The Republican Conspiracy Has Worked

The Republican Conspiracy Has Worked

Republicans should be thrilled with President Obama’s State of the Union address.

That’s because the extremely limited vision of government he presented last night is exactly what Republicans plotted to create since day one of the Obama White House.

In his fifth State of the Union address, the president essentially said that he is going to go it alone. His major policy plan for 2014 is to bypass Congress altogether and use targeted executive orders to get things done.

As part of this plan for a so-called “year of action,” the president said that he will soon issue an order unilaterally raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 an hour.

A flurry of executive orders is obviously better than nothing, but it’s hardly the kind of bold change this country needs to undo the destruction caused by thirty-three years of Reaganomics.

In the next few weeks, Republicans will no doubt say that Obama’s plan to use his executive powers is evidence that he is a tyrant intent on shredding apart the Constitution.

But ignore their whining. A weakened president who has given up on pushing for broad reforms is exactly what Republicans want. And they’ve been planning this moment since the day Obama took office.

On January 20, 2009, a night when most Americans were out celebrating the end of the Bush years and the beginning of a new era, a group of powerful Republicans was planning the end of Obama presidency before it even really began.

At the Caucus Room restaurant right here in Washington, DC, GOP leaders drew up a plan to intentionally sabotage Obama at every point possible.

On the guest list for the “invitation only” meeting were Republican Congressmen Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra and Dan Lungren. Republican Senators Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign and Bob Corker were also in attendance. The whole thing was orchestrated by Republican propaganda mastermind Frank Luntz.

Over the course of four hours, this group of the most powerful conservative lawmakersin the country committed to a plan of action. They promised each other that they would filibuster and obstruct any and all legislation supported by the new President Obama.

Newt Gingrich, who was also there, appeared on my radio show a few years ago and actually bragged that the whole reason for the dinner was to come up with a plan to undermine President Obama.

Flash forward five years later, and it’s clear that the Caucus Room conspiracy has worked like a charm. Except for a brief period during his first year in office when he pushed through healthcare reform and financial reform, President Obama hasn’t been able to accomplish much of anything.

Republicans have blocked his nominees, filibustered his bills, and even shut down the government in what eventually turned out to be a futile attempt to defund Obamacare.

There’s a reason that this year’s State of the Union address sounded a lot like last year’s State of the Union address: Republicans in Congress have made it pretty much impossible for President Obama to accomplish any of his goals as chief executive.

Just this past year they killed gun control, sat on immigration reform, and froze efforts to raise the minimum wage.

With his announcement last night that he will essentially go it alone and sign executive orders to get things done, President Obama gave up the fight against the modern day do-nothing Congress. He all but admitted that the Caucus Room conspiracy has succeeded. Somewhere, Frank Luntz is smiling.

While, progressives should support the president as he works to make his “year of action” a reality, they should demand more than just a small-scale strategy - they should demand that the President call out Republican sabotage for what it is: a naked, shameless plan to protect the interests of the richest Americans at the expense of everyone else.

If President Obama wants to do more than just issue executive orders, he needs to match the Republicans point for point. He needs to do what Harry Truman did back in 1948 and call them out for being the party of “special interests.”

But there’s a very good chance that the President won’t pull a Harry Truman and stick it to the GOP. He has now been in office for five years, and except for a few brief periods over the past year and the year before during his re-election campaign, he has been unwilling to embrace the kind of bully pulpit politics that made old-school Democrats like Harry Truman and FDR so successful.

Part of this, I believe, has to do with the President himself. At his core, he is not a bleeding-blue progressive - he is a Clinton Democrat, the kind of person Beltway types call a “moderate.”

He will support liberal causes and bring the fight to the Republicans, but he will only do so when he’s pushed by people on the left.

That’s where “We the People” come in. If we want President Obama to do more than just sign executive orders, we need to start organizing from the ground up.

We need to do what the Tea Party did and start taking over local political bodies like precinct committees.

We need to rally behind the Elizabeth Warrens of the country, people who can single-handedly shift the debate surrounding issues like student loans and Social Security reform.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

We are now more than halfway through the second two-term Democratic presidency in the past two decades. This is an opportunity that shouldn’t be missed. Demographics are shifting in favor of progressives, and although the country is still mired in Reaganomics and Republicans have succeeded in neutering this president, there is still a chance for real change, the kind of change Obama promised when he first came to Washington.

