Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Has Missed His Moment
Barack Obama has squandered his presidency. He had a fleeting moment to challenge the casino capitalism and financial recklessness of our economic and political elite. He could have orchestrated a state socialism that would have provided a safety net for tens of millions of Americans faced with dislocation and misery. The sums he has doled out to Wall Street could have been used to force companies to keep workers on the job or create new banks to open up credit. But he lacked the foresight and the courage to challenge entrenched power. And now we are headed down one of two frightening roads-massive deflation or hyperinflation. Neither will be pleasant.
Hyman Minsky-an economist largely ignored during his lifetime and now held up as something of a prophet-argued that speculative bubbles, and the financial collapses that follow them, are an inevitable consequence of unregulated capitalism. Minsky, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis who died in 1996, warned: "The normal functioning of our economy leads to financial trauma and crises, inflation, currency depreciations, unemployment and poverty in the middle of what could be virtually universal affluence-in short ... financially complex capitalism is inherently flawed." He called for socialized banking and stimulus packages to protect workers.
Our Minsky moment, however, has passed. Obama did not introduce radical measures to change our financial structures. And the outlook, even from Obama's chief financial advisers, is very gloomy. The U.S. economy will continue to contract "for some time to come," said Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council. "I expect the economy will continue to decline," with "sharp declines in employment for quite some time this year," Summers said Sunday on "Fox News Sunday."
The International Monetary Fund has forecast that the U.S. economy will shrink 2.8 percent this year and have no growth in 2010, with unemployment rising to 10.1 percent.
Deflation, for the moment, remains our most immediate threat. The Labor Department reported that in March the consumer price index fell 0.4 percent over the last year, the first decline in over 50 years. Home values have fallen in the last year by 18 percent. Our current deflation is not the massive deflation endured during the Great Depression, but if it continues, and it becomes sustained, it will wreck our economy. I suspect that the few trillion dollars thrown at an economy that may have lost as much as $40 trillion in wealth means deflation will win out.
A sustained deflation, such as the one that has afflicted Japan, would make it much harder for borrowers, who would have less cash, to pay off debt. It would fuel more defaults, see more bankruptcies and dry up credit. It would lead to a fall in wages. Those attempting to sell houses, or any other products, would watch helplessly as the value of what they own evaporated.
Classical economic theory states that when you pump huge sums of money into the economy you produce inflation. And Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke would like to trigger inflation to relieve the heavy debts weighing on many banks and investment houses. Inflation, because it reduces the value of the dollar, effectively devalues debts and reduces what many owe. This push toward inflation is why we have low interest rates. This is why we are printing and borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars. And this is why projected deficits are almost beyond comprehension.
The Congressional Budget Office recently released its analysis of the Obama administration's 10-year budget proposal. The projected deficit for fiscal year 2009 is $1.8 trillion. And the CBO projects deficits over the next 10 years that annually are between about $650 billion and $1 trillion. The CBO also projects that the outstanding federal debt held by the public will increase from 40.8 percent of GDP in 2008 to 82.4 percent in 2019. This is a doubling of the national debt over the next 10 years. These deficits are being produced to jump-start the economy, to prevent deflation and to produce inflation.
Inflation, which may look good if you are a Wall Street firm overloaded with bad debt, is as risky as deflation, however. It can easily morph into hyperinflation and bring, like deflation, political and economic instability. It can lead to runs on banks. It can make your currency worthless. It discourages investment and thrift. And when you borrow at the level we are borrowing at you frequently debauch your currency. This could lead to the dollar being abandoned as a global currency. Why would the Chinese, or anyone else, want to keep buying our debt while we work overtime to devalue our currency? It means, in essence, that they can never make a profit and what they own is being reduced daily in value.
Hyperinflation is never controlled domestically. It is created by outside forces. If China and other buyers of our debt view the endlessly increasing American deficit spending as a threat to the viability of the U.S. dollar they will abandon the dollar and reduce their purchases of treasury bills. Chinese leaders have already questioned the wisdom of keeping foreign reserves predominantly in the form of U.S. dollar-denominated treasury bills and bonds. And if they walk away from the dollar our currency will become junk and hyperinflation will race through the society like a plague.
Deflation or hyperinflation will be our nemesis. These are the only two options left. The speculators on Wall Street and in the White House are again rolling the dice. But be assured that no matter what combination comes up we are going to be fleeced.
- Posted in
247 Comments so far
Show AllViva Las Vegas!
I do not know how anyone can defend Obama's bankster policy when he is using the exact same formula that caused Japan's lost decade.
