Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Ran Against Bush, But Now Governs Like Him
WASHINGTON — He ran as the anti-Bush.
Silver-tongued, not tongue-tied. A team player on the world stage, not a lone cowboy. A man who'd put a stop to reckless Bush policies at home and abroad. In short, Barack Obama represented Change.
Well, that was then. Now, on one major policy after another, President Barack Obama seems to be morphing into George W. Bush.
On the nation's finances, the man who once ripped Bush as a failed leader for seeking to raise the nation's debt ceiling now wants to do it himself.
On terrorism, he criticized Bush for sending suspected terrorists to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and denying them access to U.S. civilian courts. Now he says he'll do the same.
On taxes, he called the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy wrong, and lately began calling again to end them. But in December he signed a deal with Republicans to extend them for two years, and recently he called the entire tax cut package good for the country.
And on war, as a candidate he said that the president didn't have authority to unilaterally attack a country that didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S., and even then the president should always seek the informed consent of Congress. Last month, without a vote in Congress, he attacked Libya, which didn't threaten the U.S.
Big differences remain between Obama and Bush, to be sure. His two nominees to the Supreme Court differ vastly from Bush's picks. Obama does want to end the tax cuts for the wealthy. He also pushed through a massive overhaul of the nation's health insurance system.
Yet even on health insurance, his stand wasn't so much a reversal of Bush's approach as an escalation. Bush also pushed through a massive expansion of Medicare by adding a costly prescription drug benefit — at the time, the biggest expansion of a federal entitlement since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Indeed, some of the differences between the two presidents are measured in gray, not black and white as once seemed the case.
Some of the changes in Obama can be attributed to the passion of campaign rhetoric giving way to the realities of governing, analysts say.
"He is looking less like a candidate and more like a president," said Dan Schnur, the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "He has discovered that it's much easier to make promises on the campaign trail than it is to keep them as president."
At the same time, some of the surprising continuity of Bush-era policies can be tied to the way Bush and events set the nation's course, particularly on foreign policy.
"Morphing into Bush was not a willful act," said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "It was acquiescence to the policies his predecessor shaped and the cruel realities that Obama inherited."
For example, Obama found he couldn't easily close the prison at Guantanamo Bay because he couldn't find a place, abroad or at home, willing to take all the terrorist suspects held there.
"Bush created, on the military and security side, new realities from which no successor, Democrat or Republican, could depart, "Miller said. "It's like turning around an aircraft carrier. It cannot happen quickly."
Among the ways Obama has reversed his earlier promises and adopted, extended or echoed Bush policies:
DEBT
In 2006, Bush had cut taxes, gone to war, and expanded Medicare, and increased the national debt from $5.6 trillion to $8.2 trillion. He needed approval from Congress to raise the ceiling for debt to $9 trillion.
The Senate approved the increase by a narrow vote of 52-48.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted no.
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally," Obama said in 2006. "Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership."
Now Obama's on the other side. He's increased the national debt to $14 trillion, and needs Congress to approve more debt. Moreover, Obama's aides now say that congressional meddling to use that needed vote to wrangle budget concessions from the White House would be inappropriate and risk financial Armageddon.
What about Obama's own vote against the president in a similar situation? A mistake, the White House said.
TAXES
As a senator and presidential candidate, Obama opposed extending the Bush tax cuts on incomes greater than $250,000 a year past their expiration on Dec., 31, 2009.
In 2007, he said he was for "rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people who don't need it." In a 2008 ad, he said, "Instead of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, I'll focus on you."
As president, Obama proposed letting those tax cuts expire as scheduled, while also proposing to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for incomes of less than $250,000.
But he didn't get Congress to approve that. When the issue came to a head last December, Republicans insisted on extending all of the tax cuts or none, and Obama went along lest the tax cuts on incomes below $250,000 expire even briefly. His final deal with the Congress also added a one-year cut in the payroll tax for Medicare and Social Security.
"What all of us care about is growing the American economy and creating jobs for the American people," Obama said. "Taken as a whole, that's what this package of tax relief is going to do. It's a good deal for the American people."
He said again last week that he wants to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, this time on Dec. 31, 2012.
TERRORISTS
As a presidential candidate, Obama vowed a broad reversal of Bush's policies toward suspected terrorists.