But that kind of change will only happen if progressives rally together, call out Republicans for conspiring to bring down the Obama White House, and push the president to the left.

He may be satisfied with his small-scale “year of action,” but that doesn’t mean we should be.

Comments

ckrob's picture
ckrob 34 weeks 6 days ago
#1

In keeping with Obama's intransigent reliance on conservative economic advisers, he is now pushing a savings plan for the poor which would take $ out of the economy and give even more $ to the banksters. This on top of the Fed. shoveling ungodly amounts of crisp newly printed cash to, who else, the banksters. Friedman would be proud! IMHO more cash to the people who caused our economic crash in the first place might not be a good long term strategy. Half the money inserted at the bottom of the economy would have brought us roaring back to economic health.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 6 days ago
#2

ckrob -- There are many solutions e.g. card check, no waivers to buy American Act of 1936, etc. All we need is a overwhelming democratic percentage in the house and senate. We need enough democrats to drown out the conservadems. I think Obama is a bleeding heart liberal. I think his problem is that his mother had zero stress during her pregnancy; consequently, she had no cortisol in her system.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 34 weeks 6 days ago
#3

I don't fault the prez for the Repugs' obstructionism that's kept him from getting much done. I do fault him for the drone attacks, assassinations, and indefinite detention without charge or trial, which I saw Obama sign into law without a gun to his head. I also despise him for appointing the same financial retards (Geithner, Sumners) who nearly trashed this economy, and for his vigorous attempts to fast-track the TPP, which poses a huge threat to our wellbeing, soverignty and democracy. My initial reservations about Obama as a presidential candidate have all proven spot-on, I'm sad to say. And I've had my fill of moderates. In this political climate they are worthless. - Aliceinwonderland

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 6 days ago
#4

ckrob -- You look at Obama as Clinton with his economic advisers. I look at Obama as FDR without Francis Perkins, Mariner Eccles, and Elanor.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 6 days ago
#5

AIW -- I don't disagree with what you say. We need to get the testerone out of the oval office. I think FDR would have been very similar to Obama with regards to drones, detention, and assasinations.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 6 days ago
#6

AIW -- A follow-on: There were no women in the caucus room.

ckrob's picture
ckrob 34 weeks 6 days ago
#7

C8 -- Obama chose his advisors either out of ignorance or design. Liberal economic advisors were not hidden away somewhere, they were available. (Don't get me started on the Clinton sellout!)

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 34 weeks 6 days ago
#8

Aliceinwonderland ~ You took the words right out of my mouth. The only thing I would add is why bother trying to get this man to do anything? It seems the only things he tries to do are meager at best and surely bound to fail. Yet he never tries to do anything substantial; such as, repeal free trade, push for an amendment to overturn Citizens United, or even advocate vigorous Campaign Finance Reform. It would appear to me that the peanuts he has asked for so far should be obtained with executive orders without problems. The only problem will be the Repubs who will explode in outrage over the issue. Let them, I say. Perhaps that would lay the groundwork for more substantial issues to be addressed before the end of his final term. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 34 weeks 5 days ago
#9

Myra, (oh, excuse me: MyRA) another one of Obama's boondoggles of ill repute. I hadn't even heard about this until I heard Thom Hartmann talked about it on his program today. No, I didn't watch the SOTU speech...just more political marketing hype.

How can Americans save when, even if they are lucky enough to still have jobs, their jobs no longer pay enough to allow saving?

I consider myself lucky that I got out of the 401k scam before I lost it all. And the kicker, as Thom mentioned, was that after accumulating $15,000, it all gets shoved into a Roth IRA. Wall Street is not going to let you keep all that money! They'll finagle some other scam before you are able to collect.

The Business Week article belittles the Obama plan from the standpoint that the savings will actually not earn enough interest to even match inflation. But the real problem is not that you might not match inflation and loose a little over time (if you don't play the casino capitalism game). The real problem is that after spending a lifetime of saving your pennies, when you go to retire, Wall Street will rip you off...because they control your money...you don't. Until Wall Street and the banks are tightly regulated and regulation tightly enforced there is no reason to risk your money in that game. And the game is rigged in favor of high-speed traders.*

I think that Myra is just another sell-out to the capitalist pigs... as was Obamacare. Both are ways to delude people into losing all their money to the mafia-like finaglers and manipulators.

State of the Union
Can Obama's myRA Retirement Plan Get Americans to Save?
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-30/can-obamas-myra-retireme...

