Randi Rhodes is saying the debt deal is a good thing, would love to hear her discuss with Thom

31 posts / 0 new

Anyone hear Randi Rhode' show today, 8-1-11?

On her show today, Randi Rhodes was outlining the terms of the debt ceiling deal (very clearly) and saying it could work well for Democrats. She doesn't think the deal process was a good idea--it should have been a clean upgrade, but in the overall context, she feels Obama has bested the Republicans. So far, she's the only progressive I've heard saying that.

I won't repeat the details here, only point people to her website to download the show or find it elsewhere online: http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/main.html

I'd love to hear her and Thom discuss all this on the air, though I realize that Thom usually likes to debate guests with opposing views (conservatives). Perhaps he will continue to oppose the deal, hence, disagree with Randi. My bottom line is, I am looking for any rays of hope.

I am hoping her view proves correct, but I worry that it won't.

PLEASE LISTEN TO HER PROGRAM BEFORE RESPONDING. Otherwise this is pointless.

daj100's picture
daj100
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

I don't listen to Randi. She's become an Obama apologist. to the extreme. She was great at exposing Bush. and his nonsense. She sugar -coats Obama's. Too much for even my sweet tooth.

The deal provides for the continued destruction of the middle class...almost on an automatic time schedule. . I don't like it.

One of my neighbors is a part of that. He used to have a career and owned two houses. Now he's a maintenance man in my slightly-above-slum apartment building . He's on 24-hour call, 7 days a week. He gets free rent plus a stipend..

There is a plus side. As more and more people get evicted every month for not being able to pay their rent, his maintenance duties decline.

Obama didn't "best" the Republicans other than appearing as a sensible compromisor. .Political points. They got what they knew they could get. More to come later. Even if it plays out that way for the next 20 years with Dem Presidents, they get what they want and Dems will appear as sensible. Political points.

The good cop/bad cop are both on the same team.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

..

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

It was a great deal for the status quo. It's only going to cost your kids another $2T

Fan.Cl's picture
Fan.Cl
Joined:
May. 5, 2011 8:00 am

America is a country of stupid people so they get a stupid government. Welcome to Idiocracy.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

After many years, I've all but stopped listening to Randi Rhodes as well. When I do, I often have to turn her off. Randi has become a ranter, I think she really twists things to favor Obama, it strikes me a a fanaticism. I love Hartmann's objectivity and how he comes down on truth, reason & justice every time. I am a Democrat who voted for Obama, but I think he is in over his head and is too lacking in leadership skills to stand up to the bullies in congress. We the people took a chance on Obama's promise for "change we could believe in" and we lost. It makes me sad that we followed the disasterous George W Bush appointment with another unqualified, incapable president...far too many wasted years.

Woody McBreairty's picture
Woody McBreairty
Joined:
Jun. 10, 2010 2:20 pm
Quote polycarp2:

I don't listen to Randi. She's become an Obama apologist. to the extreme. She was great at exposing Bush. and his nonsense. She sugar -coats Obama's. Too much for even my sweet tooth.

The deal provides for the continued destruction of the middle class...almost on an automatic time schedule. . I don't like it.

One of my neighbors is a part of that. He used to have a career and owned two houses. Now he's a maintenance man in my slightly-above-slum apartment building . He's on 24-hour call, 7 days a week. He gets free rent plus a stipend..

There is a plus side. As more and more people get evicted every month for not being able to pay their rent, his maintenance duties decline.

Obama didn't "best" the Republicans other than appearing as a sensible compromisor. .Political points. They got what they knew they could get. More to come later. Even if it plays out that way for the next 20 years with Dem Presidents, they get what they want and Dems will appear as sensible. Political points.

The good cop/bad cop are both on the same team.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

..

Like almost every one of your posts, I agree completely with you poly.

As I have stated in other posts it has been difficult to come to terms with this, but denying the truth when it's slapping you in the face is never productive.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 9:39 am

I did hear Rhodes' show wherein she praised Obama and claimed the deal was a winner. I thought as I listened to it that it certainly was a novel approach to the whole situation.

I don't usually listen to Rhodes. 1) She's a ranter, not a discourser. 2) She almost always interrupts her callers and finishes their sentences for them, often moving into rants of her own after cutting them off mid-sentence. 3) She often talks over even friendly callers. 4) She often gets key facts wrong, facts which are key operational variables on whatever subject she happens to be discussing. 5) She states everything a half-dozen times, leaving me thinking, Okay, I get it; move on, please.

I find her style personally abrasive. My favorites are Thom Hartmann, because he's the most grounded and intellectual, although I don't agree with him 100% of the time; Ed Schultz, because he goes hard after issues he believes in; and Mike Malloy, because he calls the bad guys the dirty S.O.B.s that they truly are.

I gave up on Rhodes some time ago, for the reasons I've listed above. I did happen to hear the show you're talking about because I had the radio on to the progressive station while I was working in the garage.

I don't understand why she's cast herself as an unconditional apologist for Obama, no matter what he does.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

I did hear Rhodes' show wherein she praised Obama and claimed the deal was a winner. I thought as I listened to it that it certainly was a novel approach to the whole situation.

I don't usually listen to Rhodes. 1) She's a ranter, not a discourser. 2) She almost always interrupts her callers and finishes their sentences for them, often moving into rants of her own after cutting them off mid-sentence. 3) She often talks over even friendly callers. 4) She often gets key facts wrong, facts which are key operational variables on whatever subject she happens to be discussing. 5) She states everything a half-dozen times, leaving me thinking, Okay, I get it; move on, please.

I find her style personally abrasive. My favorites are Thom Hartmann, because he's the most grounded and intellectual, although I don't agree with him 100% of the time; Ed Schultz, because he goes hard after issues he believes in; and Mike Malloy, because he calls the bad guys the dirty S.O.B.s that they truly are.

I gave up on Rhodes some time ago, for the reasons I've listed above. I did happen to hear the show you're talking about because I had the radio on to the progressive station while I was working in the garage.

I don't understand why she's cast herself as an unconditional apologist for Obama, no matter what he does.

When she was on the radio, Rachel Madow along with Thom were my favorites for the intellectual and civil approach they bring to the table. I dislike Randi for the exact same reasons you mention and feel her abrasive style as counter productive, especially when courting people who have doubts about the right wing.

I do watch Rachel's show on MSNBC from time to time but I miss it often since I'm often burdened with personal commitments at that time and just can't get around to it.

I may be wrong but I believe Rachel thinks this deal is a screwjob unlike Randi who loves the deal.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 9:39 am
Quote daj100:PLEASE LISTEN TO HER PROGRAM BEFORE RESPONDING. Otherwise this is pointless.

Guess nobody (with the notable exception of Ulysses) paid any attention to this part of the original post, huh?

I subscribe to both Thom's and Randi's podcasts. I'm somewhat behind, though, and haven't yet heard yesterday's shows as yet.

I'm going to comply with the OP's wishes, and not comment further until I have.

BTW - two things about Randi, Ulysses -

1) If she discovers she's wrong, she'll freely and quickly admit it.

2) She always says "Don't take my word for ANYTHING! LOOK IT UP!" - she knows what company she's in on the talk radio circuit.

mstaggerlee's picture
mstaggerlee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mstaggerlee:
Quote daj100:PLEASE LISTEN TO HER PROGRAM BEFORE RESPONDING. Otherwise this is pointless.

Guess nobody (with the notable exception of Ulysses) paid any attention to this part of the original post, huh?

I subscribe to both Thom's and Randi's podcasts. I'm somewhat behind, though, and haven't yet heard yesterday's shows as yet.

I'm going to comply with the OP's wishes, and not comment further until I have.

BTW - two things about Randi, Ulysses -

1) If she discovers she's wrong, she'll freely and quickly admit it.

2) She always says "Don't take my word for ANYTHING! LOOK IT UP!" - she knows what company she's in on the talk radio circuit.

I have been listening to Randi yesterday and today. Actually for the last couple of weeks I have been listening to both shows pretty much every day but it's alot harder listening to randi because of her delivery.

It is true that she is quick to admit when she is wrong and 2) is a mantra of hers which I respect her for. I doubt there is a right wing commentator sho dares say such things.

That being said though, she is a Obama apologist.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 9:39 am
Quote mstaggerlee:
Quote daj100:PLEASE LISTEN TO HER PROGRAM BEFORE RESPONDING. Otherwise this is pointless.

Guess nobody (with the notable exception of Ulysses) paid any attention to this part of the original post, huh?

I subscribe to both Thom's and Randi's podcasts. I'm somewhat behind, though, and haven't yet heard yesterday's shows as yet.

I'm going to comply with the OP's wishes, and not comment further until I have.

BTW - two things about Randi, Ulysses -

1) If she discovers she's wrong, she'll freely and quickly admit it.

2) She always says "Don't take my word for ANYTHING! LOOK IT UP!" - she knows what company she's in on the talk radio circuit.

Yes, in fairness, one has to give her credit for the specific things you mention; I've heard her on both counts.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I get that Randi is an Obama cheeerleader. I haven't listened to her in awhile so it was by accident that I heard the show yesterday, that I posted about. I have always liked her though, of course, I sometimes disagree with her views. She can also go overboard on the cheerleading, even when it is in opposition to something. When Bush was still in office, Randi had people like John Dean on talking about authoritarianism, which was a good thing. But then she would occasionally have Pat Buchanan on because he agreed with a particular progrssive position, and was against Bush's actions. Randi tends to gush a little too much when this happens, and forgets the 99% of the time that people like Buchanan are opposed to her. She did this over Goldwater, having his granddaughter on as a guest, talking about how Goldwater would have opposed what Bush was doing, and gushing such that it made Goldwater sound like a closet liberal.

Meanwhile, I am still mostly distrubed and angered by the debt deal and reading most of the progressive blogosphere is not changing that, only increasing my sense of doom.

daj100's picture
daj100
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I listen less and less to radio shows in general as the real crises have been ignored for manufactured crises.

Did catch her show and there seems to be a big difference in interpretation of section 4 and Super Committee.

She is saying it's just a technicality of having House approve revenues and it's a "brilliant" end around. My interpretation of Thomm and progreessives is that we need to tax the rich and corporations NOW to stop the attack on middle class and suffering of working class. Seems Randi and Obama are only focused on social security and deficit and losing the extreme right's game of chicken.

Thomm's guest today, Dr. Wolf, and LA Times article on how deal is being viewed as austerity measure IMO show she's missing the big picture. Sen Harkin made strong point in LA Times article as well as to Obama not seizing the moment. He notes Roosevelt? threatened tariffs on steel industry I think it was much as we should be investigating or taking action on Wall St as Dr Wolf pointed out.

lreyla's picture
lreyla
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I lietne to Randi pretty regularly even though she sometimes will seem abrasive and talk over people. I do think she is brilliant and more often than now, gets it right. I don't really see her as an "Obama apologist" but just smart enough to know that many on the left do whine too much for their own good and are often self defeating when they sit out elections as many did in 2010. Obama has not been always been perfect but he deserves credit for the amazing things that he has accomplished against enormous odds. If progressives had come out and voted in 2010, I am certain that many other items on the progressive agenda would have been accomplished as well. He never had a majority in the Senate with people like Joe Lieberman and other Blue Dogs. It is just not realistic for the base to expect him to be able to do EVERYTHING as quickly as some in the base would like. Randi understands this and knows how impatient and fickle many on the left can be. Those attitudes brought us The Green Party and Ralph Nader in 2000 and only served to bump up the numbers for Bush in 2000 and gave more cover for the Supreme Court to hand Bush the election.

I used to be a big Ed Shultz fan but got tired of his constant Obama bashing. I get tired of it from Norman Goldman and others as well. Sometimes I feel, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?" The right, and especially the Tea Party, march in lockstep, while the left is all over the place and seem more eager to whine about their own than enlighten about what the other side is doing. Randi enlighten's about what the OTHER side is doing, rather than spending her show demoralizing her own side. I think that is a positive thing. I think that Thom also does that most of the time and if he does complain about Obama, he is usually quick to add that it is important that we re-elect Obama because of the Supreme Court if nothing else. We can not let the Supreme Court appointments fall to the right.

In the last couple of days, Randi has been talking about the debt ceiling deal and tonight I was trying to find some text of what she was saying. That is how I stumbled across this forum. Somebody called in to Randi's show today and encouraged her to have Bernie Sanders on the show to talk about her theories. I would love that, too. They tried to get Sanders but he was spending the day with his grandchildren. It WOULD be interesting to hear Randi and Thom discuss this theory, too. I wish I could find some of what she was saying on the net. I was trying to run it down for a friend today but probably didn't do a very good job of it. I hope she is as right this time as she has been in so many cases in the past.

sylvanr's picture
sylvanr
Joined:
Aug. 5, 2011 6:11 pm

I heard Randi say that too, and I think she could be correct, but it depends on a lot of things happening, like Obama's re-election, and having a more progressive Congress which allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, and engages in tax reform to close loopholes and make corporations pay more of their fair share of taxes. I hope all these things happen, but there is a lot which will happen between now and then, and the reality now doesn't look good.

I have the same compliants about Randi, but any progressive voice is good for me, and sometimes, she seems brilliant. Anyway, she has been at it for a long time.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

In my view the "progressive" media has really dropped the ball in acting as apologists for all things democratic. I'd like to hear more truth and less giving Obama a break for things that Bush would have been castigated over.

To support Obama is to support torture, rendition, indefinite detention, and the slaughter of innocent men, women, and CHILDREN in the name of increasing corporate profits.

Exactly what does Obama and this corrupt adminstration have to do before "progressives" will get upset?

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote daj100:PLEASE LISTEN TO HER PROGRAM BEFORE RESPONDING. Otherwise this is pointless

I have not heard anyone here take issue with anything Randi Rhodes has actually said. Calling a fellow leftwinger 'An Obama Apologist' sounds like so much rightwing bullying. It also doesn't mean anything. Besides, this is our Democratic president, so why not go the extra mile? Did you ever hear the republicans criticize George Bush, about ANTYHING? So why is it a great thing that the people on the left would start doing the republicans' job for them?

There is only one Democratic president, and if there is a choice in 2016, it is for a MORE leftwing Democrat, or just a clearer majority in both houses, no matter what.

The alternative is the republican armageddon.

I make it a habit to listen to Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, then either Democracy Now! or Norman Goldman, then sometimes Mike Malloy. In that order. And have for years.

I really hate the Obama bashing, especially when it is based on a poor understanding of how the government actually works, or the actual involvement of the White House. Also, I get the feeling that a lot of the former republicans bash Obama just to be considered 'balanced', in case power slips back to the republicans.

Anyway, Randi's point is that the republicans have locked themselves in with a large number of triggers, which force them to take cuts from subsidies to their competing business interests (defense vs pharma vs agribusiness, etc.).

And she has shown that Rush Limbaugh understands this and hates every minute of it.

MrK's picture
MrK
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

" Did you ever hear the republicans criticize George Bush, about ANTYHING? So why is it a great thing that the people on the left would start doing the republicans' job for them?"

Perhaps because some on the left are honest?

"I really hate the Obama bashing, especially when it is based on a poor understanding of how the government actually works, or the actual involvement of the White House."

Increasing the police state, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, slaughtering civilians, illegal/immoral wars in at least 6 countries...with illegal/immoral military/CIA interventions in at least 70 more (for now)...torture, numerous black site prisons, increasing inequality making the US the most unequal industrialized nation in the world with the greatest disparity of income, torture, prosecuting whistelblowers instead of rewarding them, torture, appointing Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, Immelt, Duncan et al, defending war criminal Donalad Rumsfeldt and refusing to prosecute the Bush/Cheney crime family, having but 5% of the worlds population yet 25% of its prisoners...exactly what will it take to make progressives get upset.

Supporting Obama...on a simplistic level...is to support the numerous crimes noted above.

The myth that the US is the "land of the free" is the greatest marketing scam in history...on a par with brand Obama as "hope and change".

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

If you're so in love with Randi Rhodes she has a website with its own message board. I don't like her. She doesn't think things through before she opens her mouth. I'm not interested in a left-leaning Laura Ingraham.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Norske, many of the things you fault Obama for are problems he inherited. You may fault him on his choice of appointments, but not the fact that the U.S. has had longstanding policies which result in an extremely high prisoner population, nor in my opinion, for the fact that he didn't immediately abolish all of our nefarious foreign policies as soon as he became President. I would have liked to have seen him try, but I think that would have started a right-wing corporate sponsored revolution and prompted his assasination, among other things.

Like MrK, I am getting increasingly tired of the lack of perspective among most of the posters on this site, and the predictability of their comments. When I read his comments, I knew that MrK would take flack for them, so I guess it's up to me once again to bring some reality back into the conversation. Last time I did that on this site, it wound up with a person I had thought was a wonderful person and a great friend of mine telling me those very 3 special little words -- you know, the ones with the initials G.T.H. But I am a truth teller and I will continue to tell the truth regardless of others biases and delusions. I don't condemn people; I only try to help, but most of the so-called progressives on this site are so bitter that I would be surprised if they were ever satisfied, so it's no surprise that they are quick to condemn Obama -- or Randi Rhodes -- or me. I don't condemn peole but I do have feelings. The truth is that America has become too big for its britches, and its problems and divides too great for anyone to gap, and the job of President is one that probably nobody could adequately perform. At the very least, we should probably have a statesperson as President and a policy person as Prime Minister, as Thom has pointed out that most nations have.

As a final thought, yes, we experience cognitive dissonance when things don't go the way they we hoped they would with Obama. But we must try to understand the circumstances surrounding a situation. To not do so is to engage in the fundamental attribution error, which is the tendency for people to ascribe to the persons character, behaviors which were the result of circumstance. Moreover, it is also to engage in the delusion of hyperindividualism, which is a conservative thing. I thought that progressives were supposed to be "we" people, not "me" people.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"Norske, many of the things you fault Obama for are problems he inherited."

Actually.... most of those policies he has expanded upon.

"As a final thought, yes, we experience cognitive dissonance when things don't go the way they we hoped they would with Obama."

In truth he is only slightly worse than I had imagined he would be. If people are disappointed in Obama...they simply weren't payin' attention.

The system is broken....Obama is now the problem, not the solution. But whatever helps you get through the day is fine with me...I live in Norway. If I were you I'd develop a decent garden and learn how to can what you grow.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

If the system is the problem, how is Obama the problem? He is not "the system;" he is a person, or are "systems" now people too, along with corportions? I agree that the system is the problem, and that is exactly why we should not engage in overblame of Obama's policies, but only the extent that he is responsible for them.

I like Norway, but i don't agree with your perspective at all. I am in Taiwan at this time, but live in California normally, and we do have a nice garden where we grow a lot to eat. I know what you mean about our future prospects.

Sorry for the above rant, but this is something which has been building in me for a long time, regarding my observations and interactions on this site. We progressives pretty much agree on our goals and what type of society we would like to have, but who or what to blame for our problems, and our strategies to fix them -- that's a different story.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

It seems simple to me. If it was wrong when Bush did it (probably a psychopath) it is just as wrong or even more so when Obama does it. (Smart guy, same results)

As a veteran of some pretty terrible shit...it is even simpler to me. Obama continues and in many cases expands upon the slaughter of innocent men, women, and CHILDREN for corporate profit. That alone would be enough for me to curse him till the day he dies. Add to that the prosecution of whistleblowers, torture, wiretapping, etc. etc. etc. exactly what would it take for a supporter of Obama to get mad?

What would Obama have to do for a real "progressive" to get mad?

BTW, I don't have anything against Randi personally. But she waxes and wanes in her apologizing for some extraordinary crap from Obama...much like Thom.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I am not sure how it appears from where you are, but Obama is very different from Bush, and not nearly as bad as Bush. In my opinion, Obama wants to be on the side of the people, which was never the case with Bush. Obama -- or anyone but probably Obama more than others due to his race -- faces stiff odds in trying to make any substantive changes. we are trying to swing a huge political pendulum here. Wahsington has a (dysfunctional) way of doing things which is conservative basically, and resistant to change. The government is far to the right of where most Americans are by this time, in my opinion. That would be difficult for any progressive President to deal with. Yes, I think Obama is a moderate liberal from what I have seen, but the political climate in Washington at this time is horrible for progressives, although that might change (one can hope) in teh near future. In my opinion, the best outcome would be to re-elect Obama, keep pushing him to the left, and elect a more progressive president in 2016.

I have been angry with Obama for increasing the troop levels in Afghanistan, for the drone attacks and violation of Pakistani sovereignty, and for some of his capitulations to the conservatives. Being angry with someone at times, doesn't mean i should abandon him. I think we all get angry at family members and friends for one reason or another, but we learn to get over it as people's behavior and attitudes, including our own, adjust. It's best to have a "lousy memory" for the bad things in life, I find. Otherwise, very few people would stay married very long, for instance. I don't know if you get all the details in Norway, or not, but the Obama administration has accomplished quite a lot. There was an article recently about how his administration has accomplished 85% of its goals. His administration has positively affected my family in fact, because his stimulus package includes seed monies to help build solar energy plants, which resulted in a very sophisticated and picky solar company choosing my wife's property in the Mojave Desert to build a plant. Although the health care legislation took the wrong approach, it is helping millions of people achieve more affordable health care, as another example. There are lots of others, but I don't have an encyclopedic mind for that sort of thing. Usually, the news focuses on all the bad stuff and controversies, though.

It is my expectation that Obama will pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan in his next term, and curtail U.S. foreign military operations. This is in part made necessary by our financial situation, but I think he knows it is the right thing to do. Part of the deal which Randi was talking about, was the stipulation that the money would basically have to be taken out of the military budget and subsidies, rather than S.S., Medicare, Medicaid, etc. in order to reduce government spending, although i am not sure of all the details. Nonetheless, this sounds to me like a step toward demilatarization, at least a beginning.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"Yes, I think Obama is a moderate liberal from what I have seen..." Lefty

Well...his actions prove otherwise. Dreams die hard.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Obama is so far to the right of Republican Pres. Eisenhower, even the Repugnants wouldn't have nominated him in the 50's.

Bush's Third Term is coming along as expected. The torture chambers at Gitmo have been extended to the new prison at Abu Graib..Obama's $500 billion subsidy to health ins. firms is on a par with Bush's give-a-way to the drug companies. Obama single-handedly sabotaged the Conference on Global Warming at Copenhagen. Congress didn't make him do it.

The nation remains committed to economic, environmental and resource collapse. Obama is just another neo-liberal twit. in the Clinton and Bush traditions...proposing and maintaining policies that brought Argentina to the brink in 2001...driving 60% of its population into destitution.. Argentines wised up and forced their Pres. to flee the capitol in a helicopter...with the police cheerfully waving goodbye. Argentina recovered. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=argentina+collapse+2001&mid=AF0AEE9A15A811DA10A9AF0AEE9A15A811DA10A9&view=detail&FORM=VIRE2

Outsourcing is on-going. Obama is negotiating/negotiated new outsourcing deals with S. Korea, Columbia and Central America as quickly as he can. Congress isn't making him do it.

Destruction of the middle class remains on course. Three cheers for those who once again voted against their own interests Rather than admitting they were made fools of, they applaud their own demise.

Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A lying wolf. Dems will re-nominate the ravenous wolf to run again in 2012 while Wall Street laughs behind their backs..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"..

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This is exactly the sort of open-and-shut thinking i was talking about.

Norske, you only know about Obama, what you hear about him, which is limited and seen through your particular prism. He is working from within a highly conservative system, but is managing some progressive victories nonetheless.

Polycarp, that may be true, but we have people such as Ronnie Ray-gun to blame for the great shift to the right in American politics, not Obama. Were he in say, Norway, he would have far more progressive policies, because they would be enabled there. They are not currently enabled here.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well...Obama and Reagan do share many similarities and Obama approved of many of Reagan's neoliberal policies...and is on course to out neoliberal Reagan, the Bush's and Clinton at his current rate.

Neither Reagan nor Obama woke up one day and decided to pursue their particular agendas which would lead to the dissolution of the working class and the greatest inequality and disparity of income in the industrialized world. Just because myself and others don't prattle on at length waxing existential regarding the behind the scene factions and complicated manuverings propelling the US/world towards a serfdom redux...doesn't mean it isn't taking place.

If you really believe that Obama is a progressive...and that he has the lives of the working class and the poor at heart...and that works for you...good deal. I don't see it myself...and I doubt that the people being slaughtered throughout the world making the world safe for predatory, monopolistic capitailsm would see it either.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"He is working from within a highly conservative system, but is managing some progressive victories nonetheless." Lefty

If I wanted to extract as much wealth as possible from a given society...which would be the more prudent approach...to take it all in one fell swoop and end up with a few $ Trillion...or to take measured amounts over time equally $ 10s of Trillions... giving some small "victories" to the victims to keep them placated just enough?

Technically Obama and the oligarchy messed up. For years they have gamed the system to their benefit while keeping the masses believing in the myth of the American Dream by doling out just enough prosperity to keep the rabble in line. Sure...every once in a while they have gone too far, but then they pull back and regroup. It seems that during the last 30 years they decided to come out of the closet and do in the open that which they used to do in secret. They fucked up...and now people are getting wise to the ruse and seeing the oligarchy for what it is...ravenous, greedy, sociopaths willing to sell out the American people for 30 pieces of silver.

They could have played this scam for much longer and facilitated the transfer of ever more wealth from the working class and the poor to those at the top. There are many possible scenarios as to why this is so...doesn't really matter much. It is what it is.

Obama has taken the neoliberal policies of his predecessors and placed them on steroids...what exactly does he have to do for you to finally "get it?"

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Natural Lefty, how long are people going to let this Pres. scam them?. Answer this question from another post:

---------------

Well, the Pres. didn't even have to strike a debt deal on the backs of the poorist and the elderly. The devil is in the details..

The world-class economist who saved Iceland's fanny with his advice said this:

"Obama could have invoked the 14th Amendment to pay. He could have taken the proposal made by Scott Fullwiler and other UMKC economists for the Treasury to issue a few $1 trillion coins and pay the Fed for Treasury securities, to retire. But Mr. Obama steered right into the debate, turning it into a discussion of how to cut back Social Security and Medicare in the emerging U.S. class war, ." - Michael Hudson

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson08032011.html

The debt would have fallen trillions below the current debt ceiling. It wouldn't have had to be raised. The trillion dollar coins would never enter the economy. They'd be held by the Fed as an accounting entry erasing government debt held by the Fed.. No inflationary pressure from them. Obama could have nipped the whole fiasco in the bud, prevented automatic cuts on the poor and reduced the national debt by trillions by Executive Order. to the Treasury,. He chose not to. Why?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Obama could have nipped the whole fiasco in the bud, prevented automatic cuts on the poor and reduced the national debt by trillions by Executive Order. to the Treasury,. He chose not to. Why?

Because Obama was never a progressive and never will be.

As mentioned earlier in the post he is going to out-neolib Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes NOT pursue an agenda to help the majority of Americans.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 9:39 am

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system