Most pointedly, he said he'd close the prison in Cuba and try suspected terrorists in civilian courts, not in military tribunals.
"I have faith in America's courts," he said in a 2007 speech. "As president, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
He ran into a torrent of opposition, however. Members of Congress balked at transferring suspected terrorists to U.S. prisons. New Yorkers balked when his administration said it would try accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in lower Manhattan.
Last month, he changed course, saying he'd keep Guantanamo Bay open, and would try Mohammed before a military court.
The reversal, said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, "is yet another vindication of President Bush's detention policies by the Obama administration."
Echoing Bush, Obama's also asserted that he has the power to hold suspected terrorists without charges or trial, and that he has the power to kill U.S. citizens abroad if his government considers them a terrorist threat.
WAR POWERS
During his campaign, Obama signaled that he'd be far more circumspect than Bush was in using military power. He did say he'd send more troops to Afghanistan, which he's done, and that he'd attack al Qaida terrorists in Pakistan, which he's also done.
But he opposed the Iraq war from the start, and said he didn't think the president should wage war for humanitarian purposes or act without congressional approval, absent an imminent threat to the U.S.
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007.
"In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
On March 19, the U.S. attacked Libya on humanitarian grounds, absent any threat to the U.S. and without approval from Congress.
170 Comments so far
Show AllGood article, nice to see it in one of the more M$M outlets.
Wrong tense however in the third paragraph.
Obama is not morphing into Bush. He MORPHED when he zealously supported the TARP with onlyn token condituions during the campaign in September 2008.
Wrong again. It was clear from the FISA vote that he would be worse than Bush. And indeed he is worse.
Who voted for this guy?
I did, and I've been regretting it ever since.
I find it to be pathetic the way some writers moan and bitch about Obama being just like Bush, or the democrats behaving just like the republicans on this that or any issue. What is it that these people don't understand about class warfare? Obama is just a plain old garden variety fraud. A hoi poloi novelty that was engineered into the Presidency on a tsunami of wall street money and tornado of eloquent platitudes. It isn't going to be any different from anybody or anything that is nominated by either the (D) or (R) political party. You want change? Stop wasting your time and breath on these political zombies and vote for the socialist party. It's as easy as that.
Social democrats and/or Greens have my vote from now on. I will let the country burn to the ground at the hands of t-baggers before voting Obomber. I honestly think the US and the world will be better off in the long run.
Definitely right.
Obama is the most dangerous president in our lifetime,
possibly in the nation's history. He has zero principals.
He stands for nothing. Everything he does is based in self interest.
And the people who enable this cretin of society are the throngs of
uncritical "Progressives" who willingly enjoy wallowing in his cow pies.
They are just as responsible as wingnut Republicans for the mess
we're in today.
So I guess you do think there are critical Progressives. You seem to be dumpster diving for definitions of people you've never met. Obama is no better or worse than most politicians.
They could care less if we like them or not. "as long as we work and breed"
Wow! Dude, back off from the precipice and take a breather! "Most dangerous in the nation's history"???? Do you hear how extreme you are?
Obama DOES TOO have principles, well, maybe just one. His principle is that he will do whatever is necessary to keep currying the favor of the globalist corporate oligarchy to keep their support for the 2012 elections. Don't expect him to change even then, as he knows his masters and their power.
Obama-worshipers beware! You've been snookered!
i here where you are coming from, but realize that the socialist parties and labor parties (even many communist parties) in the eu are doing what the democrats and obama is doing here. michael hudson said, correctly, that social democratic parties now are simply called upon to enact whatever right wing economic policies that conservative parties can't get away with. i listened to liberal talk shows that cheered obama's speech on, simply because he spoke out against medicare privatization. they cheer as he proposes austerity that will drive the economy off a damn cliff! right now there are many alternatives on the left in practice and in theory, but they are scattered and not organized into a coherent alternative. until the left does this, until it organizes people around a clear, coherent alternative, nothing will change. this situation is a leftist's dream as far as organizing, assuming they understand the issues and can articulate these alternatives to people in a clear way. as it stands, the general public is with the left on the economic issues in the developed world, has been with the left overall in the developing countries, but there are not institutions to take advantage of the anger of people, to use it constructively. that is why you see a rise in the anti-immigrant parties in the eu. while we have the reactionary tea party, france has le pen, russia has neo-nazis and britain has the national front. while we could steer people to take their anger out on those at the top of the economic pyramid, instead the right gets people to attack immagrants, gay people and the like. if we don't turn this around, and we have no excuse not to, a very scary future awaits us. horace might be paid to come here and puke out his nonsense, he's nothing more than a useful idiot, i'm not even sure he's useful really. people like him are like nero. keep him fat, paid and stupid and he'll play his fiddle as the country burns.
