Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (86191)	12/2/2010 2:42:34 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

<Apparently, the Rs have more power than we think. They are in control. I may have to quit politics. What I see happening is making me very sick to my stomach.>> It is worse than that. From A to Z the R's policies make no sense and are dangerous to our country and what, I feel, is really making you sick is that most Americans have fallen for the R's propagandizing their nonsense. The pervasiveness of people thinking the Democrats are dangerous and the Republicans the vocie of reason is patently ridiculous. This is a country that leans hard R and is obsessed with consumerism. I guess we either accept it, or move to another country where the people are not as possessed by capitalism.

To: koan who wrote (86191)	12/2/2010 3:46:44 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Bruised Obama Still Unaware He’s in a Fight: Commentary by Margaret Carlson Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- “Stop it.” That’s the message Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia said voters wanted him to carry to President Barack Obama at the White House Slurpee Summit, an appropriate name for something momentarily colorful and tasty with no nutritional value. In my parental playbook, “Stop it” is often followed by “Go to your room,” which in Obama’s case is the Oval Office, an inconvenient fact for Republicans reluctant to acknowledge that he’s president. The way Republicans see it, the results of the midterm elections put them in charge. Now the president must pay deference even to get a meeting with them. When he didn’t send a proper “Save the Date” card for a proposed summit last month, the entire Republican leadership turned him down without a compelling reason. Those with hair had to wash it that evening. The rest had headaches. You don’t need WikiLeaks to know where Republicans stand. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was happy to announce that the top priority for Republicans during the next two years is to defeat Obama in 2012. Republicans were a bit more subtle as Obama prepared to take office two years ago. The new president didn’t know until much later that McConnell had called a play in the huddle to hang tough on everything. Republicans wouldn’t be just the Party of No, but the Party of Hell No. The lack of a single Republican vote in the House for the desperately needed economic stimulus in February 2009 was an early application of this strategy. Still No Republicans interpreted the midterm results to mean that their just-say-no strategy is a winning one. While unlikely to pursue a shut-down-the-government course, they’re not really seeking common ground. Yesterday, just one day after the White House meeting, all 42 Republican senators pledged in a letter to block all legislation until the president and Congress figure out a way to extend the tax cuts and fund the government into next year. Obama so prefers Kumbaya bipartisan process over getting something done that he’s singlehandedly resuscitated an opposition party that looked dead after the 2008 elections. After Republicans rebuffed him on the stimulus, Obama called himself “an eternal optimist” but added, “That doesn’t mean I’m a sap.” I wonder. Consider the still-unresolved fate of the George W. Bush tax cuts, set to expire Jan. 1. Obama is in such a defensive crouch, he doesn’t recognize the winning hand he holds. He wants to let the breaks expire for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and leave them intact for everybody else, meaning households that take in less than $250,000 a year. Conflicting Goals Polls show the public with him on this. Republicans can’t square blowing another $700 billion hole in the deficit to help the richest taxpayers while saying that lowering the deficit is the most important thing in the world to them. They have no spending cuts to make up for it. There’s no proof that extending the tax cut for the wealthy will do anything to create one job or induce one bank to start lending again. The wealthy have largely bounced back from the economic crash. Why wouldn’t Obama just battle to the bitter end on this one, leaving Republicans to defend their willingness to stop everything else if he doesn’t capitulate? But no. He’s signaled he’ll agree to extend tax cuts for the wealthy to preserve those for the middle class. He’ll do it temporarily, as if not doing it permanently is a defeat for Republicans. One-Sided Trade He’s not getting anything so far for the middle class in exchange for what he’s prepared to give up. He unilaterally announced a two-year freeze on federal pay, without bargaining for an extension of unemployment benefits -- or, for that matter, passage of well-reasoned immigration legislation, or ratification of the START Treaty, or repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Obama acts as if he believes Republican rhetoric that the election put them in the driver’s seat. Polls show a modest difference in approval ratings for Republicans over Democrats. The mandate they have is the one Obama gives them. Republicans are wilier than Obama, who should see that reaching out is for chumps. His recent busted lip, the result of sharp elbows on the basketball court, seemed an apt status report on his presidency. What did he get for his trips to Capitol Hill, cocktail receptions at his residence, inviting Republicans to watch the Super Bowl at the White House? It’s a wonder his extended arm didn’t break. Rather than give Republicans another dinner date to turn down, Obama should start playing hard to get. (Margaret Carlson, author of “Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House” and former White House correspondent for Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.) To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this column: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net Last Updated: December 1, 2010 21:00 EST

To: koan who wrote (86191)	12/4/2010 2:32:47 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Save Obama's Presidency by Challenging Him on the Left by Michael Lerner / Published on Saturday, December 4, 2010 by the Washington Post People who used to say, "Give President Obama more time" when the president was criticized for capitulating to the right, or who argued that Obama must have a plan to turn things around, are now largely depressed and angry. To many liberals and progressives, the president's unwillingness to veto any measure that includes continued tax relief for billionaires is the last straw, building on a record of spinelessness that includes his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, abandonment of a public option for health-care reform, refusal to prosecute those who tortured in Iraq or lied us into that war, and unwillingness to tax carbon emissions. With his base deeply disillusioned, many progressives are starting to believe that Obama has little chance of winning reelection unless he enthusiastically embraces a populist agenda and worldview - soon. Yet there is little chance that will happen without a massive public revolt by his constituency that goes beyond rallies, snide remarks from television personalities or indignant op-eds. Those of us who worry that a full-scale Republican return to power in 2012 would be a disaster not just for those hurting from the Republican-policy-inspired economic meltdown but also for the environment, social justice and world peace believe it is critical to get Obama to become the candidate whom most Americans believed they elected in 2008. Despite the outcome of last month's election, it is unlikely that the level of his base's alienation will register with the president until late in the 2012 election cycle - far too late for society today and our future tomorrow. But there is a real way to save the Obama presidency: by challenging him in the 2012 presidential primaries with a candidate who would unequivocally commit to a well-defined progressive agenda and contrast it with the Obama administration's policies. Such a candidacy would be pooh-poohed by the media, but if it gathered enough popular support - as is likely given the level of alienation among many who were the backbone of Obama's 2008 success - this campaign would pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate. Far from weakening his chances for reelection, this kind of progressive primary challenge could save Obama if he moves in the desired direction. And if he holds firm to his current track, he's a goner anyway. The basic platform for such a candidate is clear: Unequivocally call for an immediate end to the presence of U.S. troops, advisers and private U.S.-based security firms in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and replace the "war on terror" with a Global Marshall Plan that roots homeland security in a strategy of generosity and concern for the well-being of everyone on the planet. Domestically, call for a massive jobs program; a freeze on mortgage foreclosures; a national bank that would offer interest-free loans to those seeking to create or expand small businesses; immediate implementation of the parts of the Obama health-care plan that would benefit ordinary citizens and build support for a health plan for all citizens; dramatically lower prices for drugs that treat critical diseases such as AIDS and cancer; a strong tax on carbon emissions; and immediate prosecution of those government employees involved in torture or cover-ups to justify the invasion of Iraq. This candidate should push for the media to provide free and equal time to all major candidates for national office as well as for constitutional amendments requiring only public financing in elections and, separately, for corporations to prove every five years to a jury of ordinary citizens that they have a satisfactory history of environmental responsibility (much like the Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment, or ESRA, advocated by the Network of Spiritual Progressives). This policy platform must be matched with a willingness to talk unequivocally about the spiritual and ethical need for a new bottom line - one of love, kindness and generosity. We need a progressive push for a new New Deal, which in the 21st century could be the Caring Society: "Caring for Each Other and the Earth." Public officials who would make excellent candidates should they run on this platform include Sens. Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Mikulski or Al Franken; Reps. Joe Sestak, Maxine Waters, Raul Grijalva, Alan Grayson, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Lois Capps, Jim Moran and Lynn Woolsey. Others include Jim McGovern, Marcy Kaptur, Jim McDermott or John Conyers. We should also consider popular figures outside of government. How about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Why not Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, Susan Sarandon or the Rev. James Forbes? All suggestions need to be part of this critical conversation. What's clear is that we need such a candidate, and the finances to back her or him, very soon. *Michael Lerner, a rabbi, is editor of the magazine Tikkun and chairs the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives. His e-mail address is RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org.

To: koan who wrote (86191)	12/4/2010 2:46:26 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 149317

The Big Economic Story, and Why Obama Isn’t Telling It by Robert Reich / Published on Saturday, December 4, 2010 by RobertReich.org Quiz: What's responsible for the lousy economy most Americans continue to wallow in? A. Big government, bureaucrats, and the cultural and intellectual elites who back them. B. Big business, Wall Street, and the powerful and privileged who represent them. These are the two competing stories Americans are telling one another. Yes, I know: It's more complicated than this. In reality, the lousy economy is due to insufficient demand - the result of the nation's almost unprecedented concentration of income at the top. The very rich don't spend as much of their income as the middle. And since the housing bubble burst, the middle class hasn't had the buying power to keep the economy going. That concentration of income, in turn, is due to globalization and technological change - along with unprecedented campaign contributions and lobbying designed to make the rich even richer and do nothing to help average Americans, insider trading, and political bribery. So B is closer to the truth. But A is the story Republicans and right-wingers tell. It's a dangerous story because it deflects attention from the real problem and makes it harder for America to focus on the real solution - which is more widely shared prosperity. (I get into how we might do this in my new book, Aftershock.) A is also the story President Obama is telling, indirectly, through his deficit commission, his freeze on federal pay, his freeze on discretionary spending, and his waivering on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Most other Washington Democrats are falling into the same trap. If Obama and the Democrats were serious about story B they'd at least mention it. They'd tell the nation that income and wealth haven't been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash. They'd be indignant about the secret money funneled into midterm campaigns. They'd demand Congress pass the Disclose Act so the public would know where the money comes from. They'd introduce legislation to curb Wall Street bonuses - exactly what European leaders are doing with their financial firms. They'd demand that the big banks, now profitable after taxpayer bailouts, reorganize the mortgage debt of distressed homeowners. They'd call for a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work, and pay for it with a tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million. They'd insist on extended unemployment benefits for long-term jobless who are now exhausting their benefits. And they'd hang tough on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - daring Republicans to vote against extending the cuts for everyone else. But Obama is doing none of this. Instead, he's telling story A. Making a big deal out of the deficit - appointing a deficit commission and letting them grandstand with a plan to cut $4 trillion out of the projected deficit over the next ten years - $3 of government spending for every $1 of tax increase - is telling story A. What the public hears is that our economic problems stem from too much government and that if we reduce government spending we'll be fine. Announcing a two-year freeze on federal salaries - explaining that "I did not reach this decision easily... these are people's lives" - is also telling story A. What the public hears is government bureaucrats are being paid too much, and that if we get the federal payroll under control we'll all be better off. Proposing a freeze on discretionary (non-defense) spending is telling story A. So is signaling a willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts to the top. So is appointing his top economic advisor from Wall Street (as apparently he's about to do). In fact, the unwillingness of the President and Washinton Democrats to tell story B itself promotes story A, because in the absence of an alternative narrative the Republican story is the only one the public hears. Obama's advisors explain the President's moves are designed to "preempt" the resurgent Republicans - just like Bill Clinton preempted the Gingrich crowd by announcing "the era of big government is over" and then tacking right. They're wrong. By telling story A and burying story B, the President legitimizes everything the right has been saying. He doesn't preempt them; he fuels them. He gives them more grounds for voting against raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. He strengthens their argument against additional spending for extended unemployment benefits. He legitimizes their argument against additional stimulus spending. Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn't legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn't have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why. Unless the President and Democrats explain why the economy still stinks for most Americans and offer a plan to fix it, the Republican explanation and solution - it's big government's fault, and all we need do is shrink it - will prevail. That will mean more hardship for tens of millions of Americans. It will make it harder to remedy the bad economy. And it will set Republicans up for bigger wins in the future. *Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent book, Supercapitalism. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

To: koan who wrote (86191)	12/4/2010 3:04:17 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Obama is the last gasp of conservatism dailykos.com The Establishment - political, economic, and cultural - has lost all popular legitimacy; both the Left and the Right are demanding a complete transformation of American society according to their values-based platforms - the politics of stability and continuity is finally as unpopular among the Right as it's always been among the Left. It's been a long time coming, we saw it start to break out under Dubya, but Obama (being black and a Democrat) has proven to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Except these people are so insane that they can't even recognize that Obama is no liberal, but a good Establishment-defending conservative: not the worst we could [have] during an economic meltdown, especially if they succeed in getting the bubble machine working again. I submit to you that most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" are actually fascists: right-wing revolutionaries that'd give their Sixties boogeymen a run for their money in terms of their radicalism and committment to pursue it by any means necessary. by rf80412 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 10:18:20 AM PST