K & R if you think the proposed spending freeze is a terrible idea

I am sure it will be much easier to fight for a progressive agenda when we talk like conservatives and ignore framing. We warned Dem Leadership they were in quicksand and what did they do but dive in.

President Obama surrounding himself with such.... WINNERS!

drive me nuts. I keep waiting for some real job stimulus at least equal to that.

Oh, that'd be too popular, and Obama's idol Reagan would never have done such a thing.

Well, actually he might've since we can now definitively say Obama is to the right of Reagan...

on personal earnings and other income over $2 million!

:banghead:stupid thing to do in the middle of a recession:banghead:

This is what drives me nuts.

Does anyone at least frame an issue before posting this stuff?

Remember, those dollars that keep people alive?

Those dollars that come back DOUBLED and MORE to the community?

Yeah, THOSE dollars.

WTF is Obama thinking???

to last Tuesday, it appears this is the shape it's taking.

then there are going to be many more nights like last Tuesday.

I'm really dreading November. :(

but I cheer myself up with the thought that it's going to be Blue Dogs who are going to be replaced by Rethugs, we can come back with progressive Democratic candidates in 2012. Having Barack Obama on the ballot is good for all of those down the ballot, it will behoove us to find people worthy of running with him in November, 2012.

voter turnout when he is on the ballot - because of his policies. Do you think the young, and gays, and Hispanics and African Americans are gonna turn out? Ha!

I also still have hope that the stimulus package will be seen to have done some good by then. At that point in time, the concerns of the groups you mention will be addressed. It all depends on economic recovery, that is Job One for this Administration.

It gives me no pleasure to say that.

and decide the only way out is down.

:wtf:

but if they'll make it up with cuts in Defense, I'm all for it. like that'll ever happen.

and making Republicans proud.

This is why my property taxes are up, class sizes are increasing, services are being cut and public servants being surrendered to Unemployment. Just what we need.

And meanwhile, Smart-bomb sales are booming

:hi:

:kick:

Hoovervilles. I am amazed that they are not already everywhere. Probably because in this police state, they are beaten and burned out....kind of like the original ones....Why now a "Spending Freeze" when the TOO BIG TO FAIL banks needed(?) more money. We are talking about flesh and blood (mot corporate) people who need a job. Fuck This...

Fund the fucking illegal wars but let's fuck the people here at home. again. hard. with something sharp. in the ass.

And that follows the ideals of the Democratic party or liberal ideology or plain humaneness just exactly how?

decision. What next? Tom Delay tagged as the head of the Democratic party?

:sarcasm:

I understand he's incredibly loyal, thanks to his Velvet Mafia of former House Pages.

at least the last one actually helps people. It's a GOP wet dream.

strategy.

...well then Fuck me. Let's get rid of this amateur before he does any more damage to the democratic party. Where's Monica when we really need her. Impeachment, anyone?

there is nothing he could do in the next three years to win back support of some Democrats that put him in this position. He has done nothing except extend Bush's policies..and prove that he is a corporatist. TOTAL DISASTER...

politically, it is suicide (in my humble opinion).

But hey, if you want the dems to completely f up and hand the country over to who knows what insane group of ignoramuses surging in the public favor in 2012 (probably libertarians) then it's brilliant.

We shall see what they decide to do.

i didn't vote for reagan in 80 or 84, and I won't vote for one in 12

as a matter of fact, unfuckingbelievable..very very poor judgement if this is what's being suggested

I hope to hear something different..i have to.

Here's a thought: why not quit obsessing about Recs and UnRecs? Seems like this thread has done just fine.

