The Progressive Retreat from Obama: Who is to Blame?

[Capt Bringdown]

The Progressive Retreat from Obama: Who is to Blame? (http://translationexercises.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-progressive-retreat-from-obama-who-is-to-blame/)

President-Elect Obama and his inner circle fundamentally misjudged the political moment. The nation was clearly demanding significant change – so much so that they were willing to elect an unseasoned—Black—politician (remarkable given the U.S.’s unflinching history of racism). Yet Obama and his inner circle somehow convinced themselves that recycling the tired old idea of “triangulation” from the Clinton first term would be their best play. To that end, Barack Obama and his senior advisors immediately set about alienating their core supporters. Within two weeks of election day, the Administration announced that Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner–the individuals whose previous records individually and collectively defined what it meant to be monumental failures as public servants–would be placed in charge of the economic recovery. Their appointments indicated, and their performances amply confirmed, that whatever “hope and change” meant as a slogan, it would in no way apply to the president’s economic policies. They have, without a doubt, restored Wall Street’s fortunes – what they have not done is restore the fortunes of anyone else.

The fact is that the Obama Administration, like the Clinton Administration before it, knowingly engaged in a cynical wager. They bet that they could pursue a host of policies fundamentally odious to their core supporters and yet be reelected. The calculation depended on the premise that rank-and-file Democrats would have no other option. Unsurprisingly, the Obama Administration and its surrogates have invested considerable time and energy convincing its former supporters that there is no option.

Right now, a deeply cynical reelection campaign is betting that progressives will be too afraid of Romney to seek to empower themselves. This, let us remember, has been the strategy pursued by an increasingly right-wing Democratic National Committee for close to thirty years. Every four years we are asked to vote for the lesser evil. In a couple of weeks we will all learn if this plea will pay off again. The question is, will we learn? Will we learn to bargain with a faithless leadership of the Democratic Party? If not this election, then when?
- more -> (http://translationexercises.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-progressive-retreat-from-obama-who-is-to-blame/)

[Nbadan]

It is Ironic that the last two Democratic presidents have been the most conservative, small government Presidents ever. Despite the way the wing-nut media has tried to portray "liberal spending" lets not forget that Clinton left office with a projected net surplus and Obama has one of the lowest, if not the lowest non-discretionary spending records ever...

But if you want to spend money to stimulate the economy, where should it be spent?


Infrastructure spending is considered government investment because it will usually save money in the long run, and thereby reduce the net present value of government liabilities. Spending on physical infrastructure in the U.S. returns an average of about $1.92 for each $1.00 spent on nonresidential construction because it is almost always less expensive to maintain than repair or replace once it has become unusable.[4] Similarly, public subsidy of college tuition will increase the net present value of income tax receipts because college educated taxpayers earn much more than those without college education.[5] Likewise, preventative health care expenditures can save several hundreds of billions of dollars per year in the U.S., because for example cancer patents are more likely to be diagnosed at Stage I where curative treatment is typically a few outpatient visits, instead of at Stage III or later in an emergency room where treatment can involve years of hospitalization and is often terminal.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

The U.S. currently has one of the lowest expenditure per taxpayer of any industrialized country and a GDP that dwarfs all other economies...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/2010_National_Spending_of_the_USA_compared_to_G20. jpg/800px-2010_National_Spending_of_the_USA_compared_to_G20. jpg

[boutons_deux]

"two Democratic presidents have been the most conservative, small government Presidents ever"

the essence of the Repug "small govt" fraud is exactly that, with St Ronnie the Diseased doubling the national debt, then dubya and dickhead tripling it. Repugs are "borrow (into debt) and spend (into plutocrats' pockets)". dubya also greatly increased the Federal head count.

[boutons_deux]

...

[LnGrrrR]

While it's true that Democratic presidents mostly run from the center, I'd say its also true that most Dems don't have another option.

[boutons_deux]

"He’s just not that into you. We’re adults. It is time to get over it. You owe him nothing because he has done nothing for you and plans to do nothing for you"

This naive greasebag thinks politicians owe him something because he voted for them? :lol

That would be true if greasebag had given $100K or $Ms to a politician. Human-Americans votes don't count. The only votes that count are $$$ in venal, corrupt America The Beautiful.

btw, a recent estimate has the Congressional races spending $1.1B.

[Capt Bringdown]

Obama's policy of Drill Baby Drill raised to the power of Frack, Baby Frack is not enough. His refusal to let his Justice department even investigate the crimes which lead to the Crash of 08 is not enough. His extension of vast tax breaks for the rich funded by program cuts for the poor are not enough. His coordination of the brutally violent repression of political speech in the Occupations is not enough. His extension of USA Patriot is not enough. His claim of the right to indefinitely detain you without charges or counsel *or even letting your family know the government has taken you* is not enough. His unconstitutional electronic spying on you is not enough. His use of archaic anti-espionage law to prevent the Open Government he campaigned on is not enough. His making the Too Big To Fail banks bigger and hence more powerful is not enough. His illegal acts of war-by-drone, which kill innocents in a half dozen countries is not enough. His authorization of up to 30,000 surveillance drones in domestic airspace is not enough. Indeed his execution of American citizens without trial nor even any attempt to apprehend them for trial is not enough.

My question for you is straightforward. I would be grateful for a straightforward reply.

If all of the above is not bad enough that you will vote against it, what would this President have to do before you would finally draw a line and say: "Sure I voted in favor of disappearing of dissidents and extrajudicial killing of citizens, and a dozen other horrors, but *this* I will not vote in favor of!"?

[Nbadan]

While it's true that Democratic presidents mostly run from the center, I'd say its also true that most Dems don't have another option.

Even Hillary would have run from the center....until someone figures out a way to overturn Citizen's United it's gonna get worse


A new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics shows that companies have contributed roughly $75 million to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle.

Super PACs, which were created in the wake of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, can accept donations of unlimited size from corporations, unions and individuals. They spend the funds mostly on negative advertising.

The centers’ analysis found that 85 percent of money from companies flowed to GOP-aligned groups, 11 percent went to Democratic groups and the remainder went to organizations not aligned with either party.

To make things worse, some of the largest corporate donors aren't corporations at all...they are shell companies for large donors such as the Koch brothers, Harold Simmons, and Anderson from Vegas...