What Should Obama do in the Next Two Years

[Michael]

(published at OpEdNews)

This question was asked at another site. Here's the answer I gave. As you can see, I also published it at OpEdNews.

Recently, so called Democrats voted with so called Republicans in the Senate to kill a bill that would stop providing tax incentives to corporations who send their jobs to countries whose people are all too happy to receive a wage upon which no one in any country could live above the line of subsistence, let alone comfortably; to countries whose leaders favor payments of money over protecting the environment.

In 1968, George Wallace, running as an independent, said, “There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.”

I abhorred many of the things Wallace did and said at that time. To stand in front of university doors so that he could stop people from entering merely because of the random color of their skin was unconscionable.

After he was shot, Wallace had a change of heart and went to his grave at least outwardly decent. He made amends with African Americans.

I remember the “dime’s worth of difference” phrase, though. He actually was right and it’s become even truer as time has passed. Almost all politicians were wealthy before they ran for office and were elected, remain wealthy during their terms and are wealthy when they’re either defeated or retire.

I had heard that Barack Obama spent $700 million to buy the presidency in 2008. This site says that he spent over $300 million. Either number is ridiculous.

The Supreme Court’s January, 2010 ruling in Citizens United v The FEC has allowed corporations to reach into their vast profit margins and pull out any amount of money that they deem “necessary” to get their candidates elected. The decision also states that there is no disclosure rule for corporations who do this. So, buying a job for $300 million is already obsolete in a black comedy sort of way.

Don’t forget, The Corporatocracy and China have made some sweet and sweaty deals. It’s in China’s interest to keep American jobs going to its nation. It’s so much in its interest that it may accidently drop a $1 billion dollar bill in the office of some corporate CEO who may decide to use it to buy a candidate or two.

Meg Whitman has spent, to date, over $140 million to buy the governorship of California. Jerry Brown has spent a modest $10 million.

The point is that Obama, Bush, Clinton, HW, Reagan and even some before that have/had little or no say in the governance of The Former United States of America.

What incentive can outweigh receiving millions and/or billions of dollars? What can Obama do? What could Bush have even done?

Prima facie, it looks as though the Democrats are for unions and working people and the Republicans are for the wealthy. You gotta be kiddin’ me.

Once again, I present you with the prescient oration Paddy Chayefsky wrote for the movie or book, Network, in 1976. I implore you to watch it and watch it and watch it until you not only hear the words, but until you actually begin to listen to the words.

I paraphrase: There are no Republicans, there are no Democrats, there are no nations, there are no borders. Am I getting through to you, people?

Now, having told the truth about how it is, I will tell you what I would like to see Obama do in the next two years, hoping against hope.

I would like a speech from the oval office. I would like the news media to refuse to allow the “other” party to give a rebuttal. Maybe some of you don’t know this, but this bullshit piece of political correctness is new. The rebuttals were given during the campaign and the winner won. He’s the president. He gives the State of the Union address. He addresses the American citizens. The president, not the presidential candidate, speaks after the politics is over and the governing begins. No rebuttal. No Democratic rebuttal to a Republican president and no Republican rebuttal to a Democratic president. That little move, whenever it started, was one of the silliest and most divisive contrivances to ever be allowed to see the light of day and it’s merely one of the divisive contrivances that makes us formerly united.

In his speech, I want to hear Obama say that he will work solely on election reform during the remaining two years of his term.

I want him to say that he won’t work on health care reform because there will be no health care reform without election reform.

I want him to say that he won’t work on financial reform because there will be no financial reform without election reform.

I want him to say that he, along with Bush, Clinton, HW, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and Truman all committed the impeachable offense of going to war without a Congressional declaration.

I want him to say that The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq were not even in the same zip code as a Declaration of War. I want him to say that any “OK” from Congress to a president to sort of kind of think about when it may sort of be OK to attack a nation that did nothing to America is not a Declaration of War, but a Congressional abdication of its responsibilities. I want him to admit to guilt, but I don’t want him to be impeached or to step down unless HW, Clinton and Dubya promise to go before The Hague for committing war crimes. I want him to say he’ll pursue all of the above who are still alive for unconstitutionally going to war.

I want him then to say that he will go before Congress and ask if it’s OK by them to end any and all wars that are in progress because he cannot constitutionally do it himself. If they choose not to end the war in Afghanistan and bring the troops home from Iraq and, basically, everywhere they don’t belong, I want him to resign because I want him to say he will no longer execute illegal wars.

I want him to bring before Congress legislation by which money will play no role in whether or not a candidate can even be a candidate, let alone be elected.

When debate begins, I want him to use the presidential bully pulpit to out, in no uncertain terms, anyone who wants our elections to remain commodities to be purchased by the wealthiest people. I want him to demand from that pulpit that anyone who wants elections to continue to be bought by the highest bidder debate that point of view in front of the entirety of the American public.

In fact, if his bill is voted down, I want him to use a signing statement to push it through anyway. This will show that maybe he’s grown a pair. We like presidents who use signing statements? Then he should use one to get money out of elections.

I want him to hammer home that elections are opportunities for those who wish to serve, to do the right thing, whatever they think it is, by the American people. I want him to ask whoever wants elections to remain commodities to explain to the American people how this helps them.

I want him to include that there will be a fine in his bill for Americans who refuse to exercise their right to vote. I want him to tell the American people that a democracy, republican or otherwise, cannot be sustained by a citizenry which bitches and moans, but doesn’t vote.

Then, possibly, when he steps down after his only term is up, the candidates that run for that office will actually be candidates who want to govern.

If he doesn’t work on election reform, I want him to step down and hand his position over to somebody who will.

But, I dream. There’s no incentive for anyone, from Jim DeMint to Dennis Kucinich, to work hard for election reform. Where they are and how they got there, along with what they do, is nothing more and nothing less than a racket. It’s theater, ladies and gentlemen.

The previous corporate front man couldn’t put a sentence together if it was made out of Legos. When he spoke, bullshit vomited from his mouth.

Barack Obama is articulate and when he speaks, bullshit vomits from his mouth.

Of course there are “third” parties, but, just in the way we refer to them - third parties - it’s obvious we think of them as we would think of a third eye on a human face.

It feels awful being a nihilist. It feels awful saying that those who appear to be in charge are not and those who are in charge don’t have the best interest of Americans at heart. In fact, I submit that many who are in charge aren’t even Americans.

So, let’s sit back and listen to the pabulum on the TV machine as the Chinese buy the 2010 elections.



To friendship,
Michael

“Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body.” - Sir Richard Steele

World Conditions and Action Items

[mtmynd]

I would like a speech from the oval office...

I want to hear Obama say that he will work solely on election reform during the remaining two years of his term.

I want him to say that he won’t work on health care reform because there will be no health care reform without election reform.

I want him to say that he won’t work on financial reform because there will be no financial reform without election reform.

I want him to say that he, along with Bush, Clinton, HW, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and Truman all committed the impeachable offense of going to war without a Congressional declaration.

I want him to say that The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq were not even in the same zip code as a Declaration of War.

I want him to say that any “OK” from Congress to a president to sort of kind of think about when it may sort of be OK to attack a nation that did nothing to America is not a Declaration of War, but a Congressional abdication of its responsibilities.

I want him to admit to guilt, but I don’t want him to be impeached or to step down unless HW, Clinton and Dubya promise to go before The Hague for committing war crimes.

I want him to say he’ll pursue all of the above who are still alive for unconstitutionally going to war.

I want him then to say that he will go before Congress and ask if it’s OK by them to end any and all wars that are in progress because he cannot constitutionally do it himself...

If they choose not to end the war in Afghanistan and bring the troops home from Iraq and, basically, everywhere they don’t belong, I want him to resign because I want him to say he will no longer execute illegal wars.

I want him to bring before Congress legislation by which money will play no role in whether or not a candidate can even be a candidate, let alone be elected.

I want him to use the presidential bully pulpit to out, in no uncertain terms, anyone who wants our elections to remain commodities to be purchased by the wealthiest people.

I want him to demand from that pulpit that anyone who wants elections to continue to be bought by the highest bidder debate that point of view in front of the entirety of the American public.

... if his bill is voted down, I want him to use a signing statement to push it through anyway.

I want him to hammer home that elections are opportunities for those who wish to serve, to do the right thing, whatever they think it is, by the American people.

I want him to include that there will be a fine in his bill for Americans who refuse to exercise their right to vote.

I want him to tell the American people that a democracy, republican or otherwise, cannot be sustained by a citizenry which bitches and moans, but doesn’t vote.

If he doesn’t work on election reform, I want him to step down and hand his position over to somebody who will.

But, I dream.

[/i]

Michael, my friend, that's quite a list of wants you have here... I count 18 you listed. Knowing how many people have the Freedom of Speech to cast their grievances to their President, your wants may rank in the bottom 1%, IMHO, solely because you and I both know if he were to meet even 3 of your 'wants' he would be through as a President... fini! kaput! out the door!

Yes, you dream... as we all do. These are troubled times and I assure you they are not times that any of us, Americans or citizens of the world, have any control over. It's as if we've been hit by a natural disaster that includes tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes, floods, droughts, wildfires, along with pollution on a global scale to go along with it. Obama has managed quite amazingly to remain quite calm, cool and collected despite all the negativity within our borders and even globally. Name another hu'man being in America who could take over Obama's position and bring calm to the Nation in 20 months. I'd like to know from anyone who that person would be if there was such a person.

I believe I've said it before to you - the man, Obama, is an intelligent person... a person who is self-made and continues working on becoming even better. Seems as if our high tension, strung out, stress driven society has no patience anymore. Maybe it's our fast food culture, our sugared drinks, maybe our huge salt intake that delivers hypertension... it could be money woes (that's always a good reason for complaints)... whatever the problems we face as a nation are rubbing off on the rest of the world... nobody is happy as they were a few short years ago. Is it the fault of Barack H. Obama? Of course not... a ridiculous conclusion, but one battered about by the Tea Partiers, the so-called-conservatives and the Republican Congress, with a few Dems too scared to stand up to their constituencies and speak the truth.

Truth has become illusional... nobody takes truth to be true anymore. Truth is some myth of the past or casually mentioned in judicial settings. We, collectively, have given in to lies, deceit, ignorance and even stupidity as being 'the way it is' without regard of it's results which have come to bite us on our asses. There is no short term cure for all the ills we have brought on ourselves and we have only begun to see those wrongs we have brought upon this single planet of ours.

No President, no Prime Minister, no world leader of any name can singly cure our problems. We have to stop asking others and accept the blame of our own failures and move on... the future has so many brilliant possibilities and they in turn, can recreate this crumbling society of ours into one that people as a whole will be proud to be a part of and join in to reap the benefits that it promises. It's either that or total destruction of our sanity at the hands of others who are equally inept in doing anything positive about the situation we find ourselves in today.

[Michael]

Hey, don’t I know you from someplace? Hmmm.

I wrote, someplace else, I think, that the President is in a position to make things happen. I mentioned FDR and LBJ. I believe I mentioned filibustering and the fact that it in no way is it protected by any law.

Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. Separations of powers seem to be adhered to when it’s in his, as it’s been for many presidents, interest and ignoring them is done when that’s in their interest.

The president does have a bully pulpit. From that place, any president who sees that the problem is we can’t elect people who care about governance because it’s cost prohibitive can get the ball rolling on what I see as the most important issue of our day, election reform.

You are rather certain that there’s no other “human being” who can work on our problems with the effectiveness of Barack Obama. I might agree with your statement if you modify it to read that there’s no other human being who has any chance of running for significant public office because, well, because it’s cost prohibitive.

I admitted to you that he may very well have meant everything he said during his campaign, but, in order to get him over the top, he needed to break down and take millions in corporate donations. I hate to sound like a broken record - does anyone remember what a broken record is - but he should not have invited health insurance companies to be part of the negotiations for health care reform. What did he think that they’d want him to do? And, mm, they did contribute to his campaign.

Part of the philosophy of what was so wrongly referred to as “communism” in Eastern Europe was that the ends justified the means. We saw what the ends were in the USSR. There was a wide gap between the rich and the poor in the Soviet Bloc, but, instead of the rich being corporations, the rich were the top members of the party.

I bring this up, however, because, if Obama really wanted to do the best he could do for the American people, he would have been as shrewd as LBJ and FDR. Promise the insurance companies anything to get their money during the campaign and, when they came to him once his was elected, tell them, “I lied.”

There’s no way that any president can succeed, either negatively, as Reagan and Dubya did, or positively, as Carter tried to, while simultaneously playing by the stupid rules that seem to be created as politicians go along.