People that remember me from the primaries know I haven't been Obama's biggest fan. I felt all along the whole thing was more a feel-good, we can do "it" for some big, happy, vague ideals and that no one really knew exactly what we we were really going to get but many felt they were voting for some fuzzy and blurry version of exactly what they wanted. So I don't know really how to react when things like this come about. I wasn't in the hole hope and change club from the outset, so I don't know whether to be surprised at this move or not. At any rate, to freeze spending just when more people looking to the government for help, after having just tossed billions to huge corporations, it doesn't make me very proud of my team at the moment. I'm not blind to our nation's fiscal issues, and money doesn't grow on trees, of course, but this smacks more of political posturing than a sudden decision to repair our financial house.

your chocolate allotment has increased:crazy: :kick:

You don't.

But you're ready to attack Obama at a moment's notice, right?

This place becomes more absurd every day.

(reply to gryptype, who assumes that we haven't read anything about this yet)

I think some people just need something to be outraged about.

They should be happy with the way things are going.

I've thought about it, but I know I'll just be told I'm a bluedog cheerleader when I'm far from either. When I first saw the headline I thought, "Spending freeze!? WTF?" Then I went and saw the details. People are way overreacting to this. But I don't know. I think I'll wait till things cool down.

might as well lay out the facts as you understand them.

But that's not what would happen. I'm not in the mood for what would happen tonight. Sorry.

By endorsing this, Obama has effectively resurrected Reaganomics and set the GOP's agenda for 2010.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I can do baseless assertions too

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...felt that way about liberals, I guess. "This is DEMOCRATIC underground not LIBERAL underground" you know.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:sarcasm: here.

On edit I'm sure you are being sarcastic. I didn't realize what was posted upthread.

then why are you http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html">HERE?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and it's not money.
I see it in the can, every day!

out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

You want to save money Mr. President?

END THESE OCCUPATIONS!

Corporations get fat like pigs//
People starve//

Why the hell would that be on the table anyway?

:shrug:

:yoiks:

at this point the only thing I'm beginning to believe in is that things will continue to get worse. It's like a very bad dream that I'd like to wake up from.

I submit that every rec is a rec of ignorance.

Sorry if I offend, but it's as plain as the nose on your face.

There is no spending freeze, there are no details.

No person can form a valid opinion.

One can only form an opinion of ignorance.

:patriot:

... while excluding military & defense spending, is enough to recognize that it's bull***p. If you wanna cut or freeze spending, all budgets need to be on the table, especially those that have failed to have any auditing.

So, thanks, but I don't need to know what the animal had for lunch to recognize the bull***p.

i guess that doesn't include you.

Tax the fuck out of em.Make them pay for their own wars by themselves.
I am sick of social programs being cut because rich fucking assholes want wars and golden parachutes and the military to protect their stolen booty.FUCK the rich parasite people!!! They 'deserve' nothing from this government they seek to destroy.Let the corporations FAIL.They are not people.

terrible idea. Just god awful. Does NOBODY in the WH read progressive blogs? Sigh..

It's going to make him look silly I'm afraid. Desperate.

I think he should have gone with a down-and-dirty "and that's the way it is" theme.

No to war! Yes to children and health care!!!

But I K&R'ed this one. :grr:

trying to appease the republicans. I never expected Obama to fix everything in a year, and I want to acknowledge everything good he's done, but these kind of actions are so removed from his *real* base, I feel compelled to turn away in disgust. I mean, WTF! Americans love their country so much they refuse invest in it, believing that private industry and privatization is somehow superior to government. But privatization is just that - private: not for you or me; just a select few. And government that is *supposed* to operate for the people has become the enemy and more distrusted than the corporations that poison our air and water.

America... WTF!?!

K and R

freeze banker giveaway's
freeze banker bonuses

freeze spending on oil wars without end

First Obama takes what he wants for his wars, and now he expects us to survive in an economy he helped to depress with no help and no safety net. Wonderful, isn't he.:evilfrown: Here you go. K&R. And thanks for highlighting it.:fistbump:

What saved the world economy LAST time the republicans broke it? Anti-cyclic measures. Sorry if this offends anyone, but Mr Obama increasingly shows a grasp of history resemblant of Bush's.

Stupid Neoliberal Reaganomics keeps coming back like the freaking Terminator.

The Political "Terra-ists" have won again.

it's a political move, not so bright either.

I am getting too disgusted with American politics to even pay attention anymore.

It's unbearable.

I need to hear more information before I decide. But it might be what the country needs. Spending is out of control. Im just sick and tired of Republicans spending and spending on making their friends rich and then the dems have to come along and be the party to fix the mess the Republican created. In doing so they have to short change the programs they believe in.

Defense spending is the single largest drain on our economy. If we got out of these stupid wars we could cut defense spending in half, help our economy immensely and still remain the biggest military badass on the block.

Instead it looks like we're following the Soviet model for blowing up an empire, sacrifice the people at home for wars abroad.

elimination of the Social Security cap, and a per-trade fee on derivatives and other Wall St. gambling schemes.

I say we do all of that along with the freeze. Then it makes both sides happy and mad. But it might just get us out of this mess.

I think there's a lot of knee-jerk reactions here. Liberals and progressives need to calm the #%@^ down and see what's up. Everyone is so busy heaping on the complaints that they're not even listening. For one, this proposal is INCORRECTLY being compared to John M's across-the-board spending freeze. It's not. It is, according to today's WSJ an attempt to a target 'pork'programs supported by lobbyist.

Listen. Obama has, no doubt, missed the signs. But let's just see if he can coarse-correct and make this thing right before we write the man off. Surely, after a scant one year, we can do that.

...it's a trained response.

When Obama picked Rahm for his Chief of Staff and shut liberas and progressives out of every major policy-making position, and talked about "looking forward" rather than about investigating criminality in the Bush administration, critics were told "he hasn't even taken office yet, wait and see", were promptly handed "Chill out, I got this" photos, and dismissed as knee-jerking "pony wishers".

When the bailout gave a nearly blank-check to the biggest gamblers on Wall Street, with no strings attached and no real reforms, when single payer health reform was dismissed out of hand, critics got nonsense about multidimensional chessplaying and chided that "He's only been in office for a few months. Do you expect him to fix everything that Bush messed up?", and were told to wait another Freidman unit and they's see what clucking nervous nellies they were.

Shift to now, and do you really have to wonder why there's skepticism that the real target of the proposal is pork?

:kick:

Just like Obama not wanting to take sides. For crying out loud.

Here's an idea: Cut 50% of the pork barrel spending going into the solid Red States then threaten to make it 100% if their Senators don't start voting for the PEOPLE.

Play some politics.

Liberals and progressives need to calm the #%@^ down and see what's up. Everyone is so busy heaping on the complaints that they're not even listening. For one, this proposal is INCORRECTLY being compared to John M's across-the-board spending freeze. It's not. It is, according to today's WSJ an attempt to a target 'pork'programs supported by lobbyist.

Listen. Obama has, no doubt, missed the signs. He's buried his head in the wonky business of policy making and stopped listening to "the people". But let's just see if he can coarse-correct and make this thing right before we write the man off. Surely, after a scant one year, we can do that.

Because I'm so confused it sounds to me like a line item veto.

And the second iteration isn't really any more useful than the first. I don't need to physically see a bull shit somewhere to know it leaves bullshit behind. The fact that this spending freeze has been proposed and leaves out the Pentagon, the one place in the budget that could sustain spending cuts and still not starve, shows right there exactly where the priorities are and they are not going to be with programs for the poor and working class which take up a hell of a lot less money and are always first on the chopping block. One doesn't have to wait and "chill the fuck out" to see a pattern. Perhaps you should wake the fuck up so you can actually open your eyes and SEE the pattern unfolding right in front of your nose.

I see Hooverville's.....

I'd go on and say more, but words can't express my disgust at this boneheaded sop to the teabaggers.

Why on earth would you choose Hoover?

Even if this is mega chess to expose how Republicans will fight to put their special interests' spending back in there.

Now is not the time for more of that ridiculous bipartisan game playing.