Keep up the good work, Mr. Hartmann! Keep keeping us informed of Republican and Faux-Democrat shenanigans.

*Comment by a trader on trading stocks...
"Historically, from the data I've studied, it has not been a particularly clever idea for a really long time...stocks in the U.S. in just the last 10 years has had two distinct declines of just north of 50%. So to make 5% a year, you are risking half your money. That, to me, is an awful trade. I don't make it."

Eric Hunsader-data analyst
"I lost faith in capitalism..at least what we had built...I didn't trust it anymore."

0+ Scalping Strategy
--------------
On Dark Pools...
"...the stock market—the United States stock market—was rigged. Exchanges appeared to be providing mechanisms to favored clients that allowed them to circumvent Reg NMS rules in ways that abused regular investors. It was complicated, a fact that helped hide the abuses, just as giant banks used complex mortgage trades to bilk clients out of billions, in the process triggering a global financial panic in 2008. Bodek** wasn’t sure if it was an outright conspiracy or simply an ecosystem that had evolved to protect a single type of organism that had become critical to the survival of the pools themselves."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/dark-pool-truth-about-what-really-goes-sto... 4 parts

**Heim Bodek ..blowing the whistle on the unfair advantage of HFT (High Frequency Trades) and trades done behind the scenes and out of reach of ordinary investors.
http://haimbodek.com/

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 34 weeks 5 days ago
#10

Palindromedary ~ Point well taken. The old saying, "a watched pot never boils," comes to mind when thinking of stocks. Playing the stock market on your own is very risky business. However, investing in reputable mutual funds over the long haul is a very lucrative approach. Of course, most Americans are too much into instant gratification to have the patients for such endeavours. Also, like you said, most Americans don't have the capital laying around to invest. I don't trust 401K's any more than you do. What I would suggest is to take that spare change and invest it yourself in a reputable mutual fund. Diverging with several funds isn't a bad idea either--if you can afford it. Then pretend it doesn't exist. Long haul here means 10 + years. It'll go up and go down. What you are betting on is that in the long haul it will go up. Meanwhile by owning your own account you retain complete control over it in the event you might need it sooner than expected; or, some disaster looms in the horizon.

Anklejive.com's picture
Anklejive.com 34 weeks 5 days ago
#11

Your sentence - "Except for a brief period during his first year in office when he pushed through healthcare reform and financial reform, President Obama hasn’t been able to accomplish much of anything." - is hyperbole. He has accomplished a great deal, not only in hard political victories, but also finessing and implementing progressive political strategy. But I agree much more would have gotten done with a Republican party that wasn't so crazy. But when you extend your hand to a closed fist, what's a person to do? And for the record, while I do think that a lot of the wish to see the president fail is because he's African American, from the Clinton years I can only assume it will be this way under every Democratic president.

Except for a brief period during his first year in office when he pushed through healthcare reform and financial reform, President Obama hasn’t been able to accomplish much of anything. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/01/republican-conspiracy-has-worked#comment-formPresident Obama hasn’t been able to accomplish much of anything. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/01/republican-conspiracy-has-worked#sthash.WUtXNDvk.dpufPresident Obama hasn’t been able to accomplish much of anything. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/01/republican-conspiracy-has-worked#sthash.WUtXNDvk.dpuf

Kend's picture
Kend 34 weeks 5 days ago
#12

Alice you forgot to mention the 35,000 troops he sent to Afganistan and maybe the five or six trillion he spent that didn't create any jobs or fix any infrastructue.

I don't understand the US system. Why do you elect a congress if the president can make law with a excutive order. How is that possible? Deosn't the President need congresses approval? If it is possible why bother electing a congress. i thought congress was there to represent the people, the everyday gal or guy.

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 34 weeks 5 days ago
#13

"We need to do what the Tea Party did and start taking over local political bodies like precinct committees." ...and might I add, get our butts back into the streets and force the media to broadcast images of everyday working class citizens getting tear gassed and arrested by the thousands. Then, and only then, will things change....in my opinion......without a lot of death.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 34 weeks 5 days ago
#14

Kend ~ Very good points! However, if you read what I added to AIW's post you would see the real main problem. Obama should have set out to repeal free trade and reinstate high import tariffs on foreign goods when he took office. Without that everything else he did is just smoke and mirrors... the same as putting a chunk of chewing gum in a leaking dam. Mind you, some very expensive gum. What a shame when the gum costs more than the dam. Until I hear Obama sing the songs I'm waiting to hear there is no way in hell I'm jumping on any Obama or Democratic Party bandwagon to nowhere. If you ask me this whole last SOTU was nothing more than to muster Democratic support for the next midterm.

