine this scenario, they will create policies with low benefits and HUGE premiums for anyone with a pre-existing condition, and will thus be able to say with a straight face that they "offered" you a policiy and you turned them down. Alternatively they will offer policies that are just within your range of affordability (if you forgo food and shelter) if you use a subsidy but with such high deductibles, co-pays and such low benefits that you basically might not as well have it.

I have a pre-existing condition. I expect that I will have to pay the fine and consider this just another tax by and for the uber rich on the marginalized, disenfranchised and poor. I fully expect that it will be cheaper to stay off insurance that to take it and the benefit will be the same. I will only be taking one kind of insurance these days, a huge life policy and in 2 years after the suicide exemption expires on the policy I will do what I have to to provide for my family.

that objectively I, like you, am one of the more fortunate people on this planet.

Depression can be both biological and situational and the two can feed off one another. I'm glad you've found a way to cope that works for you, but not all of us find it so easy.

:kick:

the sooner folks realize this the better. This isn't a democracy, and our economy isn't even capitalist... its fascist, the take-over of government by corporatists.

with corporations and their BOD enjoying special privileges and cash from our treasury and exceptions from common law.

This must stop.

and it's heartbreaking. I was so elated when Obama won and now it seems that he's just a good talker. Things won't change until corporations stop paying off the politicians. What we need is total and complete transparency - a website that has what money from what corp goes to what Senators ALONG with how they vote on related issues. Until the American people can easily see what these clowns are doing, they won't be able to make educated decisions in the voting both. Also, the politician, knowing that we can see the REAL deal, will (hopefully) vote according to their constituents.