wexxton,
I agree with most of your comments, but considering what happened in socialist countries with large heterogenous populations in the 20th Century, why do you think socialism would encourage a more just, liberty enhanced culture in the USA?
Socialism does seem to wobble along in several small-scale, homogenous nations with ancient cultures and a highly educated population enjoying a vast resource base (like Norway and Sweden), but it proved a horrific nightmare when applied to large, more diverse nations like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Stalin's Soviet Union, Pot's Cambodia, Maoist China, Uncle Ho's Vietnam.
I realize Communism and Fascism (Corporatism) is not Socialism but both economic systems are closely related to socialism. Socialism, Communism and Fascism removed the Free or Fair market for a state controlled economy (which created black markets that thrived).
Have you visited any of the wrecked Third World places that tried a state controlled economy in the 20th Century? If not, do so and witness what happened.
I favor open but fair markets for the USA. Capitalism works but it must be well-regulated and accountable.
"I favor open but fair markets for the USA. Capitalism works but it must be well-regulated and accountable."
There is room for a well-regulated market capitalist component of a just society. But not everything should be private run because not everything is a business, for instance government is not a business and education is not a business. There are services that ought to be socialized (and also well managed) for the common wealth.
Openness and transparency and accountability would go a long way for a positive change.
EXTREME right wingers have moved the US far rightward during the past 30 years.
They understand that you need to demand a mile to end of with an inch (although they have been much more successful than that).
The left of center crowd doesn't understand that concept and thinks you can support a "centrist democrat" (LOL) and move the agenda leftward. This has resulted in Clinton and Obama center rightests types being elected who immediately and rapidly move rightward.
Although I too prefer a seriously regulated capitalist system, I will vote for the most extreme leftists (which in the US isn't very far left), realizing that anybody labelled a centrist democrat by the media is neither and that left of center voters need to demand a mile to end up with an inch.
Accountable to whom? Regulated by whom? Capitalism is an insatiable beast that works very well for the capitalists. Not so much for everybody else.
I realize Communism and Fascism (Corporatism) is not Socialism but both economic systems are closely related to socialism. Socialism, Communism and Fascism removed the Free or Fair market for a state controlled economy (which created black markets that thrived).
------------------------------------------------
"Closely related"? That's 100% untrue, and I can't imagine how you could have reached such a conclusion, given the wealth of information available.
Are you interested in knowing what socialism is *really* like? Check out the Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa (www.mcc.es). That's socialism, right there: working people owning the tools of their livelihood, cooperating for the good of all, and sharing out the profits.
It went from a few young engineers, under the tutelage of a one-eyed socialist priest, creating a socialist business in 1956 to make paraffin (kerosene to Americans) stoves in a shed, to a network of more than 200 businesses today doing everything from basic research to selling retail groceries, bringing in some €15G p.a., and supporting about 85K owner-workers plus 7500 students (they also operate their own university).
Their business motivation is not vast wealth for the few, but a dignified, comfortable life for all.
*THAT* is socialism (they and the Steelworkers union have recently agreed a project to bring Mondragón-model socialist businesses to the US, too)
Had I read ahead I would have stayed my own critique of this fable. Well said.
*sigh*
First define socialism. You say you realise that socialism is not Bolshevism, nor Maoism, nor Fascism, yet you conflate it with all of them.
"Socialism, Communism and Fascism removed the Free or Fair market for a state controlled economy (which created black markets that thrived"
What, in your opinion is a free market? Hint, very few people, in truth, want an actual truely free market. A free market would mean that a market that the government / society does not regulate in ANY WAY. Meaning, if you sell me something fraudulent, that is my own problem. If I decide that to give you a beating because you sold me something fraudulent, that is your own problem. THAT is a truely free market.
"Have you visited any of the wrecked Third World places that tried a state controlled economy in the 20th Century? If not, do so and witness what happened.
"
Have you visited any of the wrecked places that tried a free market? Have you seen what it did to Russia in the 90s?
"I favor open but fair markets for the USA. Capitalism works but it must be well-regulated and accountable.
.."
Capitalists will always want to maximise the returns on their profits. They will oppose any restrictions on their profits. Whatever regulations that prevent that will be opposed, undermined, abolished.
"I realize Communism and Fascism (Corporatism) is (sic) not Socialism but both economic systems are closely related to socialism. Socialism, Communism and Fascism removed the Free or Fair market for a state controlled economy (which created black markets that thrived)."
*****
First, fascism and socialism/communism are mutually exclusive terms. Economic and political systems cannot be both fascist and socialist. Period.
Second, socialism eschews classism and seeks a completely egalitarian and democratic society; capitalism is not only class-based, but it is utterly antagonistic to democracy, equality and justice, but it fits hand-in-glove with fascism. Capitalism breeds fascist, kleptocratic corruption. In fact corruption--bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, etc.--is not a simple aberration of capitalism, but rather it is the defining characteristic endemic to capitalism. Capitalism is essentially "rule by thieves."
Third, there is no such thing as a "free market," for reasons too numerous to list here. Briefly, however, when capitalism depends on the public (socialism!) to pay its way through research and development, bailouts, tax cuts, subsidies, fraud, environmental costs, and military interventions to expand markets, exploit cheap labor, and expropriate resources, the "free-market" is exposed as THE monumental con perpetrated upon society.
Further, "regulations" and "accountability" are loathed under neoliberal capitalism because they impede corruption, which impedes profits. Thus, who is going to implement them?? The capitalists through their political tools? I think not. For a primer, I urge you to read the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
At its most basic level, capitalism is a system of predation, exploitation, and expropriation to advance the psychopathological pursuit of profits for the FEW at the expense of everything and everyone else. In a nut shell: PROFITS for the few over needs of the PEOPLE.
Socialism, more than anything else, is a philosophy that is obsessed with achieving real democracy and social and economic equality and justice for EVERYONE: PEOPLE'S needs over PROFITS for the few.
In US media/political rhetoric, communism and socialism are simply code words used to demonize countries that seek independent development without interference from US capitalism. Ironically, the few social policies that have been implemented in the US such as Social Security and Medicare are cherished institutions by a majority of the public who have been fed lie upon lie about the supposed evils of socialism, and, inexplicably, believe them.
_______________________________________________________________
"Have you visited any of the wrecked Third World places that tried a state controlled economy in the 20th Century? If not, do so and witness what happened."
*****
I posted this passage** by Bill Blum the other day, but based on your comment, obviously, it's worth repeating again:
"Imagine a child building a sand castle on the beach. Shortly after she starts, a big bully comes along and kicks it down. She starts again, and gets it about half finished before the bully comes along and knocks it down again. The child's belief in the sand castle is strong enough to encourage her to try again and again. The bully, however, equally motivated, and stronger, knocks the castle down, again and again. Someone then poses the question: Are sand castles dead? [...]
Imagine that the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each and every test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Humans shall never fly. [...]
"Fact: Virtually every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century has been either overthrown, invaded, or bombed ... corrupted, perverted, or subverted ... sanctioned, embargoed, or destabilized ... or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one of these socialist governments or movements -- from the Russian Revolution to Fidel Castro in Cuba, from Communist China to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home. [...]
** Will Humans Ever Fly?
Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice
Volume 9, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 63 - 67
Author: William Blum
*****
The reason for socialism's alleged "failure" is simple: US capitalism will not tolerate independent development of a country that does not bow to US capitalism's predatory interests. It will not permit a country to nationalize its industries into not-for-profit, publicly-owned utilities that would benefit the citizens of the country over the avaricious interests of US investors. Thus, one of the primary imperatives of US foreign policy and interventions, which include terrorism, subversion and aggression, is to prevent the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model, such as socialism. This is one of the reasons why Iraq and Libya were invaded, and Cuba is still being punished by the US through embargoes, and Venezuela is constantly vilified. Countries that fail to yield to the will of US capitalism's rapacious greed and autocratic tyranny will be punished. This further explains why socialism will never be permitted in the US and, in fact, the reason why Shock Doctrine "austerity" is currently being implemented with gusto here in the US.
The financial aristocracy that owns this country--the capitalist class--will not rest until every square inch of this planet is expropriated and exploited for profit.
Except for the privileged few of the world's population, capitalism has been the failure, while true socialism has never been permitted a chance.
Giovanna
Bravissimo! Your comments are most intelligently and persuasively well stated.
Erroll:
Thank you. I cannot tell you how tired I am of reading post after post about the supposed "failure" of socialism and the alleged "success" of capitalism and how it can be "improved" or "reformed"--made more "compassionate"--if only it's made "accountable" through "regulations." Seriously, how can anyone believe such drivel? Who do these posters think is going to stand up for the people and make capitalists accountable when the past 40 years have been devoted to deregulating predatory behavior while at the same time dismantling the last remaining semblance of social democracy? Such ridiculous statements defy history and ignore the anti-democratic behavior and nature of what's left of the US "government", which can now only be described as an elaborate charade, behind which stands the dictatorship of the transnational oligarchs: Wall Street, Big Oil/Energy, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture/Chemical, War contractors, etc.
Good arguments against capitalism, but you are talking about the extremes here. In the same vein, socialism may declare equality for all but it doesn't happen in real life. If only a few get rich in a capitalist society, only a few wield power (and get rich) in a socialist regime. India was socialist for decades before opening up to free trade - you can see the results now, more people have risen from poverty than anytime in the past. Before opening her markets, life in India literally sucked. You haven't traveled in filthy buses (public transport) which are never on time, or stood in line for hours for just a simple government certificate only to be told you had to bribe the dude for him to sign it, there were only 2 models of cars available for decades, expensive and crappy, I can give more example but you get the point, people didnt have a choice...go live in a socialist country, and you'll realize how good you have it in the US.
1. Socialism does not "wobble along" in the nations you mention, instead it is merged with the govt. useful in areas of fulfillment of the needs of the citizens, like free schooling, free transportation, universal health care and all so-called entitlement programs in fact.
2.Nazi Germany and fascist Italy as socialist nations? Sorry, but that seems a clueless and baffling statement. As is the offering that socialism and fascism are closely related when, in fact, they are diametric opposites. Your definition of such is as flawed as the rest as well. Socialism is not state control of production but worker controlled, not exactly a nuanced difference.
The other nations you mention endured a perverted form of communsim as well and were elitist run govts., not what Marx had in mind at all.
I believe that well regulated capitalism has a place at the table along with socialism. I also believe in knowing ones topic prior to making definitive statements about such.
A bit more reading is in order. From the Encyclopedia Brittanica below. Note the German word. "Nationalsozialismus". i.e., National SOCIALISM.
-----------------------------------
Are you suggesting that that Britannica entry is doing something other than reporting what the Nazis called their party? Or perhaps that we should always believe what political parties claim because their leaders would never lie?
If you look at the NSDAP, they weren't in any way socialist or even pro-social, except that they didn't completely do away with the social-welfare programs that Otto von Bismarck had put in place in the 1880s (even the "Kleinleute" would probably have sobered up if the buggers had done that!).
The Nazis were "socialist" only in that they could be called "state-socialist", which is nothing but a euphemism for state-capitalist, AKA fascist: business and government being run by the same few people--a state of affairs that should be familiar to us all from our own unhappy experience.
Mairead and Netminnow:
Thank you for clarifying and exposing the Orwellian doublespeak and linguistic sleight-of-hands employed in the dissemination of propaganda by fascist/totalitarian governments.
Referring to fascist/totalitarian Nazi Germany as 'socialist'-- in the true sense of the term -- is like referring to the fascist/totalitarian/capitalist People's REPUBLIC of China as either "communist" or a "republic" or the oligarchical/inverted totalitarian US as a 'republican democracy.'
No fascist/totalitarian nation-state is actually going to identify itself as such. Instead, it will attempt to project itself as a government that supports the will of the people through either socialism or democracy. Understanding this should be fundamental, but unfortunately, for many people, it is not.
This was covered in a thread last week. I could open a cafe calling it Millionaire's Lunch. That doesn't mean any millionaires endorsed,ate, cooked, developed the recipes, grew or served the food. I threw the word in there because I thought it would make my service/ products more marketable to the public. Just because Hitler threw in the word Socialism to market his fascist, totalitarian party, it doesn't mean that it is an example of the form of government commonly understood as Socialism.
To Dennab, Apr 20 2011 - 7:54am:
So? Just because the name of Hitler's political orientation had the word 'Sozialismus' in it did not make it so. Only a magic consciousness would believe that labels make, fashion, bring about the reality they are intended to describe or pick out, as the case may be. Divergence or lack of fit between a name and the reality it refers to is particularly frequent in the political realm, where labels are often chosen with a view to deceiving.
I think it preposterous that you mean to imply that the Nazi's were "socialists". That name was invented for maximum appeal not honest implications. Any even shallow perusal of the Nazi government could not possibly equate it with socialistic principles, not in any way shape manner or form.
I think that I must be missing some subtle form of sarcasm from you as the alternative is simply to rude to mention.
Widhalm19 wrote:
"I favor open but fair markets for the USA. Capitalism works but it must be well-regulated and accountable."
Obama was a classic bait-and-switch for the wood ducks.
I guess the Better Business Bureau thinks otherwise.
Right you are, but most people will say you've thrown your vote away. Brainwashing works.
Interesting image. Should have shown the string-puppet strings coming out of both of them that make them dance.
Makes him look like Brian Williams.
MSM talking heads really are cloned.
Now Ray, you know old Brian is just a regular guy.
Our president who made all the promises and once had the energy of a young growing full of testosterone filled human appears to have neutered. He seems to be a robot under the control by the Greedy Evil Self Centered Politicians on the Right. He is not the man I voted for and he will never have my vote or support again.
Obama has unlimited testosterone when he is gunning for Wall Street, blaming the victims and rewarding the perpetrators.
The author should have added Obamacare to the list, since it is a refried Republican corporate welfare program that the Republicans love so much that Ryancare functionally expends Obamacare to Americans age 65 and older.
The debt burden is a serious problem, not an ideological point of view Criticizing S&P for recognizing the problem and sounding a warning is wrong.
S&P showed how brilliant it was by giving AAA ratings to junk bonds (CDOs), one of the links in the chain of the economic disaster we've experienced the last few years. The point of lowering the credit rating of governments, including the US government, is to maximize the returns to the ruling class.
Yes, and if S&P is so concerned, why didn't the flag go up when Obama and Congress instantly added trillions to the deficit by extended the Bush tax cuts within weeks of the deficit reduction commission's 2010 report that highlighted deficit concerns ?
The debt burden is actually a sin perpetrated on the nation and on the world by the corrupt ruling class and its footsoldiers.
This ruling class includes some of the wealthy and also all who knowingly support and enable their acts, and the ignorant who ought to know but would rather ignore or deny. People who willfully or ignorantly keep voting for the status quo, actively or passively, are part of the problem.
Many probably don't believe they have a soul to sell, but if they thought they had one they would probably sell it, as far as can be seen by actions taken. We need to have compassion for all of these people so desperately fearful of something (themselves?) that they would act so unlovingly and inhumanely. They need to be gently led out of their delusions or they will cling and claw even more desperately.
The perps of the debt burden need to pay down the debt burden, to atone. The laws of karma will prevail, one way or another-- which is really good news for everyone.
Ones who don't yet see that our nation operates at its lowest common denominator could see a better way: Embrace principles of Love and Truth and be set free.
you are so obvious, are you paid to come here puking up this nonsense? let me ask you a question. ALL of society, not just government, is drowning in debt. household debt, for example, went up a THIRD between 1995 and 2003. corporate debt has exploded, as has financial capital'd debt. some studies actually show that government debt is a lower percentage of overall debt than it was decades ago, not more. so why do people like you only focus on government debt? its obvious why. if we really thought about why all of society is drowning in debt we'd start to think about how finance has come to dominate our society. finance used to be about 13% of overall us profits, now it is approaching 50%. we have become de-industrialized, yet the economy has continued to grow. how? by people taking on more and more debt. the economy COULD have grown based on wage increases, but wages haven't grown in 40 years, so it has grown thanks to people taking on more debt. if we thought about the financialization of the economy, not just government debt again, we'd start talking about the explosion in wealth inequality (and the polarization between creditors and debtors), the de-industrialization of the country, our horrific "free trade" deals (of the eleven "free trade" deals we have signed ONE, Singapore, has resulted in an improvement in our trade balance. according to us census information every single state, every one, in the us has seen a net decrease in jobs as a result of nafta), amongst other things. we all must pretend though that this problem is unique to government and we must not look at taxes on income, profits or financial transactions (like the EU).
i have another question for you, which you also won't be able to answer. can you name a single country, a single one, who recovered by cutting spending during a time when corporate spending and investment and private spending was flat or declining? i can name a number right now that are collapsing, with the right wing cheering on, doing just that.
economic history and basic logic is thrown to the side by know nothings like you. the debate is now about how much to cut, not how to keep demand up until wages can incerase along with revenues. so obama is the more "moderate" one, he's proposing cutting four TRILLION, which is about 3/4's of the deal he just did with the ideological right, every month for 12 years. there is something called the multiplier effect too. if the government puts 1 dollar into the system it turns into 6 or 7 dollars. same when it takes a dollar out. so cutting 4 trillion means really pulling much more out of the economy. for the economy to just stay flat that means that corproate and private spending has to increase by an equal amount. does anyone see that happening, especially when government is set to cut demand even further? the only people happy with this are financial capitalists and their useful idiots. which one are you?
Unfortunately it will come as no surprise when our less than intrepid reporters refuse to do their journalistic duty by confronting Obama with these questions.
Also, Aaron David Miller, who is supposed to be a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, thinks that Obama has received a bum rap regarding his foreign policy decisions. Miller believes neither a Democrat nor a Republican can make things "happen quickly". Miller's description of being a scholar would seem to be undeserved as he apparently is unaware of Article II, Section 2 of a document called the U.S. Constitution which grants the "President to be Commander-in-Chief". This then means that Obama, despite Miller's apparent belief, can remove ALL U.S. soldiers and planes and tanks from Afghanistan and Iraq as quickly and as rapidly as possible. For Miller to claim otherwise is both false and misleading.
Indeed! It seemed that Bush had no trouble quickly enacting the policies that has led us into the swamp, thus the theory that Obama is just too overwhelmed by his (and our) myriad of problems is simply bunkum.
Removing all our troops from our vast empire would create many problems at home. For instance, jobs for these tens of thousands of returning soldiers. Or the sudden loss of income to the MIC which supplies the weaponry and other needs of our troops abroad.
As to the death of the free press.....free access to information is the oxygen of democracy, thus we suffocate and die.
Here-in lies a lesson for 2012. Who will be the anti-Obama? He/she will have to compensate for Obama's failures. He/she will have to: know how to negotiate; have a fighting spirit; give the boot to bipartisanship. These are the qualities that will attract independents, who are already moving towards Donald Trump. It will be "anybody but Obama" in 2012.
Too bad DT is running as another Republican and not as an independent, huh?
Article starts out okay, but falls back on excusing Obama for morphing into Bush by saying reality has set in. That excuse is hogwash and has been exposed many times over in comments on CD.
Progressive: Exactamente! How about that paragraph trying to say that Obama vastly differs from Bush in such things as WANTING a repeal of tax cuts for the rich, and then reinforcing the false pretense that the health care "reform" was anything BUT a fiscal give-away to Big Insurance (in the way that the Tarp bail-out was the equivalent gesture to big banks and Wall Street's high stakes gamblers, generous with the public's funds).
There truly is a form of Stockholm Syndrome operating in the USA today, nor are reporters or "experts" exempt from its influence. As society rushes towards the 2012 abyss, no course correction has come from anyone in D.C. And the stakes (for life, that is) could not be higher! Alas, on view is the folly that results from believing in the faux gods of Mammon ($) and Mars (war/MIC).
Precisely, and LOL at the "not a willfull act" concept. Obama didn't willfully reject public financing in June 2008 and load up on Wall Street "contributions", right ?
If the research Laura Flanders cites in her article posted on CD today is credible, US voters are victims of an epidemic of the Stockholm Syndrome exacerbated by an epidemic of terminal denial syndrome.
Yeah, my sentiments as well.
He ruined it in the end with all the backpeddling.
If an elected President has no ability to undo the works of a previous administration then there would seem to be little sense in electing a new President.
Except as window dressing to maintain the appearance of democracy.
The President is a Sock Puppet.