Yes we will have serious inflation.
When you give Banksters money and receive shares that is capitalism.
When you give Banksters money and receive nothing in return that is socialism for the uberich.
This collapse is a vehicle to totally crush the USA worker.
Obama had two directions to chose when he took office 1/20/09:
1)Takeover insolvent financial outfits (including insurance companies) and restore them to health like the gov. did for Conrail and the S&Ls. Although investors would lose out, a 2 to 3 year recession would be the extent of the damage to the broader economy, or
2)Throw US taxpayer dollars at insolvent financial outfits and hope for the best.
The damage is likely to be a 20 to 30 year depression.
Unfortunately, Obama selected #2.
The real point is that Obama made no choice at all. He simply chose to follow Wall Street's orders.
q
I do not enjoy playing the "devil's advocate" but someone must. I have pondered the words and the deeds of this new president in order to figure out why he is a huge disappointment. I believe he is trying to walk that thin line between doing as he would like to do and getting a rebellion in Congress, not only from the GOP but from his own party as well, that would make his term of office similar to that of Jimmy Carter, and working in increments with patience.
I do not put this theory forth with any real belief, frankly, just thought it needed saying.
That's generally how the discussion panel at The Nation's event on Obama's 100 days seemed to feel. Most of Obama's progressive actions have not been publicized by the administration, they keep it low-key, so it looks to most people as though he's rather moderate, if not slightly conservative.
Oregoncharles
Would you please list them here? Obama's "progressive actions" so far.
Thanks.
1. Repeal of global gag rule
2. Ordered closure of Gitmo & black sites
3. Executive order banning torture
4. Stimulus bill, including provisions for renewable energy, some healthcare reform, increased unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other needed social welfare
5. Budget priorities for education and other needed allocations for improving services
6. Announcement of suspension of federal raids on medical marijuana distribution sites
7. Relaxation of restrictions on remittances & family travel to Cuba, leading to a thaw in relations
8. Small overtures to Iran, and including Iran in regional conferences and meeting with its representatives
9. Calling for the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear arms
10. His acknowledgment of American arrogance, mistakes, etc abroad and his fair treatment of Chavez
11. The organic White House veggie garden
12. Release of torture memos
13. EPA putting all new coal mining licenses on hiatus
14. Reversing Interior Department land auction of last year
15. EPA finding that greenhouse gasses are a threat to human health and welfare
16. Calling for public insurance option in healthcare reform bill
17. Introduction & support of cap and trade legislation
18. Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
19. Acknowledging American responsibility for the drug war ravaging Mexico
I may be forgetting a couple. But all of these are either part of the progressive agenda or were cheered by progressives for the most part...and some of these are as simple as admitting the obvious truths that the previous administration refused to. I admit some have caveats, such as the release of the torture memos, but the administration could have simply ignored court rulings, it's not like a President has never done that before. Others, such as the budget, have more in them that progressives like but I simply don't remember more details (I'm pretty tired). If you want to add or subtract any, feel free.
Let's add some excellent appointments. He's made some I don't like, most particularly in economy and warfare. But Gates surprised me by stepping up and canceling some expensive dinosaurs.
His Labor secretary and his recently appointed Labor undersecretary are fiercely pro EFCA. Of course our Corporate Congress is against it. This will be a big fight to prevent it from becoming toothless.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I fear those cuts you speak of are cosmetic in nature . The F-22 for example is involved in the economy of 48 states, what chance Congress will approve that cancellation?
Yes, his EPA chief, climate czar, and green jobs czar are all excellent picks as well...Van Jones in particular is very exciting to those of us in the clean energy movement.
Just lay it all out so that perhaps I can be convinced that maybe Obama didn't squander his presidency after all.
"Let's add some excellent appointments. He's made some I don't like, most particularly in economy and warfare."
So why don't you just lay out the entire list so that we can see just how good his appointing was over all? Yes, ALL the appointments, good and bad. And you must realize that some appointments are more significant than others much as I hate to say it.
"His Labor secretary and his recently appointed Labor undersecretary are fiercely pro EFCA. Of course our Corporate Congress is against it. This will be a big fight to prevent it from becoming toothless."
True. However, when Dubya could push Congress to pass tax cuts for the wealthy/corporate elite, there must be a similar mechanism to push for EFCA and HR676.
Sometimes in life, people want to look at only the good qualities of their favorite figure. Looking at let alone correcting their weaknesses just isn't in their game plan. While I agree that courage is needed, I'm afraid that we progressives just can't put it out there.
Dubya had huge support in Congress for tax cuts for the rich. It was right up their alley. EFCA and Single Payer are very unpopular in Congress. Don't forget Congress has also been bought and paid for. Even my Congressman, Peter DeFazio, opposes Single Payer and he's generally fairly progressive.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Nice list, and well posted. It is simply the times I guess that force real progressives to utter disgust, torture and war and collapsing economies. Giving away huge sums to the same folks who stole our children's futures, no sign of real and strict regulatory powers as well.
The last sentence is what prevents me from taking the list of accomplishments seriously. I would have to say that of the list, a lot of it is just on paper and not materialized yet and could change. Maybe I'm too skeptical but I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I'm just disgusted with the way Obama has set the priorities so far and with the way he has done it, I see no chance of HR676 or EFCA becoming law and yet more pouring in of our troops into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan along with the possibility of yet more funny money "stimulus" junk to soak our nation with even more debt. Sorry if I sound like I have clouded judgment or something.
"Nice list, and well posted."
I try to be as fair as possible, except when it comes to nuclear power boosters or global warming deniers...the latter are just either idiotic fools or paid not to see it. When Obama does well, I will take notice and praise his actions. When he screws up, I will likewise notice and complain about it and sign whatever the related petition and such is.
"It is simply the times I guess that force real progressives to utter disgust, torture and war and collapsing economies. Giving away huge sums to the same folks who stole our children's futures, no sign of real and strict regulatory powers as well."
I think that's it too...all of this crap started way before he got any kind of power, or were started big time before he could officially do much to stop it. The financial problems go back decades, and I doubt anyone knows exactly what to do to fix (by radically changing) the system we have. My own rather simple and uneducated solution of getting rid of the stock market related "financial products", use the TARP and other program money to start new banks with clean balance sheets, and nationalize/abolish the Federal Reserve in favor of a central bank that the government lends from instead of borrows from would probably mess things up quite a bit.
As for the wars...he needs to stop those drone attacks in Pakistan ASAP. It's doing nothing but fueling the insurgency there (not to mention murdering plenty of more or less innocent people), and making the Pakistani government weaker in turn. For Afghanistan, I am not necessarily opposed to more troops there, as that would hopefully lessen reliance on seemingly indiscriminate air and drone strikes. I only hope that there is a strategy accompanying the increased troops to put our allies in a stronger position for the badly needed and inevitable peace talks between the Taliban and the government there.
"When Obama does well, I will take notice and praise his actions. When he screws up, I will likewise notice and complain about it and sign whatever the related petition and such is."
A startling concept, speaking from ones head and heart!
Red Rick said recently, "I work for a unique little company providing a service to people"
Red Rick also said recently, "My company paid Accenture 1.4 BILLION in fees in 18 months." PG&E.
PG&E is not a unique little company. It is a monopoly utility. The 200th biggest corporation in the US.
You're a corporate lackey-funny. Guesss what A******? I'm not ignoring you any more. You follow me around the threads calling me a piece of shit? Okay.
Well you won't be ignored any longer.
Yeah you sexist piece of trash, a few days ago you shared with CD, "I got laid once in Houston." I know you are stupid, but that would be offensive to many women. Maybe not to your "kiss my ass obamabot's" friend, Missouri Jenny who says, "You give dem bots a beating Rick."
But people that don't live in squalor and ignorance will find your mouth foul, your alleged sexual triumph disgusting, and your employment by PG&E to evidence you as a hypocrite and liar.
"Your Corporation," killed people too! Gave them Cancer. Birth defects. Nice little TV movie they made out of it.
Bring it on RR, I tried ignoring you but you stalked me? Okay. If you insist on fighting I will oblige you.
joecotton
Try working for a living yourself little boy. You cannot continue to live above your Mother's garage forever.
Oh and you are exactly a piece of shit, which you yourself prove with every single post.
This looks like an honest attempt at a list of Obama's more progessive initiatives. I'd like to address this list point by point.Thanks for doing this, Zman.
1. Repeal of global gag rule
A good thing, but I'll argue this isn' necessarily progressive. Old school conservative realpolitik-nics would do the same thing. They were big on family planning, although not always for the noblest of reasons. This is one of those events--and there are others on this list like it--that prove less the point of what Obama is than what he is not. He is not a nutbag social right loon. That's obvious, and largely not one of the critiques levied against him. In short, strawman.
2. Ordered closure of Gitmo & black sites
Neither is closed, and obviously Obama has allowed renditions to continue on his watch. Closing Gitmo, to me, is less about principle than damage control. If Obama did this as a matter of progressive principle, he would certainly have banned renditions, which are more abhorrent than Gitmo. The black sites--by definition--will be virtually unverifiable, so to me that's a push. If it happens, great. But so far, Obama clearly appears open to the necessity (in his view) of torture as a means for gathering intelligence.
3. Executive order banning torture
See above. Like a good corporatist, he appears more inclined to solve a labor problem by outsourcing the production. I think given the conflicting approaches on this issue, it can't be chalked up as a progressive impulse. After all, technically speaking, Bush was opposed to torture, too; he just defined his way out of the problem, yes?
4. Stimulus bill, including provisions for renewable energy, some healthcare reform, increased unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other needed social welfare.
This may possibly come true, but the provisions of this money will most likely go to private firms providing public services. I do see some basic decency in increasing lengths of unemployment insurance and food stamps, but please rememer, in dire moments, even Republicans have done this before. Trying to prevent a very public problem of hunger and starvation is a normal pr impulse for most ideologies.
5. Budget priorities for education and other needed allocations for improving services
I do think he'll be more infrastructure friendly, although again, I think that's largely a strawman. It depends on how much of this largesse becomes private pork. When Repos did this in the 80s and 90s with charter schools, private transportation spending, etc., they, too, argued it was a committment to enhancing the public good.
6. Announcement of suspension of federal raids on medical marijuana distribution sites
I'll concede this point. A great victory for potheads everywhere! In the pantheon of progressive possibilities, I wouldn't rate this too highly. But you're right, it's an improvement, however minor.
7. Relaxation of restrictions on remittances & family travel to Cuba, leading to a thaw in relations
How nice. A return to Clinton policy. This is so far from where a genuine progressive would be re: Cuba that it's not worth listing. I guess it's nice to let the servants travel home from time to time. It's an improvement over Bush, but that's a pretty low bar. Your average ant can hurdle that one with ease. Another minor "progressive" victory.
8. Small overtures to Iran, and including Iran in regional conferences and meeting with its representatives
See #1. The exact same scenario. Many cold war hawks talked to opponents. Kissinger diddled the North Vietnamese in Paris, as I recall. Nixon went to China. Are you sure you want to commit to this bullet? I'm not.
9. Calling for the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear arms
He's made no committment whatsoever on the US nuclear arsenal, has introduced no legislation to accomplish such a goal, and more likely than not meant by this idea "we aim to curb the nuclear ambitions of everyone NOT holding an American or Israeli passport". Juries way out on this one, and likely will be for years. This point should not be on this list. Please correct me if he *has* taken concrete steps and included the US arsenal in a general reduction plan.
10. His acknowledgment of American arrogance, mistakes, etc abroad and his fair treatment of Chavez
I agree with this point. It's a start. He's got a long way to go, but you're right, it is a start.Point given.
11. The organic White House veggie garden
That was Mrs. Obama, if I recall. Can we elect her? :)
12. Release of torture memos
The single most intriguing item on this list. There are two theories out there as to why this is happening. The first, from loyalist Dems, is that Obama is going to FOIA Bush et al into the docket. Not a bad theory on the surface, and if true, I'll rank this as his single biggest accomplishment hands down of his young admin. On the other hand, he has studiously rejected any push towards opening legal prosecution of the torturing establishment. That leads me to this:
There is, however, another theory, which is more disturbing. Most of tehsse revelations have come in the wake of devastating releases from private and NGO sources about the extent of torture, especially the Red Cross report that was leaked. In short, the cat was out of the bag, and Obama astutely decided to try to make lemonade with these lemons. None of these releases have occured prior to the big NGO leaks.
I lean towards the 2d theory myself. But the jury--so to speak--is out on this one.
Part Deux
13. EPA putting all new coal mining licenses on hiatus
Obama's been fellating big coal for some time. Hard to say if this is genuine or a set up to a serious "clean coal" campaign in the future. I will say that if we take this at face value, a good move for progressive environemtnal concerns. I do think the most progressive possibility coming out of Obamas presidency will probably be on the environmental front. It was one of the few acceptable areas of the Clinton administration, at least when compared to the rapaciousness of the GOP. So that's a point. For now.
14. Reversing Interior Department land auction of last year
See above.
15. EPA finding that greenhouse gasses are a threat to human health and welfare
Also above, although it's not much of a leap.
16. Calling for public insurance option in healthcare reform bill
The rest of his behavior has been strictly pro-insurance, as this is probably as well. He has shown virtually zero progessiveness on health care, frankly, other than to try to find ways for everyone to have to buy the crappy insurance "products". No way can I accept this. Sorry.
17. Introduction & support of cap and trade legislation
See 13.
18. Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Point clearly scored here. It was a boon for middle class white women in the corporate world. Now if the Hillary humpers could just do a little something for our poor sisters. That would be refreshing. Most great pay disparities are in corporate management, especially lower level supervision and management in the service sectors.
19. Acknowledging American responsibility for the drug war ravaging Mexico
I missed this part. If true, I'll also consider that progress.
Not a bad list, but most of these are a huge strethc. I also think you have to judge the meager accomplishments against the possible range he *could* have taken on some of the biggest issues, like the bankster bailout, healthcare, and employment/labor rights.
I tell you with all courtesy and respect: I still don't feel like Bush is gone in the biggest of pictures. But a good effort to introduce some sobriety into the evaluation. To me, what you've done is really stated the obvious: that Obama isn't Bush, and the a corporatist isn't a nutty evangelical. But is that really news worth celebrating? Maybe it is...:)
Thanks for your criticism, and I agree with most of it. I am a bit more optimistic about Obama regarding environmental issues, but that may be because I am more into environmentalism right now than any other facet of progressivism. However, I did include disclaimers at the bottom of my list, and I did carefully choose the words I included in the list. Such as the ordered closure of Gitmo and black sites and the executive order banning torture...I said that he ordered them closed and that torture be ended, not that they have closed or that torture has ended. He surely cannot control individual guards "wanting to get their last licks in" as I believe another CD poster put it, but he can renounce it as official government policy.
And as I also stated, most of these are not so much a big part of the progressive agenda so much as admitting the obvious truth, such as the EPA finding on greenhouse gasses or Obama's acknowledgment of America's mistakes. However, taking the official position that these are problems paves the way for dealing with them in a decisive manner. I expect that Obama's Presidency, hopefully two terms, will be a long, hard, bitter fight for progressives. But I am hopeful that quite a few progressive policies and laws will be enacted, and eight years from now our country will be in a better position to live up to its ideals.
And I will make one counterpoint to one of your counterpoints, re: Cuba. The Cuban government has reportedly offered to discuss all issues of interest between us in response to Obama's "return to the Clinton policy" are you put it. I am fairly young but I have not heard of them offering such frank discussion before. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Zmann says (sorry, I left off an 'n' in my previous post! apologies) And I will make one counterpoint to one of your counterpoints, re: Cuba. The Cuban government has reportedly offered to discuss all issues of interest between us in response to Obama's "return to the Clinton policy" are you put it. I am fairly young but I have not heard of them offering such frank discussion before. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this."
I'm not young, and Cuba's offering to talk has been perpetual--on Cuba's part. So you're telling me what Raul is offering. No shock there. Fidel offered the same package for decades, providing that one of the topics would be the removal of the embargo (which, by the way, is not only a rejection of the "free-trade" principles so dearly loved by capitalists, but also an act of war).
As a quick primer, one of Castro's first acts after seizing Havana was to try to talk to the US ambassador in order to start a dialogue establishing the new parameters between revolutionary Cuba and the US. He was soundly rebuffed.
To be honest, Obama sadly has more important issues on his plate then Cuba, although I'm hoping that if he really is a progressive wolf in sheep's clothing, that he quickly wraps his head around the fact that he cannot, and will not, be able to appease the GOP and their attack dogs and forge a bipartisan consensus about much of anything. If he does, and he has progressive impulses, we may have a fighting chance to dig out of some this mess. I just don't see any tangible evidence of this yet. In fact, his presidency is close to be finished early, much as Clinton's was, for the same reasons and, oddly enough, by many of the same bastards.
The GOP strategy is clearly to try and repeat their success with Clinton, forcing Obama to enact their agenda (which they will of course bitch about publicly, privately loving every minute of it). That's the outcome I'm seeing right now.
Best.
The only policy that the GOP and Obama seem to have in common is keeping the banks alive...with nearly anything else, I just can't really see them privately loving what he's doing. If the public insurance option gets stripped from the healthcare reform bill, that would be another one, but that is more a fight we have to win in Congress. With everything else, Obama is reducing tensions abroad, instituting meaningful (and hopefully lasting) environmental policies, and is supporting the EFCA, which is anathema to the GOP, although he should be doing a lot more to push it. I don't think the GOP would agree with the doubling of federal education spending, federal plans to create high-speed rail corridors, mandatory carbon emissions caps, promoting organic food to the detriment of the big agriculture/pesticide lobby (even if it is through his wonderful wife), etc. What policies do you see Obama working to enact that the GOP would agree with, minus the commitment to rescuing banks (and even then, they decry any increased government control over them as fascism)?
I'm already having regrets about voting for him starting in March. Thanks for pointing out the depressing news.
My thanks to you and Zmann both for a model of debate that all should adopt.
As to the subject matter, I find that progressives , desperate for something to hang our hats on, search the every word of President Obama for such a handle. Further, it seems obvious that there are those who will search with equal vigor for negatives to place against those words and proposed actions. I have been , up to now, one of the latter.
I think we must separate the man from the system when discussing his intentions or his supposed qualities or negatives. I have little hope that this man we discuss will be able to single handedly alter a sick and unjust system, he will not. Nevertheless I believe it unfair to fail to consider that some of the eloquent criticisms I read above overlook the fact that there will be a lag time between word and deed.
The President makes policy and his administration moves to implement it, with the cooperation of Congress of course, and there indeed is the rub. I am become willing to grant the president kudos for words and intentions and am also willing to await the actuality and implementation thereof. I will not stop writing ,emailing and , when possible, demonstrating, however, but we must avoid complete negativity at all costs, I believe, as it leaves us outside looking in, as usual.
Thank you Skip Townes for pointing out the details. As I suspected, all I see are a few progressive sprinkles only to be covered with more of the same rightwing slop. I don't see Obama pushing for long term progressive reform. All he has are some short term quickies and others that are just on paper but have yet to materialize and are in fact very open to change in the wrong direction. For example, I don't know that at this rate Obama and his crew will keep up their pledge to close GITMO. And on #19, Obama has already made it clear that he has no intention of ending the phoney war on drugs even though he acknowledges America's role in the mess. There's more but you get the drift.
Here's the problem, some of what you listed isn't what Obama believes in or campaigned on, some of it he did extremely reluctantly and some of it isn't true.
Sure he signed an order to close Gitmo, or attempt to close it - IN A YEAR. Meanwhile he's sending more and more people to Bagrham in Afghanistan where he's gone ever farther than Bush in attempting to squelch the rights of those he's continuing to send there.
His executive order banning torture reserves the right for his administration to.....TORTURE - if the circumstances deem it necessary.
The stimulus bill remains to be seen whether it will be a good thing or not.
The suspension of federal raids is a bunch of crap. The DOJ has released their official position and this suspension is just NOT TRUE. Ask all the people who've been raided SINCE Obama came into office. Do some research.
Reduction and elimination of nuclear arms but probably not in his lifetime - according to him. In other words, a BS statement.
Release of torture memos - extremely reluctantly, almost forced - again his own admission.
Don't give Obama credit for what the EPA does. Obama believes in clean coal, he appointed a director who believes in taking down mountains for mining.
Obama talked a good game about single payer health insurance until it actually mattered - when he has some power. Since then it's been mandatory HEALTH INSURANCE, not universal HEALTH CARE. There's a bill in the house that calls for Medicare for ALL. When O-blah-blah had his health care conference - he didn't include ANY single payer advocates. He was FORCED to invite 2.
Obama IS NOT progressive. It's offensive to actual progressives when you refer to Obama as one. Obama is a Corporate Centrist Democrat and it shows everywhere.
"Most of Obama's progressive actions have not been publicized by the administration, they keep it low-key, so it looks to most people as though he's rather moderate, if not slightly conservative."
That sure sounds like putting power over honesty. This is what I get angry with Obama about. There is nothing moderate or independent about Obama in reality. He's making a mountain out of an ant hill every time. If he were even a true moderate I might have taken him seriously but at this point, it's safe to say that he's nothing but another political opportunist corrupted since 2005 to say the least.
Or perhaps he walks the thin line of Washington politics? Dammit I WANT to like him! This one is going to have to play out before we can speak to his intent and methodology.
Of course it is still the system!
I understand he's facing a tough system and I wish him well but maybe I'm not sure what to make of him. Maybe I'm judging by history along with his present moves to judge him. I don't know.
The way Obama is being attacked by everyone on the Right (which pretty much includes nearly all of the media) for even barely liberal positions such as increased regulations while still shoveling money to the banks should give anyone pause before openly embracing a progressive agenda. The Right could all too easily whip up a populist uprising...Chris Hedges has warned about this, and Fox (not) News's ability to create the 'tea parties' last week demonstrate this potential. Personally I am glad Obama is keeping the progressivism quiet so far. The longer he can pull this off, maybe enough Americans will come to realize how great progressive policies can be and they'll be able to resist whatever the Right throws at them. In a sense it is already working...Obama's approval numbers remain way up, despite three months of the media claiming he's basically the next StaliMaoHitssolini and we're about to become the Fourth Reich. I have to see this kind of crap at work on a daily basis, and it's become ingrained into my perspective of Obama's actions. Basically, whatever Fox (not) News decries as fascism and/or unAmerican, you can count on Obama having done something for the liberal/progressive agenda. Try judging him by his opponents' reactions for a while instead of your progressive ideals, which are great, but also seem to be frustrating you.
Look, I understand that the Right is attacking Obama and I can see that they're doing it for totally different reasons even though I know that they're completely wrong. For the most part Obama's giving them everything they really wanted. It's just that they're asking for more more more. Maybe he did some progressive things but either it's small enough or simply on paper yet to be materialized. Where are his priorities? Trade reform? Single payer? EFCA? Paying down the national debt? Ending our wars and occupations? Look towards repealing the pro-corporatist rules or at least reforming them? Maybe my mind is cloudy but all I see is his pushing to keep the status quo than pushing for a new and better direction. Maybe I'll be proven wrong by the end of the year but right now I seriously doubt it. I don't listen to or watch Faux Noise. His opponents' reactions are just mere distractions to make it look as if Obama is "moderate" or even somewhat progressive but I'm still not buying it.
Actually I think his priority right now is to restore the status quo, at least as much as possible. I think it would be easier to sell the citizenry on the benefits of progressive policies such as actual diplomacy, ensuring a stable financial system, reductions in carbon and increases in renewable energy, and yes even single-payer healthcare once people no longer worry if they'll be homeless in a week. I don't think we have the capability to arouse peoples' passions as much as the Right does right now, and the sooner people stop freaking out, the better. And thanks for not tearing me a new one :-)
I don't expect him to get anything done overnight either. It's just that a lot of his major actions on the war and the economy have scared the lights out of me even more than before I voted last year. I've given up hoping that he'll even try to end the phoney war on drugs. As far as the Right arousing emotions, I'm immune to it but probably because I grew up in the rurals getting used to it and then learning to just turn the other cheek and put a blind veil against them. I don't believe in arousing people's emotions because in the end nothing gets done. Heck, I can even put up with my granduncle's rightwing rants in Lubbock, TX. Bring up the issues of NAFTA Superhighway and turning towards domestic sources of renewable energy, he'll beg for any pol who'll actually fight for it even if it's a Democrat or Independent. And I didn't even bring up the issue in an emotional manner last year when I got to visit him. Maybe I should have gone to that stupid tea party and brought up those same issues and seen for myself just how many of them I could tame. What I'm saying is that it's not really hard to tame the Right. It's just that Obama is relying on the same old tired strategies for moving to that mythical "center" just like Clinton did.
I think Obama is trying more to move the center, than to move to the center. Or at least, I hope so.
Well, it had better be a good center and not the default bad one. :)
I believe Barack Obama to be a decent man attempting to do the right thing as he sees it to be, excepting, of course, for his execrable appointments and his desire to escalate the war. The focus on the left must be altered from individual foibles to systemic failures if we hope to change anything.
There is a penchant among the electorate to treat our politicians like sports heroes or movie stars, and cults of personality overwhelm serious political thought. Those who become successful in a bad system cannot be our heroes after all. We can never hope to find a candidate who can satisfy our wishes for this nation when , in order to be a successful candidate, they must perforce cater to the monied interests who do not share the goals of the left.
Hi zmann, first I want to thank you for standing up for me when I was being attacked personally for my opinion.
I liked the comment you made about Obama being attacked by the right and the left. He's in a no win place. The left sees him doing so much wrong, and so does the right. I think both extremes are pretty intolerant.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
The Right is merely trying to distract the public from seeing the pandering to the Right by the weak opposition. As for the left being intolerant, well what do you expect when Obama trashes his base? He's not even a true moderate or independent. He's turned himself into a political opportunist. Like Bill Clinton, he's running towards the mythical faux "center" and making the same mistakes Clinton made throughout his presidency. And if you think Obama is going to get a second term so easy, the only way he'll get it is if the GOP puts up a really fringe rightwinger as the nominee in 2012. We'll see what happens then. So far, Obama's giving more to the Right than he is to his base.
BFK: "Hi zmann, first I want to thank you for standing up for me when I was being attacked personally for my opinion.
I liked the comment you made about Obama being attacked by the right and the left. He's in a no win place. The left sees him doing so much wrong, and so does the right. I think both extremes are pretty intolerant."
This is new-agey wrongness. The positions are not equivalent at all. The left criticism is factual, the right's is purely fabricated OR, at best, hypocritical when it is accurate. Do not for one fucking minute lump me in with the teabagging crowd. Thank you.
Here's a brief and simplistic ideological primer. It's a generalization, but it's illustrative nonetheless.
Left (socialists, anarchists, communists, social liberals) ---------> corporatists (Obama, Clintons, Gore circa 2001 and previous: they are socially tolerant, love diversity, and fully support both the empire, the use of force to secure raw materials, debt peonage and wage slavery, and the notion that the investor class is most fit to rule the world) --------------> Fascists/Theocrats/Assorted Authoritarian Nutbags (insert evangelical McChurch pastors, GOP elites who actually believe the BS they say, Rush Limbaugh, all white guys in the Midwest and the South not living in university towns).
We don't like Obama because he's a corporatist. The rank and file right doesn't like him because he's, well, a corporatist. If you're in the middle, you're roadkill.
Actually, there is no real middle. It's just a repeat of the "triangulation mantra" Clinton did back in the 1990s. You and I will be accused of "personally attacking" someone for pointing out this fact. If BeForKids were really tolerant, she would have acknowledged the fact that shouting against those of us who point out that misusing conspiracy theory excuses to shamelessly defend cowardly behavior and piss poor leadership is itself intolerant. Maybe BeForKids is very rich and well off to understand us. I don't know.
Skip_Townes, I'm not suggesting the positions are equivalent. But I do see considerable intolerance on the left for views that are different from their own. That was my point. Be it Nader, Kucinich, Obama - they all come under attack. And so do their supporters.
And I agree, he's a corporatist. There's no way in Hell he could have gotten elected otherwise. This country is owned by the corporations, and he knows it, as we do. But I also think he's trying to move the center to the left.
I enjoyed and appreciated the thoughtful and courteous discourse between you and zmann. It is what I hope to see on CD, not insults and personal attacks.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"But I do see considerable intolerance on the left for views that are different from their own. "
Intolerance? The only intolerance is you misunderstanding others and then accusing them of intolerance. You don't even understand the real meaning of the word center. There is no real center. Obama is just pretending to be a "centrist".
"And I agree, he's a corporatist."
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
"There's no way in Hell he could have gotten elected otherwise. This country is owned by the corporations, and he knows it, as we do."
There's no proof of that. There have been non-corporatist pols elected from time. Obama simply chose to take that "easy" shortcut. So corporations may own the country but does that mean we should keep giving up and voting for more status quo?
"But I also think he's trying to move the center to the left."
Oh really ??? There's very little to prove that he's even trying. He's only copying the same old triangulation strategies of the 90s.
"I enjoyed and appreciated the thoughtful and courteous discourse between you and zmann. It is what I hope to see on CD, not insults and personal attacks."
Nobody's attacking you personally. You didn't even read my posts to begin with but no problem. You're not used to understanding other people's points of view. But go right ahead and keep up your name-calling and misunderstanding. When Obama loses his party in Congress in 2010 and his seat in 2012, maybe then you'll understand. I may not tolerate defending cowardice but does that still make me "intolerant" ?
Oh please... What is it that he actually has done... He is just running around and doing what our oligarchs tell him.
Interesting point, Rick, and I believe there is merit to this.
I agree with you, Red Rick. I also suspect he was stuck with going to the financial industry for enough money to beat back the Republican assault machine and the price was Geithner and Summers. He probably had to weigh his options. A one term presidency or assassination.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Oh great ! There you go again and I hate quoting Raygun but you leave me no choice. Raygun faced assassination attempts but he still marched on. Obama's acting way too cowardly and making a mountain out of an ant hill. One term presidency or assassination ?!?!? That is just plain dumb and inexcusable thinking. We might as well have had another 8 years of Dubya and Cheney for all that silly fear. Thomas Jefferson had far more wisdom than Obama. The Republicans were going to bash Obama no matter how far he tried to appease them. You should study history of the US and learn something about courage vs cowardly behavior. Like the singer "Yes" of the song "Owner of a lonely heart" would sing "TAKE YOUR CHANCES, WIN OR LOSE!"
JenniferBedingfield, I considered answering your post, but decided it would be a waste of time. Too much like arguing with a rabid dog. Maybe when you grow up you will acquire some manners. At this point it doesn't look too hopeful.
So go ahead. Foam and froth away. I'm done with you.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson