Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Credibility Gap
Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don't get it soon - or if they don't like the answer - the president's current political problems will look like a walk in the park.
Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.
Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won't be able to close it.
Mr. Obama's campaign mantra was "change" and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
"Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less," said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. "More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach."
Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.
But that's what happened. Moreover, questions were raised about Mr. Obama's candor when he spoke about health care. In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering "a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits."
Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people's benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.
Well, that wasn't necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people's coverage as a result of "reform," and some of those changes would be substantial. At a forum sponsored by ABC News last summer, Mr. Obama backed off of his frequent promise that no changes would occur, saying only that "if you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don't want you to have to change."
These less-than-candid instances are emblematic of much bigger problems. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on.
How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?
Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats' filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class. Suddenly, with the public appalled at the scandalous way the health care legislation was put together, and with Democrats facing a possible debacle in the fall, Mr. Obama is back in campaign mode. Every other utterance is about "fighting" for the middle class, "fighting" for jobs, "fighting" against the big bad banks.
The president who has been aloof and remote and a pushover for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who has been locked in the troubling embrace of the Geithners and Summers and Ben Bernankes of the world, all of a sudden is a man of the people. But even as he is promising to fight for jobs, a very expensive proposition, he's proposing a spending freeze that can only hurt job-creating efforts.
Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he'll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.
They want to know who their president really is.

100 Comments so far
Show AllBob>>>
The guy hasn't ment a single word he's uttered since 2007. We've heard the talk and watched the walk. I think we know where his priorities lie... and in my view, little barry blabla is finito. One Term AND mediocre.
During the 1960s the term credibility gap was a euphemism for lies.
Herbert asserts that Americans don't know where Obama stands.
The reason Democrats recently lost in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts is because Americans DO know where Obama stands.
While Obama apologists are still blaming the Dubya Regime and Congress for Obama's shortcomings, Obama owns protracted corporate welfare for banksters, Obamacare and some other issues 100%.
"The reason Democrats recently lost in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts is because Americans DO know where Obama stands."
I so agree with you!
Also, is anyone actually going to listen to the State of the Union message?
After a year of these disappointments, is there anything he can say that will cause us to believe Him?
He's a lying sack of shit is who he is. The 1st rule of politics is ignore their words if their lips are moving its usually because they're lying a mile a min. Watch the walk and we've seen where this fool wants to take us and we don't want to continue down this path.
"Credibility gap? Credibility gap? That means the honkey's lying!", Stokely Carmichael
Tony Vodvarka
Yes, I heard this morning on NPR that he wanted to freeze and or cut programs, as long as it was nothing that affected security -- code for cutting programs that might affect ordinary Americans but keeping the MIC safe and sound so we can keep killing people in the Middle East.
"Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won't be able to close it."
Forget the danger, he's already there. From many comments I read on a variety of sites the credibility gap is already so wide that he can't close it. Nor do I think he will be able to. I don't see where he has the ability to do this. It's not part of his makeup.
Obama was always aloof and remote. That was my impression of him even during the campaign. How people saw him as a "man of the people," I'll never know. I did not see that either. I'll say it again -- Barack Obama, I hope, has called George W. Bush and thanked him for being such a linguistically-impaired loon, because without him Obama would not be President today. Obama also became President because of the persistent dumbing down of the American people.
"They want to know who their president really is."
Well, not all the people in the country are as dumb as its journalists. Many people already know all too well who he is, and are well along the way into pondering the question of what if anything they can do about it.
It's only they journalists who are scratching their heads in (real? feigned?) confusion.
No, Bob, the president isn't a "pushover" for the health/drug/financial industries. He's their faithful servant. Anyone who tries to push him in a different direction will find that he is anything BUT a pushover.
Obama knows that the victors write history and he expects the victors to be the corporate oligarchs so he wants to be one of their champions. The non-elites in the US today are in a position similar to that of the Native American Indians in the 16th-19th Centuries. Obama's campaign promises are much like the treaties between the US and the tribes that were repeatedly signed and broken.
Excellent comparison Kivals! I don't think that the federal government ever honored a single treaty they made with the native Americans and Obama hasn't kept any of his camoaign promises with the exception of escalating the war in Afganistan. Peas in a pod.
Obama could simply revisit FDR's 'Economic Bill of Rights' that was proposed in Jan. 1944 for tips on how to proceed. He could also take a hint from the same president as to how to create jobs -- start a modern-day equivalent of the CCC, WPA, etc, and begin putting people back to work. If the GOP or Blue Dogs vote against it, hold them up as examples of politicians that are standing in the way of recovery, as FDR did.
On health care, Obama should simply return to the promise he made last summer: he will not sign any bill without a public option -- period. Even if health care fails, he will get back some of his lost progressive base and independents. He needs to show some spine.
Meantime, while the debate over health care reform drags on, ask Congress to pass, through reconciliation in the Senate, an extension of Medicare benefits for those 55 and over. Pay for it by increasing SS withholding for those making over $250,000 per annum. This will not only be a step in the right direction for an age bracket most needing health care, but it will be a slap in the face to the GOP who will, of course, automatically oppose it. Imagine the campaign ads in '10 and '12: "Your Republican representative or senator opposed extending Medicare for the middle-class in a time of desperate need." Let the GOP wiggle out of that one.
Obama doesn't need another rousing speech – he needs to do something. No matter how many times he repeats some form of the word 'fight' in a sentence, most of the public isn't buying. If he doesn't start showing some real tangible change, you can say hello to President Palin in 2012.
BTW, Bob Herbert was wrong about one thing: "Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats' filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish..."
The Dems never had a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate. Aside from the quisling Lieberman, there are at least 10 Blue Dog Dems who are dedicated to undoing any real progress on behalf of their corporate benefactors, led by the execrable Sen. Evan Bayh, a 'ConservaDem' from Indiana.
Precisely, RSJ:
To restore democracy to the US Obama does not need to break 1 millimeter of new ground, he simply needs to dust off Teddy Roosevelt's (trustbusting and conservation) playbook and dust off Franklin Roosevelt's (New Deal) playbook.
While the military industrial media complex and Obama apologists keep telling us that the Roosevelts' actions are "dated, obsolete and relics of a bygone era", the nature and practices of criminals haven't changed throughout recorded history.
Yes, regulations need to be updated to address new Wall Street schemes (the banksters call them financial products) but the basic regulations will be applicable as long as the banksters, their descendents and imitators continue to foul the face of the earth.
Has anyone else here heard
any of the following rumors:
1. That the Federal Reserve is
the central bank of the U.S.
set up by the Rothschild
banksters to serve their own
personal interests?
2. That the New York Federal
Reserve Bank is the "head of
the octopus" -- that is, the
controlling branch of all the
other Federal Reserve banks?
3. That Timothy Geithner was the
head of the New York Federal
Reserve before becoming U.S.
Secretary of the Treasury --
and therefore could be seen
as the "capo" of the Rothschilds?
4. That Bernanke is current head of
the Federal Reserve because he is
yet another high-placed tool and
servant of the Rothschild bankster
family?
5. That Obama -- like every "President"
of the United States for the past
century or so -- became "President"
only because he was suitable to the
Rothschilds, and serves only so long
as he serves their interests?
6. That Geithner -- the "capo" for the
Rothschilds -- is actually MANAGING
"President" Obama, and making sure that
every single thing Obama does serves
the interests of the Rothschilds?
Just wondering.
Who Obama is: a product of marketing.
So that whenever you see his lips a-moving, you know the process of manipulation has begun. The way he started speaking in a different cadence the FIRST DAY after the election loss in Mass was absolutely disgusting.
This leads to the query: "How stupid do they think we are?"
To answer:follow the money.
Has wealth ontinued to flow up from the poor/working class to the elite?
YES! (too bad they won't let you make the font larger)
I no longer believe it is possible to change the flow of resources back downward within the D-party. Not going to happen. We will continue to be as clueless as they want us to be until we get the gumption to organize our own independent political structure.
Are we there yet???
Like drug addicts, most Dems need their daily fix...in this case they need daily bribes from K Street and will do whatever it takes to get them.
You should stay away from those ultra-right wing libertarian websites. Skip them, and go to the source. Hitler had all this to say a long time ago. They're just regurgitating this crap, wrapped in new clothes.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/House_Rothschild_TSOTFR.html
There is a credibility gap all right. Obama can't believe that he is losing the support of his base. He still believes he can muster broad support from his base for Health Care Reform that benefits private for profit insurers with a mandate, more war in Afghanistan, domestic spending freezes, and weak financial reform. I laughed when David Pouffe's latest email exhorted me to work to put Obama's economic freeze agenda through Congress. We see Obama scold bankers and yawn. Doesn't he know we see what a Kabuki show it is? I've seen Senator Bob Casey do the same thing. On the one hand he talks about how immoral Health Insurers are and tells the audience that he's just as angry as they are about these immoral practices, and then turns around and tells the same audience that he hates "government run Health Care" as much as they do. Obama is in this same cast. Everything would be fine if we could just get the corporate world to behave better by appealing to some sense of social conscience or even patriotism on their part. Obama too excoriates private financial interests but refuses to use the power of the government to control their behavior. The SNL parody of "Rock Obama" has it right. We want to see Rock Obama tear into his enemies. "Don't make me mad--you don't want to see me when I get angry." But unlike the SNL parody the real Barrack never reaches the point of transormation into the Hulk-- he merely postures.
His base is not so forgiving. We are angry and its not just at the bankers. "Don't keep making us angry Barack. You don't want to see us when we get really angry."
I unsubscribed from the Obama propaganda mailing. I stayed with it for a while just to read the BS and laugh, but I thought about when I saw how the Obamabots flocked to the article on Pouffe's basically coming back to put Obama back in campaign mode (good grief!), and all I could think about where those painful e-mails, along with the host of other clowns that have written these missives, including the ones from Barack and Michelle (although I'm pretty sure the two of them didn't write the missives). Yep, support the economic freeze and by all means don't ignore the DONATE button.
Many Obamabots are college-educated. To see them continue to fall for Obamaganda and paying for their own demise confirms the US education system has failed in the critical thinking and common sense departments.
Too, many are uneducated minorities who do not want to see Obama fail.
raydelcamino - the buggers aren't hungry yet and they don't see themselves included in the planned Demographic Collapse. They still believe, "Master likes me best." And no, since when is "critical thinking" part of any college syllabus? I thought they had it down to multiple choice and buying papers with a guaranteed "A". The corruption goes to the core. The values are simple, "whatever gets the grade" "whatever makes the deal" "whatever floats MY boat" THAT is all that matters. Those values can take you all the way to the White House and murder 15% of the population, and finish RICH.
People who can wave around a degree are no less stupid than people who are illiterate.
A guy makes promises. As soon as he gets what he wants he forgets them. How does a degree help anybody decide the guy is untrustworthy?
Farm animals will come to be fed every time they are called IF they are fed each time. Stop feeding them, they stop coming.
A remarkable number of people are not that smart.
Bob, you make a valid criticism of Obama’s varied positions on a multiplicity to varied symptomatic ‘issues’.
But here’s the single, seminal, and underlying ‘cause’ of all these problematic ‘issues’ that Obama has to level with the American people to restore his credibility and save our democracy: ---- its not health care, nor the economy, nor the wars, nor the hundred other distractive symptomatic 'identity issues' that are ALL caused by the exact same big metastasizing tumor of cancer.
It begins with an 'E', but its not Economy ---- it's EMPIRE.
In his "State of the (democratic) Union' he should forcefully point out that today we're almost totally controlled by a previously well hidden corporatist EMPIRE --- now made more visible by the supreme court's treason of literally handing over our country to the Empire overtly.
While this problem can not be solved by any quick legislative or other means, that he will actually 'lead' and solve this (and all our other problems caused by Empire) and he will do it by moving to the Green (independent) Party (which does not accept corrupting corporate Empire money), and then Obama should challenge all those he is addressing in Congress, who have the guts to represent us (and the U.S.) to follow him and shun the hopelessly corrupted and 'bought' Dem/Rep single corporate Empire's two-faced phony party.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Herbert says that Obama "cannot always be trusted"! The more apt question is: Can he EVER be trusted? The numbers of those foolish enough to answer in the affirmative is rapidly diminishing. We are in the midst of an Obamination.
"cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap "
Is the Grand Canyon a gap?
It's commonly referred to as a chasm. Obama like his buddy Clinton, is a supreme waffler; and like Clinton, his waffles are toxic.
Actually all politicians are toxic but non more so than Bush.
"Obama like his buddy Clinton, is a supreme waffler; and like Clinton, his waffles are toxic." -- karlof1
I agree! Great analogy and clever, too! Thanks!
Thanks for the reply. That little line can be followed up with this: Don't swallow any of the rhetoric Obama feeds you; it's best to regurgitate it into the face whence it came.
He ran as 'Saviour and Cheif' because americans wanted a quick fix after allowing the world and themselves to be ravaged.
It was almost inevitable, given the momentum of social and psychological forces which do create and form our economies and institutions, etc. They are made through the agency of human beings.
One thing i did know - he wasn't going to 'save' anyone from themselves. And the u.s. wasn't going to be 'redeemed' because they managed to vote for the first bi-racial president.
But they sure appeared to believe this was the 'cure'.
It's all about learning through experience. People don't like to be duped by their 'Redeemers'.
Learning does happen. One way or another. Same theme, different stage sets and costumes. The key is to see beyond the surface. And then respond to what is real.
Obama was quite apparantly disingenuous to those americans who *wanted* to see. Obviously. Because it is the truth. So it was always right there.
Sioux Rose
READY: If by savior you mean the new driver does NOT allow the speeding car to head off the cliff, then I'd agree. I think any sane person presumed there would be at least SOME areas in which matters improved! I remember very compelling debates in this forum that explained in a way I'd never so clearly understood, the role of good cop/bad cop as played by the D and R teams. The wisdom from the forum was that the democrats would toss some crumbs to the people, but not radically alter the agenda. In this case, there is NO change whatsoever! I can't find any crumbs. The worst of Bush policies are not only being followed, but as some have noted, by the democrats maintaining these not-exactly-legal, and overtly immoral policies, they essentially lend their stamp thus normalizing what no sane, just, or humane society should EVER countenance. Not only has the symbolic "center" moved to the right, a great many state-sponsored actions only differ from those of history's worst criminals and murderous dictators in style. The substance is all too tragically the same! That should make us all shudder.
As much as I do not like seeing any person suffer, when I read about the poverty in our land, the prisons, the drug addiction, the obesity, the depression, the violence... I realize these are indications of the blowback of karma. No nation can build its prosperity upon the goods of others, especially when a great many lives are taken during the elaborate confiscation processes. We are learning this, and the world is watching the morality play that the land that produced Hollywood is indeed placing on display. Life as movie, it's what's playing.
Yes, Sioux, i would definitely agree.
By Saviour, i was referring to the mass belief (not totally conscious, but i recognized it), that Obama was some kind of 'second coming' figure. A rescuer.
Your idea of stopping the car from running off the cliff. Yes. This would be the bottom line. And as such - saving us from ourselves and the momentum we have put into motion at an ever accelerating rate.
I understand what you mean about not wanting to see suffering, etc. But there is a larger perspective that tell us that the universe is working as it should. Learning must happen. We need to experience the results of what we have been doing.
I think many of us signed up to be on this stage at this time. Wondering how the end game would look and where our belief systems were going to lead us. And it all makes so much sense. Which in itself, can be helpful even when freaking out!
Sioux Rose
TRANSFORM: I feel grief over what could have been, what SHOULD have been had the levers of power not fallen under the control of those who have no souls. Film media is so powerful, imagine if our media held programs that were based on LIFTING minds, raising consciousness, as opposed to the endless redundant plot lines that trap people at lower levels of ego and pure sensation? Imagine if our collective wealth was used to build sustainable technologies, as opposed to those that have left the great Mother burned, poisoned, and in so many zones rendered a disgusting wasteland. Imagine the flowers gone, the birds who have lost their songs, the babies consigned as collatoral damage. There is learning, my friend, and then there is learning. It did not have to become a spectacle of the grotesque, disturbed, and deranged. I mourn what might have been... like all teachers, I dedicated myself to a very different curricula, and shared it where I could. It hurts to see so much senseless destruction. It qualifies as a sort of "Judas effect" in that for so many, their actions warrant the phrase, "Mother-Father/God forgive them, for they know not what they do." Even with that said, so long as there is life, according to the Buddhist monks I spoke with in Nepal, there will be karma. And to my knowledge, no one gets a free pass for violating the basic covenant which is: to harm none. That's the ideal I seek to live by, and I wish more did. It's a tough motto in a land where Mars has become exalted, and war, weapons, strife, and militarism appear the "rule" of the day. What a price citizens are paying for this grotesque and dangerous beyond words counterfeit.
Sioux, i share your sentiments.
I have been taught, by my most evolved teacher, that the essence of pain is "what should have been, but isn't". And it seems to me, that the more aware we are, the deeper the pain. Because the deeper potential and possibility can be sensed and intuited and known.
But, it always helps me to remember that this learning cycle is perhaps the most profound and powerful we have yet to experience as humanity. Breakthroughs of long held assumptions about who we are and our place in the scheme of things don't come easy. I know you know that there are no mistakes. Not really. Just more painful paths of learning.
We learn through repetition. And when we don't. The volume goes up and so does the heat. Our attention has to be captured - one way or another.
The earth changes are going to speed up in a big way. I know you mentioned the cardinal crosses. I think we are going to see that we can't eat weapons or drink white phospherous. We are in the beginning of a cycle, as we are also at the end of another.
It's already a credibility grand canyon, since like its source, Bush Shadow Obama always means exactly the opposite of which he speaks.
This article notes:
"Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist."
Yes indeed, the wonderful and contradictory world of Barak.
Obama's rhetoric is becoming more populist, not his policies.
Posing for a photo op with Paul Volcker doesn't save one house from foreclosure.
Obama will be serious about change only when he barnstorms the country promising to throw all the Wall Street and war criminals in prison.
Until then everything he says is just PR damage control.
Is there really no hope? Are we expendable with no way out? I've watch a semblance of democracy slowly return to feudalism since 1980. Crime is up, drug use is rampant, families crushed, hunger epidemic. It is increasing each day. Too bad the media doesn't show the faces of suffering of our own citizens each day as gleefully as the media shows the suffering of parts of the third world. I'm about to become a grandmother. What do I tell my grand baby? Flee the USA before the fall? Is there no where to live who care?
Yes; I think that the best thing you could tell her is to work hard so that one day she can flee and live in Europe, where the coefficient of income inequality (see a brilliant post above) indicates a social democracy and not a Fascist (ie., corporate) state. I do not think we will be having a good next 2 decades; when the inevitable unrest begins, we will see the same weapons and indiscriminate tactics used on us here at home, as are plaguing other innocents abroad. If you doubt this, think about the "sound cannons," that suddenly popped up at the recent protests.
I agree with you Drinsulaa as I posted about 10 years ago that since the U.S. foreign policy of fascist, hegemony and hubris was true, that it would be just a matter of time until U.S. domestic policy would have to become fascist also. I an sorry to say, it looks more and more like I was correct.
Obama has no credibility. If you just look at the major issues surrounding Americans, Obama has went the wrong way on each.
I'm glad. With GOP Bush, arguably the worse President ever, followed by Dem Obama, all glam and no substance, Americans may look to the third party for salvation. It is our only hope.
"Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won't be able to close it."
--> "Cannot ALWAYS be trusted" is a courtesy Oblabla hardly deserves.
"Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats' filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class."
--> Obama's rhetorical pandering to the "middle class" is so outrageous, on its own, that no one mentions that he never mentions the poor ... many of whom are formerly "middle class", many of whom turned out to elect this charlatan.
In the SOTU, watch for the phrase "my administration", "my" whatever, much over-used of late.
What're the chances Obama's stone nuts and/or drugged? He looks it and sounds it ...
" They want to know who their President really is". Bob, you must be being facetious! If Americans do not know by now that they have been completely conned; they probably will never know! Bush was so stupid he could not con hardly anyone, but Obama is intelligent and is much more dangerous as he is the consummate con man!
One thing Bush and Barack have in common is that they don't care what other people think of their moronic actions. They're both sociopaths. Obama is a narcissist. The Creepy Corporate Cabal got their money's worth in that they'll both do whatever their puppetmasters say to do!
Obama stands atop the rotting morass that is the US Empire.
The study previously cited in Herbert's last op/ed is here, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0120_poverty_kneebone/0120_poverty_paper.pdf
and reveals this:
"In 2008, 91.6 million people—more than 30 percent of the nation’s population—fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. More individuals lived in families with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of poverty line (52.5 million) than below the poverty line (39.1 million) in 2008. Between 2000 and 2008, large suburbs saw the fastest growing low-income populations across community types and the greatest uptick in the share of the population living under 200 percent of poverty."
This part bears repeating, often: "In 2008, 91.6 million people—more than 30 percent of the nation’s population—fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty level."
We have reached that 1/3 of a nation threshold noted by FDR in 1937 as SHAMEFUL. In no way whatsoever can a country be called the richest in the world when so many of its populace increasingly finds itself impoverished. And Shithead Obama wants to freeze spending--spending that would help those amongst us with the greatest needs--whilst carrying on spending over $1 Trillion per year on the US Empire. Public Enemy #1 he most certainly is.
Well over 100 Million people are now impoverished thanks to the Reaganite policies pursued and enhanced by GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and now Obama. That's a ready-made mass movement and potential base for a new Populist political party. The Republicans wanted Obama to fail, and he's been a failure from day 1 when it comes to supporting the populace instead of the Corporadoes and Banksters. And given the report that he's already made a closed door deal to gut medicare and social security to "cut spending," he'll be lucky to remain alive to finish his only term as president.
Edit: Didn't notice the CD comment software truncating the link to the study I cited. Usually truncation is present in the preview; this time it wasn't. So, this needs to be added after poverty_ kneebone/0120_poverty_paper.pdf
with kneebone connected to _
karlof, within 2010 we, the U.S. will very likely be hitting the same level of GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality as Zimbabwe, 0.53 ---which even 'our' CIA warns is way above the 0.45 where civil disobedience and revolution normally starts.
All the sustainable 'social democracies' of Europe and Japan, which are the only form of stable government in the post-WWII and post-Empire world, have low / egalitarian GINIs of 0.23 to 0.34 and yet the U.S. is far worse and above the former Soviet Empire (Russia) and the 'Corporate Communism' (as Dylan Ratigan says) of Red China.
Gives new meaning to the phrase 'off the charts'.
The U.S. is nearly 'off the charts' in the best measure that economists use to measure income (and wealth) iNEQUALITY.
This corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE is clearly #1.
What a friggin shame ---
As the Army's Welch said to Joe McCarthy, "have you decency, sir at long last? have you no shame?" --- we must now say and confront this corporatist Empire in America with this shame and crime against humanity.
Even the serfs rebelled during feudalism and in Czarist Russia.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
I think you should have mentioned another important #1 for the US -- prison population.
Sioux Rose
KARLOF: Thank you for this very helpful post, and your analysis of the statistics.
What's ironic, and/or another indication of Disaster Capitalism come home, is that so many prices on things are meanwhile rising. In Florida all of our registration fees just doubled, and many utilities are adding extra charges. Record cold temperatures turned my electric bill, usually no more than $65 to over $100, and I was told that many in my little neighbhorhood had bills closer to $300! (I kept my thermostat at 60 on 25 degree nights.) Gas is slowly approaching the $3.00 a gallon mark where I live, too. Dairy products, rice, and cereal prices have risen. And now, atop the numbers struggling close to the poverty line the same genuises that designed the rupture in our economy wish to DEMAND that we pay them "protection" money in the form of joining a virtual lottery that entitles us to a CHANCE at health care. It doesn't even seem possible that so much blatant abuse can be directed at a civilian population. And the armed guards all are standing by...
By the way, I just ran to the store and there on prominent display in the Winn Dixie (yep, straight out of "Fried Green Tomatoes") was a glossy magazine with a big picture of Sarah Palin (copying Oprah's magazine that NEVER has anything other than her face on its cover), with the caption, "Can She Save America?" I flipped through while on line to see who published it. I didn't find the answer in the time I had. It's clear that the big money is backing this woman as they trust her to be a willing marionette to do their bidding. How sad for us feminists who worked hard so that women could have an influence on politics, that THIS excuse for a human being, will be the first offered the throne! When money becomes the basis around which a society organizes itself, it becomes a tainted organism. The proof is everywhere on display.
Hello Ms Rose--I too often see your commentary yet fail to comment or further connect, so I thank you very much for replying.
Prior to the whole debacle, there was a group of us at theoildrum.com blog opining on how what is now termed the Great Recession would "travel." Deflation in many sectors, housing in particular, was juxtaposed with inflation in others, particularly energy and very high energy-dense items. I suggest you review the film "End of Suburbia," then look at that Brookings study.
The way to defeat the rise of Sarah Palin is to take that moment away from her handlers by vigorously attacking Obama and the whole Establishment from Populist/Left positions with that very large army of the dispossed I noted above. The wholesale degeneracy of the duopoly makes in possible for one faction to implode and meld with the other provided we can shove hard enough. Windows of opportunity are historically rare, but one is opening for us and we must avail ourselves of it. The time to raise a Cooperation Movement is at a time when people need to cooperate to meet life's necessities when the previous paradigm is unraveling, drasticly altering the old ways. A way must be found to gather and coalesce without taking too much time, as we must run candidates this fall.
Sioux Rose
KARLOF: I appreciate your response, and will look into the sources you cited. Thank you.