DrRichard 34 weeks 5 days ago
#15

Was Roosevelt have been the same? In my mind yes and no. The obscene treatment of Japanese Americans was certainly massive detention, on the other hand when the opportunity arose to kill Admiral Yamamoto the US government actually asked clergymen if this was ethical. (They said it was.) The massive firebombings of Germany and Japan were way beyond any use of drones, but it was a different war. In any case, I believe FDR would have controlled the NSA, CIA and the like far better than Obama has done. No president is perfect, and maybe we expect too much from them, but Roosevelt knew how to get things done. He could be backstabbing and manipulative, but really followed through on helping those in serious trouble. Obama cares, but when push comes to shove likely as not he'll passively go along with the good old boys.

DrRichard 34 weeks 5 days ago
#16

Good advice on mutual funds, but be careful if you get into too many. They may own virtually the same stocks and then you're paying multiple times for the same management.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 5 days ago
#17

ckrob -- My main fault with Obama is his naivete not his heart. One prime example is not asking for the resignation papers from every US Attorney, as every prez before had done.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 5 days ago
#18

FDR had overwhelming majority of dems in each house. FDR had no citizens united.

Kend's picture
Kend 34 weeks 5 days ago
#19

DAnne I am not sure about free trade. i think it is because I don't know much about it. i do know Americans don't like it and no one in Canada likes it and the Mexicans love it. I guess we know the winner of NAFTA. On the other hand a closed economy kind of scares me. Living in Canada a country that is loaded with every resource in the world I guess we need free trade. I am not sure what it could possibly do for the US.

On a lighter note without free trade you might not of got Justin Bieber from Canada LOL. Please don't deport him. We don't want either. But we could use his millions in tax revenue.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 34 weeks 5 days ago
#20

Kend ~ Free trade is the number one domino. Nothing else productive can happen until it falls. If the TPP is passed we can forget about any other meaningful change happening. That would be the last nail in the American coffin of despair and poverty for all.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 34 weeks 5 days ago
#21

"Chuckle", my cynicism extends to women as well, thanks to the Margaret Thatchers, Hillary Clintons and Sarah Palins of the world. I can think of a long list of male politicians I'd pick before any of those get my vote.

Kend, once again I'm in shock. You've said something else I actually agree with! That first paragraph about Afghanistan was right on. However I have a very hard time believing the Mexicans "love" NAFTA, since NAFTA trashed their economy. This is why we've had so many of them immigrating here looking for work!

10-K, how do you figure we can "force" this corporate "media" to cover anything of consequence to us, like mass demonstrations in the streets? We don't really have a media anymore; just a lying propaganda noise machine for the oligarchs.

I'm glad we don't have TV, because frankly, I don't believe I could have stomached Obama's platitudes about economic equality and jobs and so on, knowing his intentions with the TPP. Anyone into so-called "free trade" is NOT pro-worker. I love Marc's analogy about sticking a wad of chewing gum in a leaking dam. (Great to have ya back, Marc ole buddy!!)

I agree, DrRichard, Roosevelt was a very mixed bag. Besides his abusive treatment of Japanese AMERICANS (not to mention his neglect of African Americans), he refused to give European Jews asylum from Hitler's racist, murderous rampage; he slammed the door in their faces, thus throwing them to the wolves. It would have been very easy for U.S. forces to bomb Germany's railroad tracks leading to & from the death camps, which they failed to do, blowing off another opportunity to save countless innocents from a cruel fate. I believe Eleanor Roosevelt would have made a better, and way more compassionate, president. - Aliceinwonderland

michaelmoore052's picture
michaelmoore052 34 weeks 5 days ago
#22

401k was devised to bring blue collar workers into a Wall Street sphere of influence. Where, before the 401k, the average worker saw Wall Street machinations from afar and could not empathize with its conservative profiteering. With the 401k came a merging of social conservative ethos and real economic conservative politicking. It put many hard working Americans in the conservative corner, drawing off their votes and making them turn their backs on their own economic interests.

And now here are.

Kend's picture
Kend 34 weeks 5 days ago
#23

Alice I think a lot of US manufactoring jobs went to Mexico. What hurt Mexico more was forcing oil companies to add ethanol to fuel. The cost of corn sky rocketed Down there driving food costs up for the poor. It was totally unintentional but it happened. Here our wheat, barley, and oats fields are replaced with canola. Farm prices tripled. It didn't effect us because our food is so abundent here but we ship massive amounts of wheat to China every year. It's unfair that the poor people world wide seem to always pay the price. Geez what the hell is happening to me. I am starting to sound like a lefty a little.

DHBranski's picture
DHBranski 34 weeks 5 days ago
#24

The Clinton Democrats targeted the poor and disabled, giving us 8 yrs of Bush. The poor didn't vote for Bush, but simply withheld their votes. The Obama Dems now target the elderly, disabled and poor. The next president will be a Republican.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 34 weeks 5 days ago
#25

Kend, we could both be right where Mexico is concerned. If I recall correctly, it was American corporate farming that introduced cheaper corn to Mexico, putting tens of thousands of Mexican farmers out of business. I don't know for a fact that your claims are correct but they certainly sound plausible (or at least feasible), in light of the corporate-friendly politics of our times. However I question how "unintentional" any of these consequences actually were. In their relentless pursuit of the Almighty Dollar, corporate interests don't give a flip who gets trampled or hurt. They are predators, and that's what predators do.

Branski, we can't afford another Republican president. For poor and working class folks to withhold their votes is just plain stupid. It would flush this country beyond the toilet bowl, right down the sewer pipes. (Wow, that was poetic! tsk.) With all my heart, I pray your prediction is wrong. - AIW

Johnnie Dorman's picture
Johnnie Dorman 34 weeks 5 days ago
#26

I compare the fascist Republicans to the fascist Confederacy. An economic system based on slavery and the good life being only for the rich one percent. That means that if things keep going as they have been, there will be another American civil war. At this point, after losing so much of what I had after Reagan and his Neo-cons infiltrated our government, I wouldn't mind seeing a war start against the fascist pigs right now.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 34 weeks 5 days ago
#27

I hear ya, Johnnie. Bacon, anyone?

richinfolsom's picture
richinfolsom 34 weeks 5 days ago
#28

The President's State of the Union was mostly predictable, much akin to a campaign speech, but missing the pizzaz! Remember his first acceptance of the nomination speech in Denver? The ground shook when he emphatically said, "Enough!" Everyone in America heard call line drawn in the sand.

Unfortunateely the passion soon dissipated to his analytical analysis along with the appeal - or lack of - of Rodney King's utterance, "Can we all get along." After eight years of Bush and Cheney taking the country oftour ethical and economical cliff, President Obamba is dearly welcomed. I

there is "something" in his delivery that both communicates - but creates an impression, a feeling of weakness; a kind of pleading for congress to go along. i am reminded of listening to the Senate Majorrity Leader, Harry Reid, trying to convey something when he is upset. It just doesn't come through.

The President does not have the option to be "firm" or give the appearance of being "demanding" or "assertive." (What would happen if he delivered the emotionally charged Denver speech in Congress? Black men cannot get angry!

Republicans got him where they want him. Breaking out could be risky. Just ask JFK, MLK, and Robert.

These are desperate times,

anarchist cop out's picture
anarchist cop out 34 weeks 5 days ago
#29

I knew Obama was not at all for real as the guy he campaigned as the minute I heard he appointed Rahm Emmanuel his chief of staff. Chicago effectively has a one party system. It's like the Old South. People who would be Republicans elsewhere are Democrats here.

anarchist cop out's picture
anarchist cop out 34 weeks 5 days ago
#30

Kend!

The Mexicans who love NAFTA are the same ones as the Americans who love NAFTA, the rich ones - who are a substantially smaller portion of their population than ours are to our population. It has helped rich Mexicans' economy but absolutely TRASHED the economy of average, working class and poor Mexicans. NAFTA is the reason we have so many undocumented immigrants in the United States. We had some before, of course, but since NAFTA we've had four or five times as many at any given time. NAFTA has caused peasant farmers in Mexico to be run off their land by the tens of millions thus causing them to migrate north to seek jobs.

The price of corn would've helped those farmers, instead, trade provisions in the treaty that hurt Mexican tomato farmers, for example, ruined their livlihood.

American factories had moved out of Mexico and into China by the early 2000's as Mexican workers got organized, gained power and got better deals. Mexican communities also won environmental regulations.

So the purpose of moving to Mexico was defeated, might as well have stayed in California, but China held some golden prospect for the manufacturers in their rapacious ambitions. China had a police state and its autocratic masters were looking to industrialize so there was no place more assuring that no workers' or peoples' social movements would interfere with those ambitions.

Those freedom loving, or rather, privilege loving conservatives!

mrbrannon68's picture
mrbrannon68 34 weeks 5 days ago
#31

I agree with your post more than others I have read. I am now 70 years old and have been warning people for more than 30 years about what was and is happening in our governments. I majored in History and Political Science and have continued my studies and interest in both. People of my generation have failed to protect posterity by not recognizing what was happening and doing something about it. Even now many of my friends have joined the right wing rhetoric; standing up for what they think is capitalism and the war on the poor, while at the same time receiving the benefits’ of Social Security, Medicare and real pensions. They do not seem to recognize that when they are talking about “takers”, they are talking about themselves! The question now must be what are those of us who do understand, going to do to change our governments to represent the needs of the people? I would like to know the thoughts and ideas on those on this blog.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 34 weeks 4 days ago
#32

I don't know how feasible it is, given the overall mood of the public at large, but the only way I see us seizing the reins and reclaiming the government that is rightfully ours is to make use of the one power source we possess: our numbers. We outnumber the elites by a ratio of thousands-to-one; tens of thousands, in fact! They still depend on our labor, our tax dollars, and (despite election fraud) our votes. If we ever manage to set aside our differences and mobilize into a unified force, engaging in massive strikes, and fill the streets with our protests, and bring the wheels of this machine to a grinding halt, there is much we can accomplish. And if enough of us refused to pay our taxes - more of us than they could find room for in their jails - you can bet these fascists would feel the impact in a hurry. But this would only work if enough of us were committed to participating in a mass movement, of a magnitude that couldn't be thwarted by oligarchs via their usual devices. If it was organized and unified and large enough of a movement, I think that perhaps we could even pull it off nonviolently. We have to let 'em know we mean business and we're not backing down. It might take awhile, and it would be very messy and disruptive to our lives, and there would be sacrifices and hardships along the way, but I don't believe anything less than a huge mass movement like this is gonna dethrone these self-appointed kings. And I don't see the people being ready to pull it off. Too much infighting among us; not enough shared vision or mass consciousness. I hate to say it, but I think we're not hurting enough yet, individually or collectively, to be sufficiently motivated. - Aliceinwonderland

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 4 days ago
#33

mrbrannon68 -- I think most people on this blog would agree that the most significant first step we need to take is the one stated again and again by Thom and Bernie; that is, go to movetoamend.org. If we succeed with that then we may be able to perform the other key ideas of Thom -- roll back raygun tax cuts, raise tariffs to a protectionist level and enforce the anti-trust laws.

I think a more possible solution is to have overwhelming majority of dems in the house and the senate. If this were to happen, then just repass most of the 390 bills passed by the Nancy P house and were filibustered by the repugs in the senate. My favorites are card check, grant no waivers to the Buy American Act of 1936, no tax credits for moving jobs and factories out of the country, and penalities on China for currency manipulation.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 34 weeks 4 days ago
#34

Agreed, "chuckle"! Move To Amend, indeed! But if phone calls and petitions were sufficient to get the job done, so-called "Citizens United" would be history already. I've signed dozens of petitions, like most of you, yet our government remains hostage to those black-robed scoundrels. It'll take a lot more than petitions to get it back. I'd love to be wrong; no ego invested here! But it seems to me that we'll need to do some serious hell-raising en masse, before the thieves who stole our government finally see what a real "citizens united" looks like. As for a majority of dems in the House & Senate... well, that can get kinda tricky. Too often those folks turn out to be "blue dogs", or dems in-name-only, elected under false pretense to serve their Lords & Masters... - AIW

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 4 days ago
#35

AIW -- As I have said many times here, I have hope in the "overwhelming number of dems approach" based on what Nancy P was able to accomplish. For example, she was able to get "card check" passed even in the prescence of many blue dogs.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 34 weeks 4 days ago
#36

AIW -- In the case Maggie, I said I wanted less testerone in the oval office, not more. LOL

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Hartmann combines a remarkable piece of historical research with a brilliant literary style to tell the grand story of corporate corruption and its consequences for society with the force and readability of a great novel."
David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World and Agenda for A New Economy
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
John Perkins, author of the New York Times bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist