What ever happened to Impeach the President & Repeal Obamacare? by SHINYGOODGUY

Do you actually believe that gays just joined the Army during Obama's tenure as president?

As for the banks, ever since the Great Depression they have been in control, this is not a new phenomenon.

And jobs:

"The loss of the manufacturing industry manifests itself most clearly in job losses. According to the Economist, “For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, fewer than 10 percent of American workers are now employed in manufacturing” (Oct. 1, 2005). But even this figure is probably double the actual percentage, because many workers in a typical manufacturing firm have service-type jobs. In comparison, during the 1970s, approximately 25 percent of American workers were employed in manufacturing. From 1990 to present, manufacturing jobs have decreased every single year; since 1996, they have plummeted by almost one fifth."

(Source: The Trumpet, by Robert Morley, circa 2006)
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/2061.24.80.0/economy/the-death-of-a
merican-manufacturing

The above article was written in 2006, and it reveals the affect of greed and avarice of the American manufacturers. Not only are they abandoning their workers, but the very consumers that put them at the top of the industrial food chain globally. For whom the bell tolls won't just be the name of a classic novel, but also the death knell of the manufacturers themselves, as Americans will be unable to afford the lifestyle of their forefathers.

Yes, the game has been cleverly rigged to not only maintain, but enhance and reaffirm the status quo. And while we are bickering amongst ourselves
trying to determine if One Man is at fault (something of this magnitude does not come about from the mind of one man, no matter how smart he
may be), the rich keep getting richer and us poor slobs get separated
from our money. So, in a way, you are right.

The system, it's a Clockwork Orange.............

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, the banks are bigger and more powerful than ever before, the wealthier have a larger portion of the pie than ever before, jobs have continued to leave the USA as the nation de-industrializes, and our military is as busy as ever fucking up nations everywhere, but BY GOD GAYS HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO JOIN THE ARMY!

Yeesh!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:30 AM

T'was easy!

Thanks THGRRI

Of course, Sig will find a way to deflect and distort or not answer at all.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Good post SSG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:07 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, the banks are bigger and more powerful than ever before, the wealthier have a larger portion of the pie than ever before, jobs have continued to leave the USA as the nation de-industrializes, and our military is as busy as ever fucking up nations everywhere, but BY GOD GAYS HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO JOIN THE ARMY!

Yeesh!

It is not Obama. The same complaints have been made for centuries. Try reading the following Introduction to Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty and then come back and blame Obama. But he cannot be the cause because the same problems have been happening everywhere in the world for centuries.

Introduction

The distribution of wealth is one of today’s most widely discussed and controversial issues. But what do we really know about its evolution over the long term? Do the dynamics of private capital accumulation inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, as Karl Marx believed in the nineteenth century? Or do the balancing forces of growth, competition, and technological progress lead in later stages of development to reduced inequality and greater harmony among the classes, as Simon Kuznets thought in the twentieth century? What do we really know about how wealth and income have evolved since the eighteenth century, and what lessons can we derive from that knowledge for the century now under way?

These are the questions I attempt to answer in this book. Let me say at once that the answers contained herein are imperfect and incomplete. But they are based on much more extensive historical and comparative data than were available to previous researchers, data covering three centuries and more than twenty countries, as well as on a new theoretical framework that affords a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have made it possible to avoid the Marxist apocalypse but have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality—or in any case not as much as one might have imagined in the optimistic decades following World War II. When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. There are nevertheless ways democracy can regain control over capitalism and ensure that the general interest takes precedence over private interests, while preserving economic openness and avoiding protectionist and nationalist reactions. The policy recommendations I propose later in the book tend in this direction. They are based on lessons derived from historical experience, of which what follows is essentially a narrative.

A Debate without Data?

Intellectual and political debate about the distribution of wealth has long been based on an abundance of prejudice and a paucity of fact.

To be sure, it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the intuitive knowledge that everyone acquires about contemporary wealth and income levels, even in the absence of any theoretical framework or statistical analysis. Film and literature, nineteenth-century novels especially, are full of detailed information about the relative wealth and living standards of different social groups, and especially about the deep structure of inequality, the way it is justified, and its impact on individual lives. Indeed, the novels of Jane Austen and Honoré de Balzac paint striking portraits of the distribution of wealth in Britain and France between 1790 and 1830. Both novelists were intimately acquainted with the hierarchy of wealth in their respective societies. They grasped the hidden contours of wealth and its inevitable implications for the lives of men and women, including their marital strategies and personal hopes and disappointments. These and other novelists depicted the effects of inequality with a verisimilitude and evocative power that no statistical or theoretical analysis can match.

Indeed, the distribution of wealth is too important an issue to be left to economists, sociologists, historians, and philosophers. It is of interest to everyone, and that is a good thing. The concrete, physical reality of inequality is visible to the naked eye and naturally inspires sharp but contradictory political judgments. Peasant and noble, worker and factory owner, waiter and banker: each has his or her own unique vantage point and sees important aspects of how other people live and what relations of power and domination exist between social groups, and these observations shape each person’s judgment of what is and is not just. Hence there will always be a fundamentally subjective and psychological dimension to inequality, which inevitably gives rise to political conflict that no purportedly scientific analysis can alleviate. Democracy will never be supplanted by a republic of experts—and that is a very good thing.

Nevertheless, the distribution question also deserves to be studied in a systematic and methodical fashion. Without precisely defined sources, methods, and concepts, it is possible to see everything and its opposite. Some people believe that inequality is always increasing and that the world is by definition always becoming more unjust. Others believe that inequality is naturally decreasing, or that harmony comes about automatically, and that in any case nothing should be done that might risk disturbing this happy equilibrium. Given this dialogue of the deaf, in which each camp justifies its own intellectual laziness by pointing to the laziness of the other, there is a role for research that is at least systematic and methodical if not fully scientific. Expert analysis will never put an end to the violent political conflict that inequality inevitably instigates. Social scientific research is and always will be tentative and imperfect. It does not claim to transform economics, sociology, and history into exact sciences. But by patiently searching for facts and patterns and calmly analyzing the economic, social, and political mechanisms that might explain them, it can inform democratic debate and focus attention on the right questions. It can help to redefine the terms of debate, unmask certain preconceived or fraudulent notions, and subject all positions to constant critical scrutiny. In my view, this is the role that intellectuals, including social scientists, should play, as citizens like any other but with the good fortune to have more time than others to devote themselves to study (and even to be paid for it—a signal privilege).

If you want to keep reading, without paying Piketty, find Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty at
https://kat.cr/usearch/Piketty/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:41 AM

I think we should have a reasoned discussion, so is there a way to tone down the emotion?

Curious! I'm going to reply to this statement (above) from your last paragraph, first. I have to say that I'm a little taken aback by this. I have to tell you that
I responded with clarity, a level head and put sufficient thought into my response.
I was not emotional. Granted in the recent past, I have been known to release some frustration, but not in this case.

I have learned that you get better dialogue when a topic is discussed rationally and calmly (as I am doing now). So please know that I am working hard to discuss matters, rather than shout and cuss to get my point across.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He has? Aside form giving speeches which express a preference for this or that, what has he done ? Devise a cabinet-level group of economic advisors, publicists, and lawyers to form and press forward with a plan of action on ... anything?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely. He did just that. By the way, what exactly is "speeches which express a preference for this or that"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I have. The very first thing Obama could have done was appoint someone who knew how banks run and how they fail: Shiela Bair. Instead, he appointed a New York regulator with close ties to Wall Street.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gather that you have no faith in Geithner. I looked up Shiela Bair and found her credentials impressive. But I'm not going to pretend I know the inner workings of the president's mind, so sure he could have picked her. But here's my thought on that:

He chose Geithner because he knows how banks tick, after all he was the Secretary of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank, he pushed for the bailout to be implemented, much to the dismay of the Banks:

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner sat around a conference room table with his advisers as they relayed the concerns of banks protesting President Obama’s push for new rules for Wall Street.

Geithner, widely thought to be a friend of the financial industry, did not lend a sympathetic ear.

“F--- the banks,” he said, according to people familiar with the episode.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tim-geithners-legacy-a
n-unpopular-bailout-that-helped-save-the-economy/2013/01/24/f1bf4fb6-64af-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

The article sheds some light on his role in the bailout. What was your main concern with Geithner's appointment?

Obama may have chose him because he had some experience with the bailout, plus:

'He said Mr. Geithner, now president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, has “unique insight into the failures of today’s market” and noted each person on the team shares his view that a “strong, vibrant middle class” must be the core of a successful economic policy.'

You never mention why he should have chosen Bair. I'm going to end here, I need to get some sleep. I'll pick it up later today.

END OF PART ONE

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SGG, I'm sure you're a busy person so I appreciate your post.

I do have some questions, and these are not meant to entrap but to enlighten me.

Quote:
"He has? Aside form giving speeches which express a preference for this or that, what has he done ? Devise a cabinet-level group of economic advisors, publicists, and lawyers to form and press forward with a plan of action on ... anything?"-SIGNY

Precisely. He did just that. By the way, what exactly is "speeches which express a preference for this or that"? - SGG

So I guess my question is, what cabinet-level group(s) did Obama create, who was in them, what problem were they selected to address, and what was the outcome? I'm thinking specifically of FDR's "Brain Trust".

What I mean by Obama's speeches expressing a preference for this or that are his speeches in which he promises things like closing Gitmo, transforming Washington and making his the most transparent administration ever, restoring the middle class, ending the war in Afghanistan, signing a universal health care law bill, reforming tax law to keep American businesses at home ... Many of which he hasn't managed to accomplish. So, what I get out of this is that these aren't supposed to be interpreted as commitments but preferences ... "I would like to restore the middle class ... provided that there aren't too many obstacles in the way". Now, part of Obama's problem is that he made A LOT of promises! If you were to websearch "obama promises 2008" you will come up with many websites that claim to fact-check whether he did what he said he would. Each website has somewhere between 10-20 Obamises (Obama promises), and each website has a DIFFERENT LIST. So, how many promises is that?

-----

The problem with Geithner is that he is so deeply embedded in the Wall Street/ banker's POV that while he THINKS he's being a tough guy ... I'm going to force feed these bailouts on you whether you want them or not, and force you to absorb smaller banks" ... the reality is that the banks are now bigger than ever (obviously still too big to fail TBTF), the Sarbanes Oxley bill still doesn't separate YOUR SAVINGS from speculative investments by the banks, and the "wind down" procedure for "globally active, systemically important" insolvent banks now includes the procedure by which YOUR SAVINGS can be confiscated in exchange for banks shares (of speculative value) because YOUR SAVINGS aren't your money, they're unsecured loans to the bank!

Here is the original agreement between the FDIC and the Bank of England.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2012/nr156.
pdf
The "bail in" procedure was implemented in Cyprus and agreed to by the G20 in Australia in 2014
http://ellenbrown.com/2014/12/01/new-rules-cyprus-style-bail-ins-to-hi
t-deposits-and-pensions/

There are overall a lot of reforms that the banks should be subject to. Not all of these are Geithner's fault, he was the Treasury Secretary, not Congress and not The Fed. But he sure wasn't a tough guy.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:05 PM

Here you go SIG, and if you don't understand how this answers your question to SHINYGOODGUY, do some research.

P.S., the outcome you ask about is President Obama's record while in office. You post like you know everything. It appears you don't know much about anything. It took me two seconds to find the answer to your question.

Below are links to some of Obamas brain trust, like for business, banking, foreign policy and then some. Enough to get you started.

The Cabinet

President Obama leads a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet room

Established in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office.

The tradition of the Cabinet dates back to the beginnings of the Presidency itself. Established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office.

The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General.

In order of succession to the Presidency:

Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden

Department of State
Secretary John Kerry
state.gov

Department of the Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew
treasury.gov

Department of Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter
defense.gov

Department of Justice
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch
usdoj.gov

Department of the Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell
doi.gov

Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack
usda.gov

Department of Commerce
Secretary Penny Pritzker
commerce.gov

Department of Labor
Secretary Thomas E. Perez
dol.gov

Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell
hhs.gov

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Julián Castro
hud.gov

Department of Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx
dot.gov

Department of Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz
energy.gov

Department of Education
Secretary Arne Duncan
ed.gov

Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Robert McDonald
va.gov

Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson
dhs.gov

The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:

White House Chief of Staff
Denis McDonough

Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator Gina McCarthy
epa.gov

Office of Management & Budget
Director Shaun L.S. Donovan
whitehouse.gov/omb

United States Trade Representative
Ambassador Michael Froman
ustr.gov

United States Mission to the United Nations
Ambassador Samantha Power
usun.state.gov

Council of Economic Advisers
Chairman Jason Furman
whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea

Small Business Administration
Administrator Maria Contreras-Sweet
sba.gov

http://www.nysun.com/national/obamas-brain-trust-taking-shape/71580/

http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2013/april/marder.html

http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/obama
s-developer-brain-trust-inside-the-big-battle/d/d-id/1108182

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obamas-brain-trust-speaks_n_1
42606.html

http://nymag.com/news/politics/55511/

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/09/obamas-banking-brain-trust-01360
6

http://archive.fortune.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0806/gallery.obamas_
advisors.fortune/6.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether Obama had a Cabinet ... all modern Presidents do. I was wondering whether Obama had a Brain Trust ...

