Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Obama Goes Big ~ RepubliCons Go Jihad

Posted 6 years ago on July 25, 2013, 3:54 a.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Obama Goes Big [~ RepubliCons Go Jihad]

By E.J. Dionne - July 25, 2013

[In spite of the GOP's (strangely disregarded) scorched earth obstructionism, zealous filibustering and pathological hostage taking, twice duly elected President Obama sets out to give struggling Americans a long overdue square deal. RepubliCons will do everything in their power to defeat the President and continue the unprecedented (and also strangely disregarded) redistribution of wealth to their 1% masters, but just raising the issue and working to achieve it puts Obama light years ahead of his detractors. Having learned our painful lessons from 2010, we can all help by Voting in the 2014 midterm elections.]

WASHINGTON -- Presidents are judged not only by the things they do but also by how successful they are in influencing the actions of the presidents who follow.

Leaders who want their achievements to endure know their task includes changing the terms of the national debate and leaving behind an intellectual legacy that shapes how future generations see the country and its possibilities.

Franklin D. Roosevelt accomplished this. So did Ronald Reagan. President Obama traveled Wednesday to Knox College in Illinois to give the speech that launched his effort to join them. It was where, in 2005, he originally laid out his philosophy of government.

Obama is making this bid in the face of a political culture that is far more cynical than it was in the days of FDR or the Gipper. He confronts adversaries determined to move the country in exactly the opposite direction from the one he would have it choose. And up to now, the president has been foiled or distracted whenever he has tried to focus the public conversation on reversing rising inequality and restoring social mobility. So why should his latest effort be any different? Here are three reasons.

First, Obama and his advisers have learned from past failures. Earlier speeches along these lines came and went, barely causing a ripple in the public's consciousness. This time, the president is embarking on an eight-week campaign to keep his themes at the center of the debate. He wants to bend the news cycle rather than bow to it.

By giving a series of addresses that include specific proposals -- some old, some new -- he hopes to grab the public's attention, and the media's. His grass-roots operation will mobilize supporters to talk up these themes with their neighbors. Whatever else it is, this campaign is not a one-off.

Second, he will be speaking to a country that's fed up with the mean, narrow and pessimistic (GOP) tone emanating from a capital locked in what Obama called "short-term thinking and stale debates." The president's critics have said over and over that he needs to "go big" and push the system beyond itself. Even his friends have been frustrated at his difficulty in seizing the initiative and confronting obstructionist opponents. He appears to have listened.

But the most important reason this offensive has a chance is that it goes to the heart of why Obama got elected in the first place and then won re-election. A substantial American majority just doesn't buy the (RW) ideas that Obama forcefully rejected: that "inequality is both inevitable and just" and that "an unfettered free market without any restraints inevitably produces the best outcomes, regardless of the pain and uncertainty imposed on ordinary families."

In describing his priorities, Obama's language was plain but direct: "Good jobs. A better bargain for the middle class and the folks who are working to get into the middle class. An economy that grows from the middle out. ... That's where I'll focus my energies -- not just for the next few months, but for the remainder of my presidency."

"Middle out" is the key concept. Since the Reagan era, conservatives have enjoyed enormous success in making supply-side economics -- the belief (cruel hoax) that wealth flows to everyone else from the economy's commanding heights -- a powerful, underground default position. A corollary (deception): Government can do little to make the nation richer other than cut taxes and reduce its own reach.

The alternative view is, as Obama put it, that "growing inequality" is "not just morally wrong; it's bad economics."

"When middle-class families have less to spend," Obama insisted, "businesses have fewer consumers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy." In the long history of the country, concentrations of wealth and income always have perverse effects.

Broadening our nation's winners' circle, on the other hand, has always been the best strategy for sustainable growth. We need to acknowledge this once again.

There is more Obama needs to do to make his case for the specific steps Washington can take to restore shared, robust prosperity. He will have to beat back the forces that would continue to shrink government through a sequester that is making the recovery slower than it should be.

But this time, he cannot let himself be sidetracked. With 1,276 days left in his presidency, he chose to draw a clear line and start a big argument. His place in history will hang in large part on whether he can win it. (c) 2013, Washington Post Writers Group

Obama's Speech: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/314164-1

Racist Roots of GOP War on Obama

July 24, 2013 | By Robert Parry

Exclusive: Right-wing Republicans in Congress are plotting to cripple the U.S. government if Barack Obama, the first African-American president, doesn’t submit to their demands. The battle pretends to be over the size of government but it echoes the whips, chains and epithets of America’s racist past, writes Robert Parry.

The United States finds itself at a crossroad, with a choice of moving toward a multicultural future behind a more activist federal government or veering down a well-worn path that has marked various tragic moments of American history when white racists have teamed up with “small government” extremists.

Despite losing Election 2012 – both in the presidential vote (by five million) and the overall tally for Congress (by one million) – the Republicans are determined to use their gerrymandered House “majority” and their filibuster-happy Senate minority to slash programs that are viewed as giving “stuff” (in Mitt Romney’s word) to poorer Americans and especially minorities.

Republicans are gearing up to force a series of fiscal crises this fall, threatening to shut down the federal government and even default on the national debt, if they don’t get their way. Besides sabotaging President Barack Obama’s health reform law, the Republicans want to devastate funding for food stamps, environmental advancements, transportation, education assistance and other domestic programs.

“These are tough bills,” Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Kentucky, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, told the New York Times. “His priorities are going nowhere.”

A key point is to slash help to what the Right sees as “undeserving” Americans, especially people of color. The ugly side of this crypto-racist behavior also surfaced in the gloating by right-wing pundits over the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the murder of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Fox News pundits, in particular, have mocked the outrage over the verdict from America’s black community and Obama’s personal expression of sympathy.

It is now clear that Obama’s election in 2008 was not the harbinger of a “post-racial” America, but rather the signal for white right-wingers to rally their forces to “take back America.” The fact that the modern Republican Party has become almost exclusively white and the nation’s minorities have turned more and more to the Democratic Party has untethered the GOP from any sense of racial tolerance.

There is now a white-supremacist nihilism emerging in the Republican strategy, a visceral contempt for even the idea of a multi-racial democracy that favors a more vigorous federal government. Some of these extremists seem to prefer sinking the world’s economy via a U.S. debt default than compromising with President Obama on his economic and social agenda. Though the mainstream media avoids the white supremacist framing for the political story – preferring to discuss the upcoming clash as a philosophical dispute over big versus small government, — the reality is that the United States is lurching into a nasty struggle over the preservation of white political dominance. The size-of-government narrative is just a euphemistic way of avoiding the underlying issue of race, a dodge that is as old as the Republic.

CONTINUED: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/07/24/racist-roots-of-gop-war-on-obama/

House G.O.P. Sets New Offensive on Obama Goals

By JONATHAN WEISMAN | Published: July 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are moving to gut many of President Obama’s top priorities with the sharpest spending cuts in a generation and a new push to hold government financing hostage unless the president’s signature health care law is stripped of money this fall.

CONTINUED: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/us/politics/house-gop-sets-new-offensive-on-obama-goals.html?_r=0



Read the Rules


[-] 0 points by SenorDanger (2) 6 years ago

Things aren't what they used to be. Me and the rest of the team really miss those Vermont sandwiches. Now they got us monitoring this Lenscrafters model looking dude in Moscow and well, we all just pine for you. I'm not afraid to say it.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

In your lobster eat lobster world.

What else can you say?


You make less cents than a penny arcade?






[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I can't be sure, but I think that's the ghost of zilla.

Just a trashy proxy.

[-] -2 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

"macaque faggot just won't leave me alone "

really? while typing you lose control?


[-] -2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

Is someone else using your handle? meds?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

7 Idiotic and Dangerous Statements From Right-Wing Nut-Jobs Just Last Week

AlterNet / By Janet Allon

"We can't have a woman president until every other country has a woman leader"...and much more.

1.) GOP Congressman: Multiculturalism is bad. There is “an American race.”

At a townhall meeting in El Dorado Hills, California, Rep. Tom McClintock enlightened attendees about his views on immigration reform. He suggested that immigrants need to shed their own culture and become something he termed the "American race” then added that if they can’t do that they should just go home. “There’s only one race here: it’s the American race,” he said.

Later, a Latino man who had been in the audience challenged McClintock’s view, saying that people who bring different cultures and personalities to this country is in fact what makes it both great and strong. So McClintock took it a step further: Multiculturalists want to “divide America into warring factions separated by culture, by language, by attitude,” he told the man.

Suggestion to McClintock: Read a history book! Diversify your friend pool. Something.

2.) Donny Deutsch: The U.S. can’t have a woman president until Al Qaeda does.

Donny Deutsch may have been a genius brander/advertising guy, but as a political analyst, umm...not so much. In an appearance on "Morning Joe" this week, he laid out his theory of why a woman (read: Hillary Clinton) should not be president. In a nutshell, it seems to be because she’d have to deal with foreign leaders who are men. And that wouldn’t be fair.

We’ll let him dig his own grave. Here’s what he said:

Problem: we have a woman, but our enemies are still on the opposite side of the equation. I don’t think the Al Qaedas of the world are going to be headed by women, so it falls apart a little bit. Women plus women equals a win to me. Women and still men on the other side of the table? Theoretically the world would be a better place with women running it. It doesn’t solve the problem.

“If you have two women down to negotiate something, it’s going to get done without bullets,” Deutsch continued, undeterred by the ridiculousness of his position. “On our side of the equation, we solve it, but there’s a world that’s still a century behind in our evolutionary state or progressive state in how we feel about women.”

So no woman president until every other country has a woman leader. As Jezebel quipped: "Does Angela Merkel know about this?"

3.) Minnesota Rep. offers conceal carry permits and target practice to donors.

Here’s a novel idea for a fundraising event: Promise more gun privileges to every donor. This Saturday, gun-loving Minn. Republican lawmaker Cindy Pugh offered free concealed carry gun-training classes to people who donate a minimum of $125 to her campaign. For those potential donors who already have concealed carry permits, the deal was sweetened by having their permit automatically renewed, for a mere $100 donation.

Pugh was really pleased with herself for coming up with this idea. As she told Watchdog.org:

I’ve heard from a lot of people that they’ve never heard of anyone doing this before and I don’t know that it has been done before. But this is an idea that my campaign team came up with as we were brainstorming ways to connect with my voters and my constituents and just heighten awareness about issues that are important.

This should in no way be construed as buying votes (or donations) though. That is something only Democrats do when they, say, offer food stamps to hungry seniors.

4.) Rush Limbaugh bullies listeners into choosing between God and science.

One mark of a borderline personality, we’re told, is seeing the word in black-and-white terms — either/or — no nuance allowed. An armchair diagnosis of Rush Limbaugh suggests that syndrome may apply to him. Another diagnosis: intellectual (using the word loosely) bullying.

And so it was this week when Limbaugh made it plain to his listeners that they could not simultaneously believe in God and in climate change science. Take your pick, he said, ‘cause you can’t have both. His comments were occasioned by Secretary of State John Kerry having the audacity to say in a speech to the Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives that climate change was “a challenge to our responsibilities as the guardians — safe guarders of God’s creation.”

Here’s how Limbaugh put listeners between a rock and hard place:

“See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming … You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something that he can’t create.”

Black or white. See? Simple.

5.) Rick Santorum says “middle class” is a Marxist term.

Former and perhaps future presidential candidate Rick Santorum is so tired of hearing about the middle class. This is not because of the sad fact that the middle class is shrinking or just becoming part of the poor or one step away from it, it’s because he has decided, the very notion of the middle class is “Marxism talk” because, “Since when in America do we have classes?”

This is Santorum’s notion of creative problem-solving. It is also always good to attach the Marxist/socialist label to Obama, because if there’s one thing Americans hate, it’s socialism.

As Salon reported:

“Who does Barack talk about all the time?” Santorum rhetorically asked a group of Republicans recently in Lyon County, IA. ”The middle class. Since when in America do we have classes? Since when in America are people stuck in areas, or defined places called a class? That’s Marxism talk. When Republicans get up and talk about the middle class we’re buying into their rhetoric of dividing America. Stop it."

6.) Steve King asks Obama to have clown summit.

Even his fellow Republicans wish Iowa Rep. Steve King would shut up. He is not doing the brand or the shrinking voter base any good with his comments on immigrants having cantaloupe calves, and other assorted bigoted remarks. Most self-respecting Republicans also disavow blatant racism, and almost everyone agrees that the Obama-mask clown at the Missouri State Fair that lent the event the air of a KKK rally was over the line.

Not Rep. King, however. Perversely appointing himself the arbiter of what is racist and funny, he tweeted:

Mr. President: Invite the rodeo clown 2 the White House 4 a beer summit. Take the temperature down, have a laugh, relax. It's not about race.

As if Obama did not have enough clowns to deal with in Washington.

7.) Former Navy Chaplain: Obama is secretly creating an atheist military to attack Christians.

Former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt is full of fire and brimstone, and some would say insane paranoia, these days. Having been court-martialed for wearing his navy uniform to a protest a few years back, he is convinced of a huge conspiracy to rid the armed forces of Christians. To do this, he says Obama is amassing an atheist army to attack God-fearing Christians.

Klingenschmitt told Dove TV, “The Obama administration is stockpiling armored personnel carriers, and the Department of Homeland Security [has] billions of rounds of ammunition; who are they going to use that against? If there’s no Christians serving in the government, eventually that is all going to be turned against us.”

Other eminently sensible recent remarks from Chap. Kling according to Rightwingwatch.org: “Wendy Davis is ruled by a demon of murder and should be prosecuted,” and, “What gays do behind closed doors is not love, it’s lawlessness.”

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 6 years ago

Obama knows how to think big. Just look at the unconstitutional spying programs he has kept from the public.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

First: Do you seriously think Barack Obama devised the Spying Programs????

Second: Do you seriously think Barack Obama can unilaterally end the Spying Progam????

Third: Do you even know that the Congress makes the decisions????

Forth: Do you know that the Cons are holding the country hostage???

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 6 years ago

He didn't devise it but he did maintain it.

He admits he can make it more transparent but for some reason it took snowden's leak before he acknowledged the programs

A majority of Congress didn't know about the size of the program until it was leaked

Yes the reps are corrupt but you don't fix a corrupt system by supporting a corrupt president.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

You offer NO solution, just BITCH!


VOTE and we can reform anything!!!

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 6 years ago

I voted for the Green Party.

Classic attack when you can't defend your position.

It may come as a surprise but principles are independent of parties. I believe Bush should be arrested for warrantless wiretapping and the murder of civilians. Supporting Obama when he does the same things would make me a hypocrite.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

False Flag criticism!

If you Voted Green, you Voted RepubliCon or you are retarded.

Considering swing and not swing states, and state elections.

Bush (or any Con) would NEVER in a million years do the reforms Obama has done!! In spite of this treasonous GOP Congress and Royal Roberts SCOTUS!

Ignorance is no excuse!!

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 6 years ago

Simple questions. Did he keep the spying program secret?

Has his drone program killed hundreds of innocents, including children?

Plus voting green is voting Rep? WTF. If you weren't. So willfully blind I would pity you. Here you are trying to defend Obama and he keeps performing clearly illegal acts.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

You seem woefully naive and ignorant of the way governments and nations work, so just go chase Unicorns, I'm not your teacher.

Read some books: A People's History Of The United States, Howard Zinn: http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html | Do Not Ask What Good We Do, Robert Draper: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html | Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine | just to start with.

But I really doubt that you are simply uninformed, your silent omissions of the 1%-GOP is deafening!

It would be nice to have 1%-GOP supporters take off their fraudulent false-flag troll masks, for a change.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 6 years ago

If he thought prism was unconstitutional it is his responsibility to inform us. If he doesn't think it's unconstitutional then that's a problem. Another good example was indefinate detention. He could have vetoed the ndaa and forced Congress to override him. Imagine the speech he could have made to the public. With his intelligence and charisma he could easily have turned the country against whoever supported it. But that requires that you care about our rights. The good thing is their are movements on both sides challenging the assault on our rights. If we can get honest representatives in office then taking care of the many problems we have is possible. Technology advances alone will make sure of that.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

Poll: Louisiana GOPers Unsure If Katrina Response Was Obama’s Fault

A significant chunk of Louisiana Republicans evidently believe that President Barack Obama is to blame for the poor response to the hurricane that ravaged their state more than three years before he took office.

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, provided exclusively to TPM, showed an eye-popping divide among Republicans in the Bayou State when it comes to accountability for the government's post-Katrina blunders.

Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren't sure who to blame.

Bush was criticized heavily when he did not immediately return to Washington from his vacation in Texas after the storm had reached landfall. The government was also slow to provide relief aid and Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), admitted in a televised interview that he learned that many of the storm's victims at the New Orleans Convention Center were without food and water well after the situation had been reported in the press.

Brown's handling of the response ultimately led to his resignation, but Bush offered an infamous endorsement of the FEMA chief only days before he stepped down.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," Bush said.

PPP Louisiana poll, August 2013

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 6 years ago

And your point? I don't expect honesty from you but at least you could try to be more subtle about changing the subject.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

You find a lie and I'll by dinner. I am the most honest poster on this forum.

What's your problem? Oh, I see, delusional RepubliCon beliefs. If you think this POTUS runs everything or set this whole Patriot Act scam up, look at the crazy shit LA Cons believe. Delusion juxtaposition. You nutty Cons think everything started in 2009! WRONG!

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 6 years ago

Actually everything started in the 80's. Plus I never said he set up the patriot act. My complaint is that he is taking full advantage of the law. BTW you still haven't answered my questions.

Did he keep prism secret?

Have the drone strikes he authorized killed hundreds of civilians?

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

I guess you don't even comprehend the talking points you parrot.

Your criticisms/accusations assume it. So you are contradicting yourself. I don't play that Con game.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

The anti-American/democracy pro-King/Big $ contingency has been sabotaging since our forefathers began planning the Revolution. Now they're RepubliCons and their Kings are the 1%.

Pettifogging is one of their stupid tactics, what this is: "Plus I never said he set up the patriot act." I didn't either. Your criticisms/accusations assume it. So you are contradicting yourself. I don't play that Con game.

He may or may not be taking advantage of the myriad laws and deregulations that the Bush-Cheney henchmen contrived and corrupted our government with under fraudulent circumstances, I doubt he has a choice or control over the MIC folks who execute them. Same with prism (whatever that is) and drones. BTW 1% wealth hoarding, guns & bullets, bombs, missiles, poverty, homelessness, pollution, malnutrition, disinformation, cigarettes, alcohol and poor health care kill millions and millions more people than drones could ever hope to kill. What are your priorities/agenda?

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 6 years ago

You said "If you think this POTUS runs everything or set this whole Patriot Act scam up, look at the crazy shit LA Cons believe" Sure seems like you were implying I think that. Also Obama has much more power then you will admit. I have given examples what he can do with just the bully pulpit if he actually cared our rights. What you can't admit is he hasn't done anything to protect our rights because he is not paid to protect us not because he is powerless.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 6 years ago

America; United States of amnesia.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

Is boycott OK popular?

[-] -2 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 6 years ago

hahahaha literally lol

Go Dems!!

All Hail Obama!!!!! He's on TV right now. He is one hell of a campaigner, I'll give him that.

Oh lord you guys couldnt be any further from the spirit of occupy if you tried.



[-] -2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

The day the right lost the economic argument

President Obama's speech clinched the case against Norquist-style austerity — and won over the likes of USA Today

Thursday, Jul 25, 2013 09:37 AM PST | By Michael Lind

If you need any further evidence of the stark ideological divide that separates progressives from conservatives, you can find it by contrasting President Barack Obama’s speech on the economy with the response of the House Republicans.

In his speech, the president provided a capsule summary of the mainstream progressive narrative about the U.S. economy from 1945 to 2009:

In the period after World War II, a growing middle class was the engine of our prosperity. Whether you owned a company, swept its floors, or worked anywhere in between, this country offered you a basic bargain – a sense that your hard work would be rewarded with fair wages and benefits, the chance to buy a home, to save for retirement, and, above all, to hand down a better life for your kids.

But over time, that engine began to stall. That bargain began to fray. Technology made some jobs obsolete. Global competition sent others overseas. It became harder for unions to fight for the middle class. Washington doled out bigger tax cuts to the rich and smaller minimum wage increases for the working poor. The link between higher productivity and people’s wages and salaries was severed – the income of the top 1% nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while the typical family’s barely budged. Towards the end of those three decades, a housing bubble, credit cards, and a churning financial sector kept the economy artificially juiced up.

That’s an excellent statement of the progressive theory of the case. What collapsed in 2008 was not merely the lesser stock and real estate bubble of the 2000s, but the larger Bubble Economy which had been “artificially juiced up” since the 1980s.

If you accept this thesis, as most progressives do, there can be no going to back to pre-2008 “normality”— because from Reagan to George W. Bush the “normal” was abnormal and sustained only by the [tortured] Keynesian stimulus provided by Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s military build-ups and the stock market and real estate bubbles fueled by tax cuts for the rich. (Conservatives oppose Keynesian stimulus in the form of productive infrastructure investment, but [expediently] support Keynesian stimulus if it benefits rentiers, defense contractors, real estate speculators and money managers).

In the progressive view, rebuilding a broken economy requires productivity-enhancing investment in manufacturing, innovation, infrastructure and education [and jobs and consumer spending]. In his speech, the president called for federal action in all four areas.

Manufacturing: “The first cornerstone of a strong and growing middle class has to be an economy that generates more good jobs in durable, growing industries. Over the past four years, for the first time since the 1990s, the number of American manufacturing jobs hasn’t gone down; they’ve gone up. But we can do more. So I’ll push new initiatives to help more manufacturers bring more jobs back to America.”

Innovation: “And I’ll push to open more manufacturing innovation institutes that turn regions left behind by global competition into global centers of cutting-edge jobs.”

Infrastructure: “We’ve got ports that aren’t ready for the new supertankers that will begin passing through the new Panama Canal in two years’ time. We’ve got more than 100,000 bridges that are old enough to qualify for Medicare. Businesses depend on our transportation systems, our power grids, our communications networks – and rebuilding them creates good-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced. And yet, as a share of our economy, we invest less in our infrastructure than we did two decades ago.” Turning to education, the president set forth a vision of comprehensive reforms from preschool to college:

If we don’t make this investment, we’ll put our kids, our workers, and our country at a competitive disadvantage for decades. So we must begin in the earliest years. That’s why I’ll keep pushing to make high-quality preschool available to every four-year-old in America – not just because we know it works for our kids, but because it provides a vital support system for working parents. I’ll also take action to spur innovations in our schools that don’t require Congress. Today, for example, federal agencies are moving on my plan to connect 99% of America’s students to high-speed internet over the next five years. And we’ve begun meeting with business leaders, tech entrepreneurs, and innovative educators to identify the best ideas for redesigning our high schools so that they teach the skills required for a high-tech economy.

We’ll also keep pushing new efforts to train workers for changing jobs…. Families and taxpayers can’t just keep paying more and more into an undisciplined [higher education] system; we’ve got to get more out of what we pay for… And in the coming months, I will lay out an aggressive strategy to shake up the system, tackle rising costs, and improve value for middle-class students and their families.

The president completed his vision for rebuilding “an economy that grows from the middle out” by calling for increased access to affordable health care and retirement security and a minimum wage that is a living wage: “And because no one who works full-time in America should have to live in poverty, I will keep making the case that we need to raise a minimum wage that in real terms is lower than it was when Ronald Reagan took office.” The one subject on which Obama sounded more like a conservative than a progressive was retirement security. “Today, a rising stock market has millions of retirement balances rising. But we still live with an upside-down system where those at the top get generous tax incentives to save, while tens of millions of hardworking Americans get none at all.”

But “millions of retirement balances are rising” in a “rising stock market” only because the Fed Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing has “artificially juiced up” an asset bubble. Is the same president, who earlier in the speech criticized the pre-2008 bubble economy, now taking credit for the bubble-like reflation of the stock market? Alas, it appears so.

Instead of expanding the successful Social Security program, President Obama echoes the Wall Street wing of the Right with a call to expand the failed, inefficient system of private savings accounts like 401(k)s and IRAs. “As we work to reform our tax code, we should find new ways to make it easier for workers to put money away, and free middle-class families from the fear that they’ll never be able to retire.”

No, Mr. President, we don’t need to “find new ways to make it easier for workers to put money away” in volatile private retirement savings accounts, with banks or money managers skimming exorbitant fees. We need to expand Social Security.

With the lamentable exception [compromise] of his right-leaning, Wall Street-friendly [they are in control after all] approach to retirement security, the president has provided a road map that most progressives can endorse. For a radical contrast, we can turn to the “House Republican Plan for Economic Growth and Jobs” that was publicized as an alternative to Obama’s speech. Unlike Obama, the House Republican leadership does not bother to set forth a historical narrative about the de-linking of productivity growth and income for most Americans in the last generation. But then, we already know the conservative Republican historical narrative [not all of us] — the U.S. economy was just fine in the age of the Robber Barons between the 1870s and the 1920s, with even more concentrated wealth and even more extreme inequality, before Franklin Roosevelt screwed everything up. Reform for today’s radicalized right means undoing almost every reform enacted since the New Deal, if not the Progressive era, and trying to restore the savage, unregulated capitalism of the late nineteenth century. Short on vision, the House Republican plan is short on specifics, too. It proposes “3 ways to immediately grow jobs and strengthen the middle class”— approve the Keystone pipeline, pass the SKILLS Act to reform job training, and expand offshore domestic energy production [and repeal Obama Care and cut taxes].

Neo-New Deal liberal that I am, I would support these proposals, including more offshore energy production with adequate environmental protection [??]. But the jobs that pipeline construction or offshore drilling create, though helpful [drop in the bucket], cannot compensate for the artificially high unemployment that Republican-backed austerity policies needlessly have inflicted on the U.S., by means of the sequester and lay-offs of public sector workers during the Great Recession [not to mention continued fossil fuel externalities]. (CONTINUED)

When even USA Today goes all Keynesian instead of going Galt, the Right is clearly losing the argument about the economy. Conservative Republicans have enough power in Congress to block most of the progressive agenda. But they do not have a plausible alternative to the progressive vision of the past, present and future of the U.S. economy that President Obama has set forth [and neither do the cynics].


[-] -2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

Chris Matthews: When Will The Obama Haters Stop?

The sad reality of the far right’s blind Obama hatred

Chris Matthews, @hardball_chris | 6:01 PM on 07/25/2013

Let me finish tonight with this.

I said it before and am now saying it again.

There are too many people on the American right who hate the very notion of Barack Obama in the White House. It grates on them, just as it thrills – even now – tens of millions of others.

They hate not just his politics but him.

Think about all the days we have known him – from way back when he gave that breathtaking speech at the 2004 convention? Was there ever a time in all those days and weeks and months and years since that his haters on the right have stopped in their tracks and said, “Well, good for him. I liked the way he did that.”

Think hard. Have his haters ever stopped hating him?

When we got Bin Laden?

When the stock market doubled, doubling every 401K, making all those haters richer – twice as rich – as they were when Bush left us stranded with a dropping, scary economy? Did they ever look up and say, even hesitantly, “Well, I’ll give him this one?”




You can discount it all. You can say it’s not about race or whatever. You can say it, but …

Think about this. In all the criticisms you’ve heard the haters say about African Americans all the years of your life – and think about this man’s life – about how hard he worked at school, how he achieved so highly at school, how he married so well and so faithfully, how he’s fathered two great daughters and kept them, protected them, been a truly great father to them, be a true partner in his marriage, treated his office with such respect and dignity – has never once let us down with his personal behavior and yet ….

They hate him. They really do and I don’t have to be the one to tell you.

We live in a country where a good chunk of the country hates its elected leader and won’t really – I mean really- tell you why.

It’s the same reason they spend their time thinking of clever gimmicks to keep so many people from voting. Anybody disagree?

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/homework.html?feed=364336&article=11519102#ixzz2aCeInVEb


[-] -3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

yeah, we already know. I wonder if there will be another Tsunami of bailouts when Hillary takes over. That's not to say bailouts are a dem thing. Takes two to tango.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

Hillary won't be a "Jackie Robinson" POTUS.

So she'll be able to kick RepubliCons in the balls and poke them in the eyes, for being treasonous bastards!!!

But, yes, she'll take the $ to beat the $.

[+] -5 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

I agree, she won't be a Jackie Robinson president. She'll be the president who's supporters successfully prevented Caroline Kennedy from becoming Ambassador to Japan.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

So who do you suggest? Who meets your strict standards of perfection? Who can win?

[-] -3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Hillary can win. I'd guess she'll be the next president. I'm just saying turning down Kennedy for the Ambassador position is not smart. It won't be forgotten if Hillary wins. If Kennedy turns out to be a very popular ambassador how does that hurt Clinton? It doesn't. Hillary, who's a bit of a europhile might get very confused when everything is suddenly 'asian' during her presidency. Look at all the talk about the TPP.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

Random. Ambassadors are not very influential or memorable. And sometimes obstacles and detours lead to better destinations ~ Senator Elizabeth Warren! If the Kennedy snub effects the results of one single district I will buy you a Sushi Dinner. Frankly, I would much rather have a Grayson-Warren or Warren-Grayson ticket, but they have to win. If "everything is suddenly 'asian'" everyone will be confused, including the Asians.

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Plenty of republicans support Kennedy and they understand it's a cerimonial postion for the most part. Don't be stupid.

[-] -2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Memorable? What about Benghazi? That could be a problem for Hillary. In the mean-time supporting Kennedy would be smart move.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

What about Iraq? Untold millions dead & maimed and trillions stolen from the public and redistributed to, and hoarded by, the 1% of the 1%! Benghazi is a fart in the wind GOP red herring.

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Tell that to the democrats who caved. About 1 in 4 people thought Iraq was a mistake and we're still here.

You're preaching to the choir.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

In that war time frenzy, to not be for all out war was to be a traitor. A feat of RW propaganda hysteria success, rarely ever seen!

[-] -1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 6 years ago

Prediction: If the economy is doing decent, they will put Hillary in there. If its in shambles, they will put a Republican in by pushing Hillary out in the primaries by some kind of scandal.

The most important thing for those that run the system is to maintain faith in the system. Divide and conquer requires it. Both parties have been declared dead repeatedly.

The media will run some nonsense, the people will gobble it up.

As soon as the people stop believing, TPTB end up with a situation like Egypt.

They end up with Occupy.

That freaks them the fuck out.

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Actually you might be right about the scandal.

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Lol. It's possible I guess. Expect the unexpected I say. We don't even know if she'll run but they don't seem to have a backup plan. Voters won't turn out for Biden or Booker so we don't know what's up yet.

As far as the economy I don't believe people can be fooled anymore. The numbers are all BS.

[-] -1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 6 years ago

Booker has some charisma going, depends on whether he wants to be a leader or play ball. Leaders get tossed out.

Kerry, Mitt and Dole -the three lame asses brought in in the middle of an 8 year run to "challenge". In a nation of 300million. Please. How fake.

[-] -2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Dems have electable women so I don't see them nominating Booker. Hillary better wise up and get behind Kennedy.

I think a 2nd term is a given with boomers. That way they don't have to be compared to Carter who happens to be one of the few people making any sense these days.

[-] -2 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 6 years ago

haha exactly. You can see how he gets treated when they do the big president meetings, its like hes the odd guy out.

The one who says this democracy is a sham gets no love. go figure.

We should buy them all ticket leaving Mena airport tomorrow.

[-] -3 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

Big words from someone who is endorsing the bailouts.


[-] -1 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

Defending 85 billion a month?

Sharpen your knife old man.

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

"...Artist" is very kind to an arbitrary slimer.

Contrary To Right-Wing Media Claims, Middle Class Is Key To Economic Growth

Research 7 hours ››› SAMANTHA WYATT | Media Matters

Right-wing media figures have attacked President Obama's "middle out" approach to economic growth, claiming that only a trickle-down model that slashes taxes and regulations will drive economic recovery. However, there is growing consensus that economic prosperity begins with the middle class, which provides a stable consumer base and promotes investment and job growth.

CONTINUED: http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/25/contrary-to-right-wing-media-claims-middle-clas/195058

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 6 years ago

The rich are the ones that obama needs for contributions,........he needs the poor to be dependent on govt so he can control them, he has no use use for the middle class( income people) except to destroy them by taxation , and keeping the cost of energy and food high and make them part of the dependent poor.

[-] -3 points by gameon (-51) 6 years ago

What I stated is the truth. I am not a republican. YOU are the " brainwashed " person.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

No, it's most certainly not the truth and is instead a pathetic lie!

[-] -3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

I doubt you even know what you're talking about. Just slime, mindlessly.