This was a stupid idea when John McCain proposed it during the campaign.

brains either.

n/t

they think this will win back independents' votes, and they count on the fact that liberals/progressives will have nowhere else to go.

Since war is peace, business as usual is change, caving is negotiating, health insurance reform is health care reform, 59% is a minority, etc., why isn't left ever right?

n/t

It's the spending that's being frozen that bothers me.

Why not cut spending on sending the children of the poor to kill the children of the poor for the enrichment of the wealthy?

on things that cost more money than they generate? Seems simple to me.

from firedoglake:

Gates Pledges “Steady Growth in the Pentagon’s Budgets”
By: Jacob Freeze Sunday January 24, 2010 9:24 pm

From Politico…

Defense Secretary Robert Gates hosted a meeting with the nation’s top defense company executives Wednesday, stressing the need for a closer partnership with them and pledging to work with the White House to secure steady growth in the Pentagon’s budgets over time, according to his spokesman.

Gates’s meeting was part of a day-long session between Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter and the Aerospace Industries Association, the top trade group for American aerospace firms. The heads of the nation’s top two defense firms – Lockheed Martin and Boeing – attended, said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

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

"work with the White House to secure STEADY GROWTH in the Pentagon's budgets..."

Folks, war spending is the elephant in the room. Freezing domestic spending while ignoring military spending is insane. The budget for the military went up 11% from 2008 to 2009 and that DID NOT INCLUDE THE IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN wars. Our country is literally bankrupt from fighting 2 unending wars, thanks to Bush & company. You cannot contain the deficit spending until you contain and end the war spending. Period.

When is Obama going to get it?

Obama is seemingly up to enduring whatever to protect Dubya's massive tax cut for the rich.

If he really had a pair and was really liberal he'd slide that top tax rate back up to about half of where it was in the 50s and then rein in the military budget, a good start there would be to quit pouring billions into counterproductive wars. Follow that up by going hard after defense contractors, along the way quit buying $700 screwdrivers and planes that have no use.

But - he seems to be another republican lite at heart and short of a pair.

our politicians have figured out a way to not only fuck us over, but basically fuck themselves out of office. But they don't care, the beltway needs corporate lobbyist and that is where these fuckers go when they are not re-elected.

that I could believe in?

Just more evidence that our President is corporate owned.

Although Ms Brown is discussing how to fund health care for all here in the US, she also makes some very good economic points about government spending & private banks. "Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation." That is the place in the road we are at today. Obama & Congress can either make a bold move to actually deal with the usury and fix our economy, or continue down the path of usury courtesy of the Federal Reserve & our ultimate demise into a 3rd world economy.



FUNDING PUBLIC HEALTH CARE WITH A PUBLICLY-OWNED BANK:
HOW CANADA DID IT

Ellen Brown, January 21st, 2010
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/canadian_healthcare.php

The story goes that Churchill offered a woman 5 million pounds to sleep with him. She hedged and said they would have to discuss terms. Then he offered her 5 pounds. “Sir!” she said. “What sort of woman do you think I am?” “Madam,” he replied, “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”

The same might be said of President Obama’s health care bill, which was sold out to corporate interests early on. The insurance lobby had its way with the bill; after that they were just haggling over the price. The “public option” was so watered down in congressional deal-making that it finally disappeared altogether.

However, the bill passed both Houses by razor-thin margins, and the stunning loss on January 19 of the late Ted Kennedy’s Democratic seat to a Republican may force Obama to start over with his agenda. The good news is that this means there is still a chance of getting legislation that includes what Obama’s supporters thought they were getting when they elected him – a universal health care plan on the model of Medicare.

That still leaves the question of price, but all industrialized countries except the United States have managed to foot the bill for universal health care. How is it that they can afford it when we can’t? Do they have some secret funding source that we don’t have?

In the case of our nearest neighbor Canada, the answer is actually that they do. At least, they did for the first two decades of their national health service -- long enough to get it up and running. Now the Canadian government, too, is struggling with a mounting debt to private banks at compound interest; and its national health service is suffering along with other public programs. But when Canada first launched its national health service, the funding came from money created by its own central bank. Canada’s innovative funding model is one that could still be followed by a President committed to deliver on his promises.

The Canadian National Health Service Today

Despite what you may have read in the corporate-controlled press, studies show that Canadians are generally happy with the care they receive; and they live an average of 2.5 years longer than Americans. They receive free health service for all diagnostic procedures, hospital and home care deemed medically necessary. People can choose the general practitioners they want; there are no deductibles on basic care; and co-pays are low or zero. Care continues despite changing jobs, and no one is excluded for having a pre-existing condition. Drug prices are negotiated by the government and are paid with public money for the elderly and homeless. For the rest of the population, cost-sharing schemes are arranged between private insurers and provincial governments, with most provinces requiring families to pay small monthly premiums (generally around $100 for a family of four).

According to a 2007 study, the government pays for more than two-thirds of all Canadian health care costs. The US government, by contrast, pays for less than half of these costs. In 2007, the US spent a staggering 16% of GDP on health care compared to 10% in Canada. Health costs paid for out-of-pocket by Canadians amount to less than $300 per capita annually.

But while that arrangement may look good to people in the U.S., it is only a shadow of Canada’s former system. The federal government’s contributions have decreased significantly, making up only slightly more than 20% of provincial medical care costs in 2002; and this money is largely borrowed by the Canadian government at interest. The portion not paid by the federal government must be borne by provincial governments through taxes. In its early years, however, Canada’s public health system was funded under a provision of the Bank of Canada Act allowing the Bank to create the money to finance federal, provincial, and municipal projects on a nearly interest-free basis.

Money Created the Old-fashioned Way – by the Government Rather than the Banks

What was extraordinary about the Bank of Canada was not so much that it created money on its books as that it managed to wrest that power away from the private banking monopoly. All banks actually create the money they lend simply with accounting entries on their books. This was confirmed by Graham Towers, the first governor of the Bank of Canada, in hearings in 1935. Asked whether banks create “the medium of exchange,” he replied:

“That is right. That is what they are there for. . . . That is the banking business, just in the way that a steel plant makes steel. The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all.”

The decision to fund government programs through a publicly-owned central bank was driven by a crisis much like that in the U.S. today. The country was in the throes of the Great Depression, and the money supply had radically contracted, causing businesses to close and unemployment to soar. Many Canadians blamed the private banks for making conditions worse by failing to extend loans.

Prior to the 1935 Bank of Canada Act, private banks in Canada issued their own banknotes, which were regulated less by the government than by the Canadian Banker’s Association. The country’s largest private bank, the Bank of Montreal, served as the government’s de facto banker. By the eve of the Great Depression, interest on Canada’s public debt had reached one-third of government expenditures, and many officials believed that the government needed a central bank to come up with the money to pay its foreign debts. A Royal Commission was put together in 1933 which supported creating a Bank. A major debate then ensued over whether the central bank should be public or private.

Much of the credit for the Canadian public banking model goes to a Canadian mayor named Gerald Gratton McGeer. He has been largely lost to history, and his book The Conquest of Poverty has been long out of print; but according to local historian Will Abrams, it was McGeer’s lengthy presentations to the Ottawa Common Banking Committee that clarified for bankers, economists and legislators how well a publicly-owned bank could work. McGeer’s model was based on the public banking system of Guernsey, an island state between Britain and France. The Guernsey government began issuing currency to pay for public works as far back as 1816. To this day, its system of publicly-issued money has allowed its inhabitants to maintain full employment and enjoy quality infrastructure, while paying modest taxes and without suffering from price inflation.

The Bank of Canada became publicly-owned in 1938 under Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, a staunch supporter of McGeer’s vision for a public central bank. King maintained:

“Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.”

What Can Be Done by a Government Issuing Its Own Currency

Along with New Zealand, Australia and other progressive countries, Canada proceeded to fund infrastructure and social programs using national credit issued by its own central bank. The potential of this new credit tool for the Canadian economy was first demonstrated in World War II, in which Canada ranked fourth among the Allies for production of war goods. Under the Returning Veterans Rehabilitation Act of 1945, some 54,000 returning vets were given financial aid to attend university. The Department of Veterans Affairs provided another 80,000 vets with vocational training, and the Veterans’ Land Act helped 33,000 vets buy farmland.

After the War, the Industrial Development Bank, a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada, was formed to boost Canadian businesses by offering loans at low interest rates. The Bank of Canada also funded many infrastructure projects and social programs directly. Under the 1950 Trans Canada Highway Act, Canada built the world’s longest road and the world’s longest inland waterway (a joint venture with the United States), as well as the 28-mile Welland Canal. People over 70, regardless of income or assets, received $40 a month from the government under the Old Age Security Act; and children under 15 got a tax-free allowance of $5-$8 a month.

Canadians first began talking about a government-run health system during the Great Depression, but at that time the government felt it could not afford the service. Various provincial programs were launched in the 1940s, often to care for returning veterans. But it was not until 1957 that the Canadian federal health care system was actually initiated, with funding from the Bank of Canada. A Hospital Act was passed under which the federal government agreed to pay half its citizens’ bills at most hospitals; and a Diagnostic Services Act gave all Canadians free acute hospital care, as well as lab and radiology work. In 1966, the Hospital Act was expanded to cover physician services. In 1984, the Canada Health Act ensured that no medically-necessary care would include private fees or a charge to citizens.

A Misguided Economic Policy Kills the Golden Goose

For three decades, Canada paid for these projects through its own government-owned central bank, without sparking price inflation. Then in the late 1960s, a period of “stagflation” set in --rising prices accompanied by high unemployment. According to former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer, these elevated prices were the result of “cost-push” inflation, which could be traced to a combination of causes. Big labor unions, big government, and big corporations all negotiated top dollar for their contracts. In 1971, President Richard Nixon took the U.S. dollar off the gold standard, putting a strain on currencies in international markets. In 1974, the price of oil quadrupled, following a secret deal between Henry Kissinger and the OPEC countries in which the latter agreed to sell their oil only in U.S. dollars and to deposit the dollars in U.S. banks. Countries without sufficient dollar reserves had to borrow from these banks to buy the oil they needed, setting a debt trap that sprang shut when U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker raised interest rates to 20% in 1980.

These increased costs drove up prices worldwide; but in Canada, price inflation was blamed on the government drawing money from its own central bank. Under the sway of the classical monetarist theory promoted by U.S. economist Milton Friedman, the Canadian government abandoned its successful experiment in self-funding and began borrowing from private international lenders. These private banks created “credit” on their books just as the Bank of Canada had done; but they lent it to the government at compound interest, creating a soaring national debt. Today, interest on the debt is the Canadian government’s single largest budget expenditure -- larger than health care, senior entitlements or national defense.

The provision of government-paid services is gradually being undermined by a combination of cuts to funding and provision of private services. Canada’s health care system is suffering along with the rest of the economy, necessitating the cutbacks and long waits for elective procedures described by critics. But the achievements of an earlier debt-free era attest to the sustainability of a system of public health care funded with money issued through the government’s own central bank.

Goosing the Economy Again

The Bank of Canada was created to end the hardships of the depression and give the government full responsibility for the health of the economy. As it turned out, the Bank also funded the health of the Canadian people.

The U.S. government could fund universal health coverage in the same way. Ideally, it would nationalize the Federal Reserve or set up a separate government-owned bank for this purpose. However, the same result could be achieved by borrowing from the privately-owned Federal Reserve, which always rebates the interest to the government after deducting its costs. The federal debt is never paid off but is just rolled over from year to year. Interest-free loans rolled over from year to year are the equivalent of debt-free government-issued money.

Contrary to popular belief, adding to the money supply in this way would not be inflationary. Inflation results when “demand” (“money”) exceeds “supply” (goods and services). In this case the new money would be used to create new goods and services, so supply would be kept in balance with demand. The result would particularly not be inflationary today, when we are suffering from a deflationary crisis. As in the Great Depression, money is not available to buy products and fund programs because the money supply itself has collapsed. The solution is not to slash programs but to put more money into the economy; and that can be done by authorizing the government to create the funds it needs through its own bank.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/canadian_healthcare.php



note: This story is reprinted with permission of the author.

K&R

Maybe we need to have a Telethon for CEOs, the Inherited Wealthy, and Corporations who can call in and donate money to reduce the deficit???

That might pat their little, evil egos a bit.

I think we will see a lot of Republican whining in Washington when THEIR pet projects are brought to light and defunded.

to more effective areas and/or to help feed and shelter people under the wheels.

Go after the bankers on Monday, go after "entitlement" spending the next. Piss off the right, then piss off the left, look like a moderate, "centerist," in 2010 and 2012.

In other words, in one year, we have gone from "Change you can believe in!" to "Sell out your principles, and your base, and whatever else you need to do, to win re-election."

Hard to fit that slogan on a bumper sticker.

VOTE FOR AUDACITY

:evilfrown:

FDR gave people encouragement. Why is the current plan to discourage people further?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7556065

You simply call it for what it is, DINO Economics.

that the GOP's win in MA has "put Obama in his place" and now the repugs are back in charge, calling the shots. I don't think that's exactly the reaction Obama was hoping for.

... with the grass roots

He's got little wiggle room left with me. I need a LOT of evidence of risk taking ACTIONS (not just words) to counteract my list of confirmations that he's just a facilitator of corporatist agendas hiding behind a veneer of distortions that he's "a candidate of hope and change".

Obama, THERE IS NO MORE TIME TO BE "BIPARTISAN"! Unless you are trying to get yourself a "rotating door" job after you leave office in 2013.

anything. If we had inflation, we see an effective cut because they aren't keeping up with inflation.

discretionary funds?

plenty for the neo-con war machine, and the banker buddies...

I thought we elected a DEMOCRAT, I thought we voted for change...:wtf:

This is such bullshit I am really pissed that this president has been such a letdown...but then again, i guess i should have known that the PTB were so entrenched they would not go quietly...it just sucks to see they have their hooks in our Pres of 'Hope & Change' ... or were we just duped? ugh...not a pretty thought

which is going to be most of the united states population before long.

It has been tried before but it never works.

to get republican ideas.

:kick:

Plenty of money for war but, mark my words, the next thing we'll hear is that we have to make massive cuts to those awful entitlements medicare and social security...this is disgusting. This is NOT change I can believe in!

To quote Ed Schultz, (SIC)Mr. President, "You're full of shit and you're losing your base!"

money enough for real people in need, people who, if they had well paying jobs, could kick the economy into gear!

Obama is such a disappointment and will be as long as he has Rahm whispering in his ear and as long has he panders to the Republicans.

2010 is lost! Thanks, Obama!

I didn't realize I voted for a third Bush term.

He is almost guaranteeing an economic collapse. I thought this man was well read. But everything he is coming up with makes him look like a moderate Republican.

Really?

Jumping off a cliff, playing Russian roulette...

of stimulating the economy. If they froze pentagon spending, that might help.

I'm in.

I WANT my tax dollars to go to certain things - education, clean air and water, a social safety net, the National Parks - but of course they have to go to war and bailouts used as bonuses for the very wealthy. Again.

I'm so very disappointed, after being such a strong supporter. Obama and the Dems are sellouts, it appears.

"Unlike FDR in 1933, who consistently denounced Hoover's Republican policies as the cause of the country's perilous condition, Obama appears very reluctant to be partisan and point out to the American people the cause of our current crises. Can one imagine Obama, for example, telling the American people as Roosevelt did in 1936, "I welcome" the "hatred" of the "economic royalists" whose greed has devastated the country?"

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html