EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Liberals Pitted Against White House on Trade
The White House’s free trade negotiations with South Korea, Colombia and Panama are about to look like a piece of cake, compared to the work ahead to get House Democrats to agree on the details.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke (L) and Trade Representative Ron Kirk (C) speak to a member of the audience after President Obama signed the Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010 in the East Room of the White House, August 11, 2010. REUTERS/Jason Reed Already Republicans are on board, another show of President Barack Obama’s ability to work with the GOP while irking his party’s liberal base.
After the White House on Monday announced that it had reached agreement with Panama, House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said that he was prepared to move quickly on all three deals. “U.S. job creators and workers are every day put at a disadvantage to foreign competitors from countries that have already concluded trade agreements without us. The more we delay, the more we lose. The time to act is now.”
But Camps’ Democratic counterparts aren’t so warm to his haste. As in past trade votes, members of the more-liberal wing of the Democratic Party appear ready to side with organized-labor and human rights advocates, groups Obama will no doubt look to for support in 2012. It’s an awkward position for Obama as the trade debate unfolds toward a bipartisan agreement expected this summer.
“There is a reason the agreements didn’t move forward with the previous administration,” U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said of the then-Democratic-controlled House, at a Wednesday press breakfast hosted by the centrist group Third Way. “We did bring people back to the table and addressed some of the concerns of labor.” Trade observers in both parties have said that new White House chief of staff Bill Daley—who has had strong connections to the business community—has pushed for quicker action.
Although Kirk conceded the GOP’s persistence in pushing the three agreements since taking House control, he added that they didn’t affect the White House’s broader strategy—either on substance or timing. “Republicans came in and said send [the agreements] out. We said no,” until additional changes were made.
Still, much of organized labor and its closest Hill allies remain staunchly opposed—a source of discomfort for Obama as he prepares for reelection. With unemployment close to nine percent, many Democrats believe that reduced trade barriers are a bad message to beleaguered workers.
For Democratic critics, the Colombia deal has raised the strongest opposition because of continuing concern over physical attacks and threats to union leaders. “I am appalled that the administration is putting forward this action plan as the answer to Colombia’s rampant human rights and labor rights violations,” said Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), who chairs the House Trade Working Group.
A larger group of liberal Democrats—including close Pelosi allies George Miller (D-Calif.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)—last month demanded assurances from Obama that “Colombia’s long track record of repression, violence and murder of labor unionists has truly changed.” Obama subsequently hosted Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos at a cordial White House meeting to promote the trade agreement.
Even stronger criticism of all three trade deals has come from Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, which is backed by large labor unions. At a Ways and Means Committee hearing, the group’s leaders called for more sweeping clean-up of Panama’s bank secrecy practices and tax-haven practices, and cast doubt on Administration claims that the South Korean deal would yield 70,000 U.S. jobs.
Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), now the ranking Ways and Means Committee Democrat, has long sought to bridge the differences within his party. In a comment to POLITICO, he embraced the Administration efforts. “While Republicans have been sitting on the sidelines willing to accept seriously flawed trade agreements, Democrats have been working to fix trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration and when each is fixed and considered separately on its merits there will be a broader base of Democratic support.”
With Camp, Levin helped to resolve final details of the South Korean agreement, including steps to assure the vital support of their home-state’s automobile industry. But he has continued to withhold support for the Colombia deal, and said that “additional work needs to be done.”
Not coincidentally, mostly unified Republicans and their corporate allies have aggressively pushed for a bold trade agenda. And they have been more successful than might have been expected early this year, given the hesitation and reservations among Democrats. When Speaker John Boehner had his first formal meeting with the president, he urged him to focus on the trade deals.
With Camp’s continued push, the House and Senate tax-writing committees will work this spring on the often complex trade details under the unusual review procedures that have been used for trade agreements. Although House GOP leaders have remained intent on moving the agreements as a single package, Kirk said that congressional rules make that approach a non-starter; he added that the timing remained under discussion with leaders of the House and Senate tax committees.
Democrats also plan some sweeteners for their labor allies, including revival of trade-adjustment assistance for unemployed workers. Although final action may extend beyond the July 1 timetable that Camp has urged, the overall package seems likely to be completed by the August recess.
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has emerged as the most enthusiastic House Democratic backer of the trade deals. In a statement Monday, he said that with Kirk’s announcement of agreement with Panama, “I look forward to working with the administration to move all three outstanding trade agreements.”
On his return from a trip this week to Colombia with Camp, Hoyer drew the line with Democratic skeptics on a deal with that nation. “Colombia is a critical ally to the United States, and I strongly believe it is in our economic and national security interests to strengthen our ties by moving the Agreement forward.”
That support has been echoed by two influential Senate committee chairmen: Max Baucus (D-Mont.) at Finance, and John Kerry (D-Mass.) at Foreign Relations—a sign of the expected easy Senate approval. They have become vocal advocates of the three agreements, and coauthored this month an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that headlined the Colombia deal, “a different kind of jobs bill.”
The largely unified Republicans note, in particular, a letter to Obama from 67 GOP freshmen urging approval of the trade deals. The letter, which Ways and Means freshman Rick Berg (R-N.D.) helped to organize, marked one of their rare reaches across the aisle.
In Washington’s politically toxic environment, some trade-deal backers hope that the bipartisan support could open the door to other cooperation. “Chairman Camp has had positive discussion with the White House and the agencies on resolving the trade agreements. Hopefully, that working relationship will have a positive impact on other issues,” said Sage Eastman, Ways and Means deputy staff director. Still, the cooperation clearly has its limits in Congress.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
76 Comments so far
Show AllIf I had a nickel for every headline that started with "Liberals outraged at Obama for...," I'd now be in the elite group that just had its tax breaks extended. Fact is, Obama has disappointed and betrayed progressives far more than liberals, but we continue to assume he is the lesser of two evils. RIP: The lesser of two evils is still evil.
donna,
The funny thing is, I read this headline and immediately got annoyed because I am also tired of hearing "liberals" outraged. It should read "People" outraged, period!!!
Agreed.
Really! Since when have folks learned to be outraged by the this clusterfuck president??????????? When will we get sick and tired of it???????????????
You need more question marks to to get the answer you want.
I knew Obama was going to go with the businessvolk for certain things. He made that fairly clear -- "I'm a free trade guy" was one of his early mantras -- but he seemed to adhere to a qualified, not absolutist, version. He could have split the difference, but he never even attempted that -- for 26 months, we've had nothing but kciks in the teeth, scorn, and mockery, and, worse, advice from progressive talk show hosts that we 'make him' follow more progressive policies . . .
"...and, worse, advice from progressive talk show hosts that we 'make him' follow more progressive policies . . ."
Yes, this IS the worst of it all. I mean, it's bad enough that the liberal democrat turned out to be a neoliberal republican, but our real problem is not the president but the liberal media who enable him and try to scare us about just how awful the alternative is. (Thom Hartmann, an otherwise very intelligent fellow who knows the facts, is to my mind the worst offender, and it's tragic considering his large base of listeners.)
As Wisconsin, et al., show us, when republicans govern, people protest. The more radical the governing, the fiercer the opposition. But when a charming constitutional lawyer governs like a radical neoliberal, who will bring our country down just as surely as a republican, people--enabled by the enabling press--barely utter a sound.
I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer my fascism out in the open and over quickly, rather than the kinder-gentler version we have now.
Diana: Excellent post! Exactly my sentiments.
Hartmann, like other so-called liberals in the media, does the progressive and union movement a disservice, pandering to Obama and the Democrats.
"Peaceman"?
Maybe you could start a war between Liberals, Progressives, and unions and then your desired hard core fascism will be assured.
Jim Glover:
What's with the question mark? You KNOW darn well I voted for Cynthia McKinney for President in 2008. Many of us went back and forth on CD during the early months of 2008. If I remember correctly, you supported Obama or Ms. Clinton, and went along with the status quo, expecting different results. And now, the Democratic zealots are disappointed in "their boy wonder" in the White House, who's an extension of GWB, and will STILL vote for him next year, because he has a "D" after his name.
"my desired hard core fascism will be assured?" Apparently you're having a memory lapse, or in plain denial of Obama's record these past two plus years.
May you and peaceman get what you want.
For heaven's sake, I don't WANT republican rule, I don't WANT fascism. But the fact is, it's here! And, quite extraordinarily, people are not protesting it because it comes in the guise of a democrat, a charasmatic constitutional lawyer that the liberal media fawns over and spends all its time defending, mostly against trumped-up (no pun intended) issues like birth certifications.
The tragedy is that the liberal media urges us to accept Obama and the democrats as the only alternative, a viable alternative, one that means well but is simply outgunned by the opposition, one that is SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT from the opposition. Accepting this premise will get us nowhere.
I'm not urging people to vote for republicans. I'm urging them to see that the difference between republicans and democrats is, essentially, bullshit!
Diana, you are absolutely right. We've survived 45 consecutive years (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bonzo, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Bush3) of corporate pig leadership. What's four more years? VOTE THIRD PARTY!!!
Saint-Just: Amen!
donna: Yes indeed! Isn't it sickening?
As Dr Evil might think the "lesser evil" is not good enough too.
I do recall when several posts on this site trying to promote Ralph Nader were "dropped" a couple of years ago. Even the "progressives" only want to hear that which they've already decided upon it seems. Open minded so long as it is supportive of a main stream democrat.
The Corporate Coup continues - we need to change much more than the Sock Puppet in Chief.
Ho-Hum
All mouth ......no substance
Watch them vote for it...the devil will make them do it. Not my fault,etc.
Republicans and Democrats represent the interests of big business against American working families. The only difference between them is that the Republicans want to take back whatever crumbs working Americans ever got before, while Democrats still believe in giving us crumbs to maintain the illusion they are materially different from the Republicans.
In other words, they both f___ us in the a__, but at least the Democrats give us a reacharound.
You say that with a little too much pleasure for even a Progresive site.
To suppress competition, a monopolist's first goal, it is necessary to restrict entry by other would-be competitors and to discourage defection. Unions, which are in the business of suppressing competition in wages and benefits, like to prevent free trade and free trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA) because they threaten the union cartels. No surprises there.
Who gets hurt? The consumer, who pays more because unions elevate the costs of providing goods and services. Often, it's the poor who get hurt the worst because they spend everything they have on goods and services whereas the rich generally spend only a small portion on that and save the rest.
What about unemployment? Well, the increase in the minimum wage threw many teenagers out of work and stopped others from entering the work force. But it also improved the lot of those who were working at the previous minimums if they were lucky enough not to lose their jobs or have their hours cut back. Again, though, it was the people at the bottom end of the employment food chain who suffered the most and continue to suffer the most while the public workers kept their jobs at supra-competitive wages and benefits (that is, wages and benefits that were in many cases significantly higher than the comparable wages paid to people doing equivalent things in the private sector).
Whoreass:
Bite me.
Nice to hear from you, Uncle Blow.
I suggest that you get used to such treatment in response to your absolutely asinine and untruthful opinions. It is one thing to defend conservative political views and quite another to post one liner nonsense and obvious stupidities.
Does your attempt to emulate Limbaugh include the use of Oxycontin as well? Those who accuse you of being nothing more , and certainly nothing less, than a child seeking attention, of any kind obviously, seem to have a case considering your complete lack of a backbone. Posting ridiculous one liners is no way to defend ones political point, only a way to elicit the type of ridicule you seem so eager to wallow in.
"The golf course lies so near the mill
that almost every day
the laboring children can look out
and see the men at play."
yea, duh, sounds right, duh, grrgle, yea, you so smart, what duz monoplist mean, duh
2 + 2 equalz negativ 17 or was it 13 or i know equalz banana
I told those nurses your Thorazine dosage was too high! Next time your meds come around, you call me.
For someone who trusts Barry's reasoning: 2 + 2 = 0
For someone who trusts Bush's reasoning: 2 + 2 = 17 + sq root of 3
For someone who trusts Palin's reasoning: 2 + 2 = - 13 * pi
For someone who trusts Horace's reasoning: 2 + 2 = banana
Oh Horace!!!!!!
My simple recommendation to all is to ignore Horace. He is just here to poke the hornets nest and rile people up. For the most part he is not here to add anything to the discussion or make legitimate points. Just to spew right wing nonsense, like he did today. Yea pay people nothing is the way to build a healthy economy, everybody knows that. Just look at history, did Henry Ford make himself a very rich man by NOT paying his employees enough to buy the cars they made. 8-)
"He is just here to poke the hornets nest and rile people up. For the most part he is not here to add anything to the discussion or make legitimate points."
Which is, I suppose, why the CD admins keep him around.
That IS my way of ignoring him, but thanks for the support.
Horace, you want us to live on less than minimum wage so we could say we have a low unemployment rate. You want us to berate unions but still have weekends off and sick days and vacation days; all perks that unions fought for and gave to us. But more importantly, you want us to listen to you about free trade as if you are an unbiased expert. Here's a summary written by an economist, Ian Fletcher, on the ten assumptions that most in the field question with respect to free trade:
"The first problem is the assumption that trade is sustainable. But a nation exporting non-renewable resources may discover that its best move (in the short run) is to export until it runs out. The flip side of this problem is overconsumption, in which a nation (like the present-day U.S., maybe?) borrows from abroad in order to finance a short-term binge of imports that lowers its long-term living standard due to the accumulation of foreign debt and the sale of assets to foreigners.
The second problem is that free trade increases inequality even if it makes the economy grow overall (which is itself questionable). Because free trade tends to raise returns to the abundant input to production (in America, capital) and lower returns to the scarce input (in America, labor), it tends to benefit capital at labor's expense. Economists call this the Stolper-Samuelson theorem.
The third problem is so-called "negative externalities," the economists' term for when economic value is destroyed without a price tag being attached to the damage. Environmental damage is the most obvious example, but there are others, like the cost of writing off expensively-developed human capital (otherwise known as "people") when free trade wipes out entire American industries.
The fourth problem is positive externalities, like the way some industries (mainly high technology) open up paths of growth for the entire economy. All industries are not alike, and the profits of an industry today do not necessarily predict the industry's long-term value for the economy. Free trade can allow these industries to be wiped out because it ignores this hidden value, harming the rest of the economy for decades to come.
The next four problems concern the all-important Theory of Comparative Advantage, the theoretical keystone of free trade economics. This theory, invented by the British economist David Ricardo in 1817, says that free trade will automatically cause nations to specialize in producing whatever they are relatively best at, and that this will lead to the best of all possible worlds. To wit:
Problem number five is that Ricardo's theory assumes factors of production are mobile within nations. Unemployed autoworkers become aircraft workers, and abandoned automobile plants turn into aircraft factories. But this doesn't always happen, and when it does, it is often at considerable cost.
Problem number six is the assumption, in Ricardo's theory, that the inputs used in production (like labor, capital, and technology) are not mobile between nations. His theory says that free trade automatically reshuffles a nation's factors of production to their most productive uses. But if factors of production are internationally mobile, and their most-productive use is in another country, then free trade will cause them to migrate there--which is not necessarily best for the nation they depart.
Problem number seven is that Ricardo's theory assumes the economy is always operating at full output--or at least that trade has no effect on its output level. But if trade puts people and factories out of action, this isn't true.
Problem number eight is that Ricardo's theory assumes short-term efficiency is the origin of long-term growth. But long-term economic growth is about turning from Burkina Faso into South Korea, not about being the most-efficient possible Burkina Faso forever. History has shown time and again that the short-term inefficiencies of a tariff, properly implemented, are more than compensated for by the long-term spur to industry growth it can provide, largely because growth has more to do with the industry externalities mentioned above (problem number four) than short-term efficiency per se.
Problem number nine is that Ricardo's theory merely guarantees (if true, which is itself questionable due to problems five through eight) there will be gains from free trade. It does not guarantee that changes induced by free trade, like rising productivity abroad, will cause these gains to grow rather than shrink. So if free trade strengthens our economic rivals, then it may harm us in the long run by stiffening international competition, even if it was advantageous for us to buy goods from these rivals in the short run.
The final problem is that, in the presence of scale economies, the perfectly-competitive international markets presumed by the theory of comparative advantage do not exist. Instead, industries tend to be imperfectly competitive and quasi-monopolistic. Under these conditions, outsize profits and wages accrue to nations that host such industries. And free trade will not necessarily assign any given nation these industries."
TY yjoseph and your citation, Ian Fletcher. I am always happy when somebody is able to express succinctly and eloquently the inchoate musings whirling about in my head. Fletcher reminds me of my old Ag Economics and Development prof at UC Berkeley, Alain de Janvry, a brilliant guy who worked most of this out back in the late 70s. Don't know if the old boy is still around but he knew his way around the trade issue.
If public employees are paid more than those in private industry that says more about how exploitative commercial businesses are when unconstrained by unions or laws or regulations or social conscience.
Organized labor has done more for poor and middle class Americans than any/all of corporate slave holders. I recall the mill owners in Lawerance Mass. telling the teen age girls "work Sundays or don't come back Monday." Corporations will always fight to keep their slaves subdued and controlled. We will continue the struggle, however, against them/you.
I was a public worker for the last two decades of my working years and what I was paid was hardly "supra-competitive . . . significantly higher . . . than the private sector." I was a clerk typist, but the example I would like to put out there in rebuttal is the Certified Nursing Assistants. As public employees they were paid about what we clerks were, sufficient but hardly wealth, a basic "living wage." In private industry, at privately owned Skilled Nursing Facilities they were paid minimum wage with no benefits for work that can be as difficult as any there is -- keeping chronically I'll people alive, feeding them, cleaning those who could not clean themselves. They (and we clerks) did get our wages cut and seniority scammed away in an anti union benefits move that preceded the ones going on now (and that got no news coverage). This vilification of public employees and the disingenuous propaganda about the supposedly huge salaries being paid will, I hope, be challenged by some number crunching reporter who can put real data out there. I'm not ashamed of what I was paid, nor of the pension I'm receiving.
Minimum wage in the US territory of American Samoa.
2.69 per hour.
Unemployment rate.
29.3 percent.
Percentage of Children living below the poverty line in American Samoa.
69 percent.
Yeah Horace lower that minimum wage...great idea.
Horrace, you sound like one of those commentators on Fox news who reads everything from a script,actually it is not news, it is propaganda,and they got you to believe it,it i s sad that you have been buffaloed into supporting people at which your interests as well as your well being is the furthest from their agenda.
My god are you an idiot. You literally don’t ever know what you are talking about. First off, almost every single industry in the damn capitalist market economy are dominated by monopolies or oligopolies. These “free trade” deals do not increase competition, they make big businesses bigger. Once the potential competition is out of the way and people have no choice you just jack up prices and make super profits. That is why Adam Smith said that profits tended to be the highest in the countries going quickest to ruin. That is 100% the case. When Mexican farmers were thrown off the land because of SUBSIDIZED, cheap imports it does not lead to more competition, it lead to the out of work farmers turning to drugs, going to the big cities to look for work or taking up arms. You probably don’t know this, but there isn’t a “free market” even if there is no government activity in the economy if the economy is dominated by oligopolies or monopolies. That situation is closer to feudalism and their extra high profits more resemble rents, not profits. If you want to look it up, you probably don't, look up "price takers" vs. "price makers". Take CAFTA. There is a stipulation in CAFTA, which is basically in the South Korean pact as well, that says that the countries there had to buy non-generic drugs from US drug companies for a number of years. We knew that this would devastate the poor countries, we know it will devastate the Korean health care system, none of that matters. It will just increase profits, and that is all its about. That has nothing to do with a "free market".
“What about unemployment?”
If you are paid to come here, the people paying you are suckers. The US Census says that NOT A SINGLE STATE, not ONE, has seen a net private job increase because of NAFTA. Every state has seen a net job loss. Some jobs have been created by NAFTA but they have been more than negated by job losses and the salaries of the new jobs are lower than the jobs lost. Of the 11 “free trade” deals that we have signed, ONE (Singapore) has improved our trade balance. One out of eleven. All of the other deals have resulted in worsening trade balances. When you have a trade deficit you have job losses. If you bothered to understand what you are talking about and got out of how things are theoretically supposed to work (the theory is always based on unrealistic assumptions that have no basis in reality), you’d know these types of things. You are clearly lazy, so I’ll help you get going. Do a google search on our trade balances with Mexico and Canada before and after NAFTA. Shouldn’t be too hard, even for someone as thick as yourself. Then do research on the connection between a trade deficit and job losses. The estimates aren't hard to find.
“Well, the increase in the minimum wage threw many teenagers out of work and stopped others from entering the work force.”
Is it too much to ask for someone to know what they are talking about before they stand up and scream? Do some research, once again, on states like Oregon that increased their minimum wage laws, vs. the states that didn’t. Their economy grew MORE, because people had MORE money to buy stuff. You might not have noticed this thing called reality, so let me clue you in on a few things. Wages have stagnated or declined for going on 40 years in this country. During that time unions lost a lot of their power and membership (if you want to debate why, we can, you’ll lose like always). During that time marginal individual tax rates and corporate tax rates have been drastically cut. Services have been privatized, we have more “free trade” not less, amongst other things. What has been the effect in addition to the stagnant wages? Wealth inequality has exploded, the country has become de-industrialized (thanks in large part to deals like this), our democracy is now hallowed out. A disaster. What you want is for the parts of the economy that unions still operate in, the parts that give people higher wages and protect benefits, to more resemble that. You want wages to decrease even more. The lesson isn’t that people should join unions, because they protect people’s basic needs, your idea is that the people in unions should see their wages decline and their benefits decrease just like the workers who haven’t formed unions. This was called the "iron law of wages" by classical economists, and most people on the right wouldn't have enough guts to articulate a defense of this in public, you do it online, nameless and faceless. Trust fund boy.
IF you are paid to come here the people paying you are really stupid. If I were paying people to do the type of stuff you do I would want them to win arguments, to spread disinformation that benefits me. Are you doing that? All you do is puke out typical neoclassical nonsense that we’ve heard a million times, we all know it is the direct opposite of reality and that it doesn’t benefit people like us. You don’t ever respond to anyone’s destruction of your points and you make really bad arguments. Are you getting paid to simply irritate people? If that is the case give me the contact info to your pay master. I can play a brain dead reactionary online too. If I don’t have to make any logical points, if all I have to do is annoy people I’ll just get my Thomas Friedman book out and reword his nonsense. Post the number here, some people might need some extra dough.
You are wasting your time. He is here to agitate and nothing else.
The 2 corporate controlled parties stab the workers in the back, again. Unions level the playing field, improve wages and workplace conditions for the workers. Most of the other advanced industrialized countries have strong union movements at least two and three times our unionization rate and in many cases, many times our unionization rate. Sweden has about a 70% unionization rate, Finland's unionization rate is above 80% and both countries have high standards of living. Germany, Canada and Japan have unionization rates more than twice our unionization rate (11.9%). So the jackass right wing union hater is full of detritus as usual.
JerzyJoe: Good post! Plus they read and have a better understanding of labor history in Europe.
The potential Republican candidates rant and rave but do not garner much enthusiasm; while the Democratic incumbent favors disappearing from view--The poet W. B. Yeats said it all--"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity"
"Already Republicans are on board, another show of President Barack Obama’s ability to work with the GOP while irking his party’s liberal base."
Obama, with his Republican majority in the House, is finally able to really blossom, and come out of the closet, and be who he really is.
Liberals are really dumb if they expected anything else from this president. The only time he didn't talk like an all out free trader was when he was trying to get union votes during his primary battle with Hillary Clinton and even then it was obvious he was lying. Liberals have a profound misunderstanding of the truly minor differences between the two parties on most important issues.
Liberals are and always will be willfully ignorant -
which is why I like reading comments from PROGRESSIVES here.
The distinction is important.
“U.S. job creators": sorry to all you forked tongues, but not everyone has been hypnotized.
another day, another betrayal. Betrayal is the wrong word actually. That would imply that O Bomber was ever on the side of the people. He never was. That's crystal clear now. He's a corporate plant, put into office by the oligarchs who have skillfully played all of us.
He will probably get re-elected, which will be by design. Nevertheless I'm looking forward to voting my conscience and voting him out to make amends for my 2008 vote. Not that voting will matter at this point. Our masters own the electronic voting systems, and they can be manipulated to suit their agenda. If results were disputed, the Supremes will back the pro-corporate whore on the ballot.
We are overdue now for a second American revolution, but the empire must crumble first to wake up "we the sheeple"