Quote:
Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins.

A group of close non-appointed advisors to help develop economic or social policies.

I think the confusion came in when I said "Cabinet-level", when what I really meant was "close, top-level" advisors.

BTW, most of Obama's Cabinet are underwhelming. Penny Pritzker, Chicago billionaire, was Obama's chief fundraiser and his national finance chair of President Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. Samantha Powers is neocon-in-Democratic-drag and a former Obama campaign aide. Some of his former Cabinet members were well-meaning but ineffective (Energy Scy Steven Chu, and EPA head Lisa Jackson). Just as an overall and not well-researched impression, it seems to me that Obama tends to appoint people that he likes, not necessarily those who are able to carry his agenda forward in the face of opposition.

In the current political climate, the President needs to marshal his or her forces, recognizing that everyone needs to be able to pitch in and carry the ball.

But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether Obama had a Cabinet ... all modern Presidents do. I was wondering whether Obama had a Brain Trust ...

Quote:
Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins.
A group of close non-appointed advisors to help develop economic or social policies.

I think the confusion came in when I said "Cabinet-level", when what I really meant was "close, top-level" advisors.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

look up sig I was still working on it, no confusion on my part. I have to assume there was a lot of confusion on your part seeing how you had to ask someone else to find this shit for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

THUGR

Quote:
I have to assume there was a lot of confusion on your part seeing how you had to ask someone else to find this shit for you.

It's up to the person making the argument to find their own supporting information, not someone else (me) to find it for them (you).

My god, I just can't believe the idiocy that comes off your keyboard! You have a problem not only with basic reasoning and conversational skills, you also have problems handling the necessity of finding information to back up your statements! Apparently you've never been in a situation where you had to actually ... *gasp!* ... LOOK STUFF UP AND MAKE A CASE FOR YOUR POV.

Get used to it, sonny. This is discussion board. If you can't discuss, don't blame me for your failings.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
THUGR
Quote:
I have to assume there was a lot of confusion on your part seeing how you had to ask someone else to find this shit for you.
It's up to the person making the argument to find their own supporting information, not someone else (me) to find it for them (you).

My god, I just can't believe the idiocy that comes off your keyboard! You have a problem not only with basic reasoning and conversational skills, you also have problems handling the necessity of finding information to back up your statements! Apparently you've never been in a situation where you had to actually ... *gasp!* ... LOOK STUFF UP AND MAKE A CASE FOR YOUR POV.

Get used to it, sonny. This is discussion board. If you can't discuss, don't blame me for your failings.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

I'll let others be the judge of what I post SIG. You were just trying to be sophisticated again using intelligence that belongs to someone else.

Quote:

SIG
So I guess my question is, what cabinet-level group(s) did Obama create, who was in them, what problem were they selected to address, and what was the outcome? I'm thinking specifically of FDR's "Brain Trust".

You asked what Cabinet members Obama assigned to be in his brain trust. Here is the definition for a Cabinet member: a body of persons, usually a limited number, of the ministers of state of a country.

I'll make it simple. They work for the government

Those asked to be advisors on particular topics like business or banking could be considered Obamas brain trust. They don't work for the government. Therefore they are not cabinet members. The way you asked the question showed you didn't know what you were really asking at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'll let others be the judge of what I post SIG.

Yes, you seem to be astonished and somewhat miffed that anyone has to look up their own facts to support their own arguments. Wow. It's a process you seem not to have run into before!

HAHAHA!

Quote:
You asked what Cabinet members Obama assigned to be in his brain trust.

No, I didn't. Reading is not one your skills either.

Quote:
Those asked to be advisors on particular topics like business or banking could be considered Obamas (sic) brain trust.

Yes, and I was wondering who those people were, if any.

Anyway, "others" ARE judging your posts, and this is probably not one of your winners. I'm done talking about you now.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:11 PM

There are no Cabinet level groups SIG, only Obamas Cabinet is Cabinet level,

again you don't understand what you are asking.

I answered the question covering both possible choices.

1. The actual Cabinet

2. Advisors or as you say, brain trust.

Not even close to Cabinet level. Those on the Cabinet carry out and create policy.

Advisors or brain trust don't. They advise on issues.

This happens to you every time you think for yourself and don't cut and paste.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, scrolling up, I see many of you have said that the problems that I mentioned - wealth inequality, de-industrialization, control by the banking sector and the wealthy, the American oligarchy etc - are problems of longstanding.

In general, I agree.

While it seems to be well within the scope of the Presidency to cause much mischief -to start wars, snoop on everyone, feed the wealthy, coddle the banks and Wall Street, ravage the industrial sector, and impoverish the poor - the scope for doing good is much more limited.

That's because, as I see it, the wealthy already have a tremendous amount of influence on politics in general and on our politicians specifically, so kowtowing to the wealthy is like rolling a boulder downhill. Doing otherwise is like pushing that same boulder uphill.

The President as a single person can sometimes reverse years of inertia and set a course on a new path, but it takes intelligence, determination, and historic circumstances for that to happen. FDR was one such President, and JFK probably would have been another if he had lived.

Obama COULD have been another. I will re-post what I just posted earlier

Quote:
But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option which had considerbale public support) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well.

YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT. Nobody us saying it would be easy. What Obama would have had to do was recognize that HIS term was not like Bill Clinton's term, and therefor Clinton-esque advice (find a middle ground between whatever opposing viewpoints were being expressed) was irrelevant to HIS situation. He would have needed to bring onboard very smart and very savvy advisors who could develop a plan and secure the funding and round up the votes in Congress. He would have had to make it WORK. It would have to be a significant difference to people in their daily lives, something along the lines of ... "I'm out of a job, my family's almost on the street, but at least we can get insulin/inhalers for my wife/child, even if we're living in our van." A bedrock for Americans. Something that the President could point to to get further support for further action.

Now, if you're going to tell me that this was beyond Obama's capabilities ... that even the smartest, most determined President with the best advisors and sharp elbows that can be found couldn't possibly have done any better than he did, then maybe Obama shouldn't have made so many promises to begin with.

AND WHY IS HE PUSHING FOR THE TPP AND THE TTIP? Obama knows how to go "balls-to-the-wall" when it's something benefiting the wealthy, heck, he's willing to roll right over the Democrats in Congress for these babies!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay, scrolling up, I see many of you have said that the problems that I mentioned - wealth inequality, de-industrialization, control by the banking sector and the wealthy, the American oligarchy etc - are problems of longstanding.

In general, I agree.

While it seems to be well within the scope of the Presidency to cause much mischief -to start wars, snoop on everyone, feed the wealthy, coddle the banks and Wall Street, ravage the industrial sector, and impoverish the poor - the scope for doing good is much more limited.

That's because, as I see it, the wealthy already have a tremendous amount of influence on politics in general and on our politicians specifically, so kowtowing to the wealthy is like rolling a boulder downhill. Doing otherwise is like pushing that same boulder uphill.

The President as a single person can sometimes reverse years of inertia and set a course on a new path, but it takes intelligence, determination, and historic circumstances for that to happen. FDR was one such President, and JFK probably would have been another if he had lived.

Obama COULD have been another. I will re-post what I just posted earlier

Quote:
But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option which had considerbale public support) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well.

YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT. Nobody us saying it would be easy. What Obama would have had to do was recognize that HIS term was not like Bill Clinton's term, and therefor Clinton-esque advice (find a middle ground between whatever opposing viewpoints were being expressed) was irrelevant to HIS situation. He would have needed to bring onboard very smart and very savvy advisors who could develop a plan and secure the funding and round up the votes in Congress. He would have had to make it WORK. It would have to be a significant difference to people in their daily lives, something along the lines of ... "I'm out of a job, my family's almost on the street, but at least we can get insulin/inhalers for my wife/child, even if we're living in our van." A bedrock for Americans. Something that the President could point to to get further support for further action.

Now, if you're going to tell me that this was beyond Obama's capabilities ... that even the smartest, most determined President with the best advisors and sharp elbows that can be found couldn't possibly have done any better than he did, then maybe Obama shouldn't have made so many promises to begin with.

AND WHY IS HE PUSHING FOR THE TPP AND THE TTIP? Obama knows how to go "balls-to-the-wall" when it's something benefiting the wealthy, heck, he's willing to roll right over the Democrats in Congress for these babies!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

You're all over the place SIG. Totally subjective. And thanks for taking credit for getting us to recognize poverty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:13 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

troll

THUGGR

Humanitarian. (snicker)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=5
Who gives a shit?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just to make my point HERE about Obama being a serial, bulk Constitution-violator (not a person who made "mistakes") I see he got the judicial smackdown that he so richly deserves.

Snowden vindicated
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60152

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:56 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

If any white guy did the things that Obama has done, he'd be crucified for it.

The very best that anybody in his corner can hope to do at this point is sweep everything under the rug and hope that history doesn't notice.

If this weren't true, the Democratic fore-runner for president in 2016 would be another black man, and not Hillary Clinton.

I just hope in the mean time somebody does something to get Trump the hell out of the race. Otherwise this is the most meaningless presidential race in the history of America.

Might as well be voting for Ren against Stimpy.

Fuck you, idiots on all sides.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 4:44 AM

I'm sure the president has a "Brain Trust," as you keep referring to FDR, but if he does I'm not aware of who they are. I would think that there are those within the cabinet that he confides in more than others, and there is, of course, the vice president.

But, as you have stated, these are different times. And, I assume from the rest of your response, that you are not impressed by his choices for his cabinet. All of us, Americans that is, have every right, as taxpayers and voters, to speak and criticize.......but, it seems to me that you're suggesting the president is not intelligent enough to choose a "proper" cabinet. It is obvious in your discourse and tone. I would never assume to take away your right to speak on what you believe, but I can say that in this case you are wrongheaded.

FDR faced some difficult circumstances, especially when it came to near financial collapse, that Obama faced as he stepped into the Oval Office.
Now, I don't know enough about FDR, nor do I care to compare the two men, to make an intelligent offer in my reply, but I would think that navigating
the turbulent financial waters would be enough to consider for that one contribution to the overall American good. Sometimes presidents have to do what would be considered unpopular to achieve that end. You may ask why do I believe you are wrongheaded: I look at where our country is now, also what has been done to dig us out of the hole we were in, for all of us and not just a few. All this despite a Congress that has admittedly and publically made it their mission to oppose him at every turn.

There is so much more, but I know that this will fall on deaf ears, because you're convinced that he's reneged on his "promises." Tell me, do you believe Trump will keep his word and deport all 11 million illegal
immigrants? Or that Rubio or Carson will rid us of ISIS even if they had 8 years to do so? Did FDR keep all his promises? So, let's say that Obama
over-promised and under-delivered. Does that mean he deliberately worked
to have the country fail? Or did he, in his idealistic approach, truly believe that he would lead a nation tired of the vitriol to a better way
of life. If he was ever disillusioned he never showed it publicly. To me, the vitriol has become worse. And you, a democrat, one who voted for him (if that is true) have joined in the ranks of the naysayers and haters.

It makes me wonder. I am not so gullible to believe that any president is
capable, or would he be allowed to, position this country where the most good for the most people will come about. The system is too rigged against
it.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether Obama had a Cabinet ... all modern Presidents do. I was wondering whether Obama had a Brain Trust ...

Quote:
Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins.
A group of close non-appointed advisors to help develop economic or social policies.

I think the confusion came in when I said "Cabinet-level", when what I really meant was "close, top-level" advisors.

BTW, most of Obama's Cabinet are underwhelming. Penny Pritzker, Chicago billionaire, was Obama's chief fundraiser and his national finance chair of President Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. Samantha Powers is neocon-in-Democratic-drag and a former Obama campaign aide. Some of his former Cabinet members were well-meaning but ineffective (Energy Scy Steven Chu, and EPA head Lisa Jackson). Just as an overall and not well-researched impression, it seems to me that Obama tends to appoint people that he likes, not necessarily those who are able to carry his agenda forward in the face of opposition.

In the current political climate, the President needs to marshal his or her forces, recognizing that everyone needs to be able to pitch in and carry the ball.

But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 5:28 AM

Couple of points here:

-Snowden violated his contract
-If he thought that what he did was right, why then did he run?
-If the NSA violated the rights of Americans, then he would be a hero
for having exposed the truth
-You think Obama personally told the NSA to spy on Americans?
-This has been going on for quite some time

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Just to make my point HERE about Obama being a serial, bulk Constitution-violator (not a person who made "mistakes") I see he got the judicial smackdown that he so richly deserves.

Snowden vindicated
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60152

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Responses to your points:

Quote:
Snowden violated his contract

If your contract required you to do something massively illegal, what should YOU do?

Quote:
If he thought that what he did was right, why then did he run?

You're kidding, right? OR are you being ironic?
Before I answer that one, I'm going to give you a chance to answer it yourself.

Quote:
If the NSA violated the rights of Americans, then he would be a hero
for having exposed the truth

He is.

Quote:
-You think Obama personally told the NSA to spy on Americans?

Pretty much, yes.
Obama has publicly defended the program

He funded for five years that massive data-center in Utah, the one that's going to hold the several thousand petabytes of info on all Americans
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprints-of-nsa-d
ata-center-in-utah-suggest-its-storage-capacity-is-less-impressive-than-thought/
Eric Holder himself set the "rules" for data collection, just like the weasel before him (Alberto Gonzales).

The WH CONTINUED its' data collection even while under judicial review. (Since 2013)

This asn't just some automatic program quietly running amok in the background, it was vetted, approved, and funded at the highest levels.

Quote:
-This has been going on for quite some time

So?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:19 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I'm sure the president has a "Brain Trust," as you keep referring to FDR, but if he does I'm not aware of who they are.

The company that planned to build the Keystone pipeline actually requested that the project be withdrawn from consideration before Obama rendered his rejection. But the oil will flow without a pipeline. It will cross the border on barge or on train, both of which are more dangerous and carbon-intensive than a pipeline. If this is the president’s answer to combating global warming, then educated debates about climate change simply aren’t happening at the White House. So where is Obama's "Brain Trust"?

In an ironic twist, Obama’s action could actually end up growing the global carbon footprint. After a victory in the Keystone fight, environmental groups have become emboldened in their crusade against pipelines of all kinds. So instead of building more connections between North Dakota’s Bakken fields and East Coast refineries, for example, the United States is stuck relying upon imports from Nigeria. Sending those oil tankers across the Atlantic Ocean emits more greenhouse gases than a mere pipeline, Ed Hirs, a University of Houston energy economist, told the Houston Chronicle editorial board.

The growing irrational fear of pipelines also creates economic problems in addition to environmental ones. Just look to Boston, where consumers had to buy liquified natural gas to heat their homes last winter.

“Just like Tokyo,” Hirs said, referring to the archipelago nation that’s isolated from energy resources.

There’s plenty of cheap natural gas in Pennsylvania, but no easy way to move it east. Rather than encouraging construction, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., worked to block a much-needed natural gas pipeline through her state. The approval and construction process is moving forward, but it still faces plenty of ill-informed opposition.

For want of proper oil and gas infrastructure, Bostonians were forced to pay the expensive, international price on heating fuel while affordable, American sources remained in the ground.

This anti-pipeline movement doesn’t help the Earth. It doesn’t help people stay warm during winter. It doesn’t save anyone money. But it does make Obama look good to people who don’t understand how oil and gas markets work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:02 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I'm sure the president has a "Brain Trust," as you keep referring to FDR, but if he does I'm not aware of who they are.

We need a second example of Obama's "Brain Trust", if it ever existed, not performing well. Because Obama was talking about it before his Inauguration Day, the fiscal stimulus will do as that example:

How Did We Know The Stimulus Was Too Small?
July 28, 2010 8:05 am July 28, 2010 8:05 am
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimul
us-was-too-small/

Those of us who say that the stimulus was too small are often accused of after-the-fact rationalization: you said this would work, but now that it hasn’t, you’re just saying it wasn’t big enough. The quick answer to that accusation is that people like me said that the stimulus was too small in advance. But the longer answer is that it’s all in the math: Keynesian analysis provides numbers as well as qualitative predictions, and given reasonable projections of the economy’s path in January 2009, the proposed stimulus just wasn’t big enough. Let’s go back to the tape, January 9, 2009:
www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html

Even the C.B.O. says, however, that “economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential.” This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. “Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity,” declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.

To close a gap of more than $2 trillion — possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic — Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that’s not enough.

Now, fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a “multiplier” effect: In addition to the direct effects of, say, investment in infrastructure on demand, there can be a further indirect effect as higher incomes lead to higher consumer spending. Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50.

But only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts — and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending. (A number of Senate Democrats apparently share these doubts.) Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center summed it up in the title of a recent blog posting: “lots of buck, not much bang.”

The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.

In practice, it was even worse, because one of the key elements of the plan — aid to state and local governments — was cut back sharply in the Senate. We ended up with only about $600 billion of real stimulus over that two-year period.

So this wasn’t a test of fiscal stimulus, even though it has played out that way in the political arena: the whole thing was obviously underpowered from the start.

Once the unemployment rate had passed 9 percent, despite the early round of stimulus spending, Mr. Obama finally conceded that a bigger stimulus was needed.

But he couldn’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies had plummeted, partly because his policies were seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies were conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:24 PM

You have to go with the bill you can get passed. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:13 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
You have to go with the bill you can get passed. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

As President, you have to know why your particular version of a bill, not some half-ass bill written by ignoramuses, nincompoops, crooks and Republicans, should pass. And then you have to energetically explain it to Congress, over and over again, time after time, until even the dumbest understand. For example: if the USA needs 2 trillion for Fiscal Stimulus by infrastructure improvement, it cannot be purchased for 0.75 trillion, most of which was tax cuts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
You have to go with the bill you can get passed. Everything else is just wishful thinking.
As President, you have to know why your particular version of a bill, not some half-ass bill written by ignoramuses, nincompoops, crooks and Republicans, should pass. And then you have to energetically explain it to Congress, over and over again, time after time, until even the dumbest understand. For example: if the USA needs 2 trillion for Fiscal Stimulus by infrastructure improvement, it cannot be purchased for 0.75 trillion, most of which was tax cuts.

I agree with what you say two but in general congress does not pass bills that will get them kicked out of office. Neither does the Senate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:36 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

I agree with what you say two but in general congress does not pass bills that will get them kicked out of office. Neither does the Senate.

It does not work that way. Voting for the Iraq War should have ended hundreds of Congressional careers. It has not.

$2 trillion is such a high number for Obama! Not really. The USA pissed away that much and has nothing positive to show for it: The Iraq war cost U.S. more than $2 trillion. Including benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest. www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0
PG20130314

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

I agree with what you say two but in general congress does not pass bills that will get them kicked out of office. Neither does the Senate.
It does not work that way. Voting for the Iraq War should have ended hundreds of Congressional careers. It has not.

$2 trillion is such a high number for Obama! Not really. The USA pissed away that much and has nothing positive to show for it: The Iraq war cost U.S. more than $2 trillion. Including benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest. www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0
PG20130314

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.

Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:52 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.

Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.

Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.

Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm

OK, I think my point is being expanded on. Plain and simple. Politicians are cowards for the most part. I say if they are taking a vote that is going to hurt them politically they will vote no.

You apparently think they vote their conscious. Fine, we disagree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:10 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.

Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm

OK, I think my point is being expanded on. Plain and simple. Politicians are cowards for the most part. I say if they are taking a vote that is going to hurt them politically they will vote no.

You apparently think they vote their conscious. Fine, we disagree.

I don't agree about the cowardliness.

I forgot the obvious: your Congresswoman's brain probably works on the same general basis as voters' brains, unless your Congresswoman takes the time to think carefully and clearly. But Congress makes most decisions based on, well, nothing more than feelings. And it's anecdotally evident from hundreds of crappy Congressional decisions.

At least we are lucky that Congress can afford a staff that can draft laws even it the Congresswoman providing guidance is more than half crazed with mindless fears and uncertainty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 4:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.

Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm

OK, I think my point is being expanded on. Plain and simple. Politicians are cowards for the most part. I say if they are taking a vote that is going to hurt them politically they will vote no.

You apparently think they vote their conscious. Fine, we disagree.
I don't agree about the cowardliness.

I forgot the obvious: your Congresswoman's brain probably works on the same general basis as voters' brains, unless your Congresswoman takes the time to think carefully and clearly.

*But Congress makes most decisions based on, well, nothing more than feelings. And it's anecdotally evident from hundreds of crappy Congressional decisions*

At least we are lucky that Congress can afford a staff that can draft laws even it the Congresswoman providing guidance is more than half crazed with mindless fears and uncertainty.

If that were true, Lobbyists would be out of business.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:18 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Hey there Second:

Quote:
The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative.

With 95% accuracy, may I add.

Quote:
Voters don't think, they simply react.

I believe it's true of most people, most of the time, in general.

I've read bits and pieces of Picketty, who was quite the splash for a while, as well as summaries and critiques. The following purports to be an accurate summary. Do you agree?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-ex
plains
But there are no natural forces pushing against the steady concentration of wealth. Only a burst of rapid growth (from technological progress or rising population) or government intervention can be counted on to keep economies from returning to the “patrimonial capitalism” that worried Karl Marx. Mr Piketty closes the book by recommending that governments step in now, by adopting a global tax on wealth, to prevent soaring inequality contributing to economic or political instability down the road.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
If that were true, Lobbyists would be out of business.

Lobbyists actually WROTE bills during dumbya's reign! They were quite busy and their business was doing well.

But in general - lobbyists prey on congressional mental laziness and desire for campaign cash. As such, the congressional mind is more focused on getting the best deal for their vote, and the best talking points, with the least amount of effort. Given the fertile fields of the congressional minds, there is always something for lobbyists to do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:35 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

SGG

I think you and Signy are looking at different vistas. For example, you I believe are looking at unemployment rates, while Signy is looking at labor participation rates. One looks quite rosy, the other looks quite dire. I think you're looking at daily life which, while for many people has sunk quite a bit but, isn't in active crisis. While Signy is looking at fundamentals, for example that your bank money is at ongoing risk due to the fact that depositors banks are still allowed to make investment gambles, AND they are NOW allowed to take your money to make their investors whole should they fail. (BTW, that was driven by the acknowledged fact that in a major failure, the FDIC would NEVER be able to cover your losses. Now there's a system in place where there's no FDIC required! Which makes me wonder about the meaning of 'FDIC insured', as it looks to me to be a worthless phrase.)

I agree that some figures look good. I also agree that the things that drove the economic meltdown in the first place haven't been fixed - which makes us vulnerable to another, similar (and some predict far worse) crash.

If she agrees with your data, would you consider hers?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:12 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Something else Obama is responsible for:

US Approves $11 Billion Deal To Sell Combat Ships To "Brutal Dictatorship"

10/25/2015 14:20

Submitted by Sarah Lazare

Defying the international call for an arms embargo over war crimes concerns, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) announced Tuesday it has approved an $11.25 billion deal to sell combat ships to Saudi Arabia, which has been waging a military assault against Yemen for more than six months.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:33 PM

Yeah right 1kiki, Saudi Araba a long time ally. Can't help yourself can you backstabber.

The author Sarah Lazare is an anti-militarist organizer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 1:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yeah right 1kiki, Saudi Araba a long time ally. Can't help yourself can you backstabber.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you disputing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because it is, and the facts show it. Or are you emphasizing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because if you are, I think that's something we already know.

And who is KIKI stabbing in the back? Is KIKI stabbing various USA administrations in the back because she is attacking their relationship with a brutal nation of terrorist-funders? In which case you've conceded that Saudi Arabia is, indeed, a long-term ally. Or are you somehow trying to say that KIKI is stabbing Saudi Arabia in the back, because they somehow don't deserve to be attacked?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 1:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Given the fertile fields of [most of] the congressional minds, there is always something for lobbyists to do.

Well, if you consider that manure makes things grow really well, then, yes, I suppose you COULD call Congressional minds "fertile"!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 2:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.

Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. -THUGR

Horse-puckies!
Does anyone remember the reaction to 9-11?

I do.

Where I work, we're a pretty dispassionate lot. Also, we were 2700 miles away from the scene, but in about 10 minutes we had pretty much reconstructed how a plane could be brought down with box cutters - how many hijackers, how empty the plane etc.

But I was also at the time online with a bunch of mothers whose children were neurologically damaged in some way, these were mostly midwestern stay-at-home moms who were politically naive, and they were SHOCKED and TERRIFIED. The unfathomable had just happened, and they just wanted to go and hide in the closet, or the storm cellar, or under the bed.

That must have been the mood of the nation, because people stopped shopping, avoiding malls and other large gatherings. BUSH had to tell people to go out and SHOP!

Halloween was dismal, parents thought that children could be poisoned by a candy-giving terrorist. So if there is one word that described the mood of the nation it would be FRIGHTENED.

It took many weeks of "Smoke 'em out, dead or alive" and "drain the swamp" to prod people into a different mood, and many MORE months of hearing about Saddam Hussein's (nonexistent) WMD and his involvement in 9-11 (Saddam and 9-11 are about as relate-able as Santa Claus and shrimp) to get people to focus on Iraq.

But eventually, people dutifully went out and shopped, and dutifully invaded a nation that had fuck-all to do with 9-11.

Under pressure of fear, people have been manipulated to make all kinds of stupid decisions. The idea that people were out for blood is nonsense.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 5:56 AM

But he couldn’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies had plummeted, partly because his policies were seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies were conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is the key element in your response, except for one thing "partly because his policies were seen to have failed." I find that to be part and parcel of the beginning of the "obstructionist movement," every negative thought was heaped upon the president, every obstacle and nuanced prejudice hurled his way - and then the coup de grace - the use of the mainstream media to affirm the lies, deceit and innuendos (the right wing media did their part aw well).

It was a concentrated effort, but Dems were so afraid of their own shadow that they dodged and deflected as Obama twisted in the wind. The GOP and the right wing media conspired to ruin the man's reputation and crush his will. How can his policies fail before they're implemented? The GOP plan was to constantly say the opposite of what was true. If Obama said BLUE, the GOP, right wing media said it was red. If the GOP reached an agreement, but had not yet signed it into law, and Obama compromised to get things moving forward; they would change their mind and vote opposing their own
law.

The creation of jobs was deeply entrenched in the stagnant economy, due to the near disaster of economic collapse - and yes, people did conflate the issues of the job market (actually the lack of a job market) with that of the unpopular bailout, which was timed perfectly for the Democrat about to take office. It was cleverly set up by the GOP and Wall Street, and craftily orchestrated as to appear that Obama was at fault. There are those here that keep mentioning the Bailout as though Obama was lashing the American public to the train tracks as the steam engine barrels down the track. Thank goodness that the majority of the people in this country are not easily fooled by rhetoric and outright lies.

No one questions the fact that Congress's arm was twisted by Paulson, Bernanke and company to accept the Bailout package during the waning months of Bush's Administration. Paulson even put some clauses in the fine print that would practically absolve the banks of any wrong-doing, and of any financial responsibility. It's easy to dash off a quick sentence or two to infer that somehow the convoluted truth of the matter magically appeared. It is my belief it was a cold, calculated maneuver...........period.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26987291/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bu
sh-signs-billion-financial-bailout-bill/#.VkW7hJ0o69I

The banks and Wall Street captains of industry had a secret society of scoundrels and schemers that carefully kept the whole operation under wraps, with nary a slip of paper, that traded in the Trillions (with a capital T). A scheme so powerful as to involve the richest countries
in the world; the unregulated (a GOP staple) exchange and transfer
of monies based on junk assumptions and hedges. An insurance and banking scam that would make Bernie Madoff look like a choir boy. As I stated earlier, carefully orchestrated; first Paulson, Bernanke move to avoid a meltdown and then along comes Obama. So naturally, he gets the shit end of the stick.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 9:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Yeah right 1kiki, Saudi Araba a long time ally. Can't help yourself can you backstabber.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you disputing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because it is, and the facts show it. Or are you emphasizing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because if you are, I think that's something we already know.

And who is KIKI stabbing in the back? Is KIKI stabbing various USA administrations in the back because she is attacking their relationship with a brutal nation of terrorist-funders? In which case you've conceded that Saudi Arabia is, indeed, a long-term ally. Or are you somehow trying to say that KIKI is stabbing Saudi Arabia in the back, because they somehow don't deserve to be attacked?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

Yep and since you asked who 1kiki stabbed first in the back, if she is to be believed, first her father. Then all the countries that stepped up to the plate to help her and her family as well as help exile Russia from her homeland of Poland.

Quote:

Me in response to 1kiki

I'm the moron, you expect me to buy into this shit you are posting. By your own admission your father was against Russian rule and forced to stay in exile. And you don't get that you are betraying him with all the propaganda you post here in favor of Russia.

And by the way every country that assisted yours all theses years. Like United States President Ronald Regan and the Pope coming together to help free Poland from Russian rule. This is how you repay that?

Nope 1kiki I'm not buying it. You want it both ways which is typical of you. You just can't tell the truth.

It's over troll.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.

Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. -THUGR
Horse-puckies!
Does anyone remember the reaction to 9-11?

I do.

Where I work, we're a pretty dispassionate lot. Also, we were 2700 miles away from the scene, but in about 10 minutes we had pretty much reconstructed how a plane could be brought down with box cutters - how many hijackers, how empty the plane etc.

But I was also at the time online with a bunch of mothers whose children were neurologically damaged in some way, these were mostly midwestern stay-at-home moms who were politically naive, and they were SHOCKED and TERRIFIED. The unfathomable had just happened, and they just wanted to go and hide in the closet, or the storm cellar, or under the bed.

That must have been the mood of the nation, because people stopped shopping, avoiding malls and other large gatherings. BUSH had to tell people to go out and SHOP!

Halloween was dismal, parents thought that children could be poisoned by a candy-giving terrorist. So if there is one word that described the mood of the nation it would be FRIGHTENED.

It took many weeks of "Smoke 'em out, dead or alive" and "drain the swamp" to prod people into a different mood, and many MORE months of hearing about Saddam Hussein's (nonexistent) WMD and his involvement in 9-11 (Saddam and 9-11 are about as relate-able as Santa Claus and shrimp) to get people to focus on Iraq.

But eventually, people dutifully went out and shopped, and dutifully invaded a nation that had fuck-all to do with 9-11.

Under pressure of fear, people have been manipulated to make all kinds of stupid decisions. The idea that people were out for blood is nonsense.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

Your imagination ran wild then as it always does SIG. In my world we were not in any kink of panic, instead we were in revenge mode. The fact that your agenda is to devalue what America is all about, to only post the negative, what you claim to be factual about that or any other event is suspect.

From you there is a constant condemnation of this country in thread after thread. How we feel in America and things according to you is always based on a negative Russian perspective about us. Your reality is warped and therefore valued only in your own sick mind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 10:04 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

The banks and Wall Street captains of industry had a secret society of scoundrels and schemers that carefully kept the whole operation under wraps, with nary a slip of paper, that traded in the Trillions (with a capital T). A scheme so powerful as to involve the richest countries
in the world; the unregulated (a GOP staple) exchange and transfer
of monies based on junk assumptions and hedges. An insurance and banking scam that would make Bernie Madoff look like a choir boy.

Here is a different moral and conceptual framework from a leading candidate for President. Even though the policy context was relatively narrow in this speech from 2007, it's a profound indictment. It isn't a question of bad apples or rogue traders. What Wall Street did is legal, but the legal aspects of the financial system are fundamentally broken and not accomplishing what a financial system should do. Guess which candidate:

Now, who's exactly to blame for the housing crisis? Well, that's always a question that the press and people ask and I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

Responsibility belongs to mortgage lenders and brokers, who irresponsibly lowered underwriting standards, pushed risky mortgages, and hid the details in the fine print.

Responsibility belongs to the Administration and to regulators, who failed to provide adequate oversight, and who failed to respond to the chorus of reports that millions of families were being taken advantage of.

Responsibility belongs to the rating agencies, who woefully underestimated the risks involved in mortgage securities.

And certainly borrowers share responsibility as well. Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads. Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don't deserve our sympathy.

But finally, responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn't have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. So Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned might very well have ended in collapse and foreclosure. Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.

Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, but Wall Street certainly had a hand in making it worse.
www.vox.com/2015/11/12/9716034/hillary-clinton-nasdaq-speech
http://decoechoes.deviantart.com/art/Firefly-571642867

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 10:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yep and since you asked who 1kiki stabbed first in the back, if she is to be believed, first her father. Then all the countries that stepped up to the plate to help her and her family as well as help exile Russia from her homeland of Poland.

Wow, you ARE in fantasy-land, aren't you? You've built up this whole false narrative about me (and I know how false it is!) and you've built up another equally false narrative about KIKI, if not even worse. I mean, how did you ever get from Saudi Arabia to Poland in one leap?

Here, have another straw to grasp!
* tosses straw*
[/snicker]

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 11:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Your imagination ran wild then as it always does SIG.

Uh huh. If this is all my imagination, why did Bush have to get on TV and encourage people to get out and shop? Why did we give away a paltry amount of candy that year (and the year after?)

Why did Bush have to scare-monger for months, with videos of bin Laden supposedly testing poison gas on caged animals in the mountains of Afghanistan? IF people were so hot for revenge, why did the entire top-level of Bush's admin- Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell have to relentlessly thump for war, with images of nuclear bombs and poison gas and biological threats constantly being pushed on TV and in the NYT?

Quote:
In my world

Oh, do you mean the world in your head? Or do you mean your small group of failed military buddies sitting around the TV and drinking beer? In any case, whatever small world THAT was, you just gave up the claim to be speaking for "the nation as a whole".

Quote:
we were not in any kink of panic, instead we were in revenge mode

You say this like it was a good thing!

YEAH! LET'S TAKE REVENGE BY DESTROYING THREE BYSTANDER NATIONS!.

Revenge is for idiots. Being scared is the appropriate response. If people had had time to process the whys and wherefores and hows of this terrorist attack on the USA, instead of being relentlessly stampeded into giving up their rights (Patriot Act) and attacking three bystander nations, they might have learned something.

Quote:
The fact that your agenda is to devalue what America is all about

I'm not devaluing Americans, THUGR, just you.

Quote:
to only post the negative

The American response wasn't negative, it was realistic. It should have been the moment that allows people to pause and reassess. But it was over-ruled by an administration hell-bent on wars of it's own choosing.

Quote:
what you claim to be factual about that or any other event is suspect.

I have evidence ... pretty broad-based objective evidence that I can pull up from Youtube any time you want. Retail sales statistics. Quotes from leaders and ordinary people. What do YOU have? The voices in your head?

Done with you. Back to the topic.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 12:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AT the time Obama took office, the entire Congress was Democratic ... House and Senate both. 51 Dems in the Senate, and 233 (54%) in the House.

In 2009- the next election- there were even MORE Democrats in Congress- 55 Dems in the Senate, and 59% (256/435) in the House.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Are you trying to sy that even with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, Obama couldn't get his way on SOME issues??? All Obama had to do was apply some good old-fashioned Party discipline, the kind that says, "If you don't back me on this issue, the Party won't support you in your next election". It's not a threat you make lightly (usually you win support by negotiating something positive for the recalcitrant member) so you have to pick your battles carefully, but its always the big stick in the closet. That, and rousing up the public to support your goals.

Now, Democrats rode in on Obama's coattails because he promised to be different than the previous eight years. Up thru 2009, they were willing to cut him- and the Democratic Party- a lot of slack on the bank bailout thing, partly because they didn't really know about it and partly because it was already going on from Bush's admin. But it WAS unpopular with a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans alike. By 2010, the public - fed up with same-old same-old- repudiated the Democrats en masse.

The flagship program, IMHO, had to be DIFFERENT than government spending on shovel-ready projects (which weren't really shovel-ready at the time, the elephant labored and brought forth a mouse two years later). It could have been a viable healthcare program - which had high popular support. It could have been in the form of mortgage relief for PEOPLE ... maybe a suspension of foreclosures ... while the banks sorted out the robo-signing, interlocking naked Credit-Default-Swap, fraudulent-mortgage mess they made. (BTW- NO IT WAS NOT LEGAL.) Dramatic reduction in military spending to pay for domestic programs. Extensive prosecution of banksters. Re-instituting Glass Steagall.

What Obama chose to do was operate in dribs and drabs ... extended unemployment, for example. When he DID do something big - like bail out the banks and shovel people into the maw of the health insurances - it was industry-friendly and doomed to fail (in terms of solving the underlying problem.) And he is still pushing the TTIP/ TPP "free trade" deals. Just more of the same oligarchy, IMHO.

Sins of omission, sins of commission, not forced on him by a recalcitrant Congress but what he chose to do all by himself.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 8:07 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Democrats rode in on Obama's coattails because he promised to be different than the previous eight years.

I'll give you the facts and you decide what Obama should have done:

Over the past 25 years, the economy has grown 83 percent, after adjusting for inflation — and the typical family’s income hasn’t budged. In that time, corporate profits doubled as a share of the economy. Workers today produce nearly twice as many goods and services per hour on the job as they did in 1989, but as a group, they get less of the nation’s economic pie. In 81 percent of America’s counties, the median income is lower today than it was 15 years ago.

What happened? Why did the economy stop boosting ordinary Americans in the way it once did?

In this new reality, a smaller share of Americans enjoy the fruits of an expanding economy. This isn’t a fluke of the past few years — it’s woven into the very structure of the economy. And even though Republicans and Democrats keep promising to help the middle class reclaim the prosperity it grew accustomed to after World War II, their prescriptions aren’t working.
www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2014/12/12/why-americas-middle-clas
s-is-lost/

Now that you have the facts AND a plan that is different than Obama's, why can't your different plan go into action? Hint: You will need the cooperation of the wealthy and powerful to put your plan into action, but they won't cooperate in dividing the nation’s economic pie. As a matter of fact, they will fight you to your death, then piss on your grave.

Do you understand why Obama did not change the path that the USA has been following for decades? I find it perfectly clear why Obama didn't do what he didn't do.

http://scottzirkel.deviantart.com/art/Firefly-Sketch-Cards-570111805

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 13, 2015 10:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There are more urgent events, but I have a question of my own - one that I've asked already: If Obama knew that change was impossible, why did he promise so much?

And, my other point: It's not that Obama "failed" to do anything substantive, he also actively campaigned for very regressive measures. Sins of omission AND sins of commission. You might explain away sins of omission, but not the other.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:18 AM