Again, why hasn’t he pounded Reid to stop the filibuster? Just cut it out. Just say they’ll be no more filibustering. Is he and/or Reid afraid that the Republicans would say nasty things about them? Are they afraid that corporate America may put together an Astroturf movement and call it the Tea Party Movement? What’s stopping Obama and Reid and Pelosi from acting upon what Obama once said, “We won, get over it.” It sounded tough, but he then proceeded to allow Congress to play its games.

mm, there were votes for almost anything Obama wanted. There were 51 votes for almost all of it. Yet I kept hearing, “We don’t have the votes.”

As I said, Obama and Reid should have gotten together and deep sixed the filibuster. As I also said, it would have been interesting to see what Constitutional grounds the SCOTUS would find to enforce the filibuster should the Republicans be stupid enough to bring it to that court. There are no Constitutional grounds for filibusters.

If the reason is that they didn’t want to look as if they were manipulating a process that they, themselves, used, they simply could have pulled out the 1600 signing statements or the many times the Republicans passed what they wanted through what’s asininely called “reconciliation”. Another name for it is “majority rules”. The Republicans have/had no leg to stand on.

Does Obama want Medicare for all? If he did, there would be Medicare for all.

Does Obama want to bail out homeowners instead of people and entities that have all of the money to start with? Then homeowners would have been bailed out.

It’s not nearly as difficult as so many make it sound. He would have done more if the Republicans weren’t obstructionists.

Sure they were obstructionists, but Obama, Reid and Pelosi had at their disposal the power to make them failed obstructionists.

If, after seeing the Republicans go to the Supreme Court to complain that the Democrats are forcing legislation to pass with 51% of the vote; after seeing the Republicans go to the Supreme Court and complain that Obama and the Democrats bailed out homeowners instead of the wealthy; after seeing the Republicans go to the Supreme Court and complain that Obama is doing things that aren’t specified in The Constitution, like wearing green shoes; if after seeing the Republicans do all of this the people of this country still sided with the Republicans, then I guess it would be time for me to move to Latin America.

And I agree with you. There is a greasy wheel out there and the noise is scaring the hell out of Obama and the Democrats. I’m not sure the wheel is a majority of the American people. I do think that the majority of the American people couldn’t tell you what Citizens United v the FEC even means. I do think that there are too many American people who think that Obama’s raised taxes and is giving them to Ahmadinejad.

If Obama knows that our electoral system is at the bottom of all of our problems, he should work on it and not worry about a second term. He should teach the American people, in speech after speech after speech about the history of corporate personhood and how corporations are allowing “communist” Chinese to fund the 2010 elections. He should initiate an investigation into that and make it as public and as well known as any president can make it.

I don’t think I want too much from Obama. Sure, if he admits he’s committed an impeachable offense, someone might start impeachment hearings against him. Well, he’s committed an impeachable offense.

I just want him to tell the truth, not only about himself, but about every president that ever took it upon himself to send American troops into a foreign land to fight an enemy without a specific declaration of war from Congress. If it means he steps down, then he steps down. He’ll raise a bar for future presidents, though, and isn’t that more important than having Barack Obama as the president who the left can tolerate breaking the law because he’s a nice guy? I’d rather see him bring his term to an end and make it miserable through transparency for subsequent people who want that job.

There is time for him to do the right thing. Maybe he’s hoping he’ll be reelected and, without the pressure of having to run again, he’s hoping that he’ll open up like a clam during his second term.

However, don’t forget, the right hated Clinton - one of the best Republican presidents this country’s ever had - yet, there were no Tea Party Movements during his administration. What’s the difference between Clinton and Obama? Oh, yeah, that’s the difference.

To friendship,
Michael

Truth shouldn’t be such a difficult resource to mine.

[Steve Plonk]

Obama should keep on an even keel and tough it out and do the best he can...

Oh, and if I was a Californian, I'd vote for Jerry Brown. "Queen Meg" is not the answer to California's "ills". Hey, my nephew and his wife live there and think California is a great state. The recession hurts folks, but more republicans will just "f" things up worse. Oh, Clinton, by the way, was NOT a "boll weevil' or "blue dog". He was a great DEMOCRAT and his wife, Hillary, is a great secretary of state.

As for truth...Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Oh, and one last thing, George Corley Wallace was a piece of "bricked shit". His so-called third party got Nixon elected...There is at least a dollar's bit of difference between the Democrats and republicans (small r). Nixon f'd up the dollar when he floated our currency back in the day. So that's my two bits worth...See you in the "funny papers" or
in the Net. Mike, I value what you say, but this time you were way off base.

[Michael]

Steve, your writing that I’m “way off base” is part of the 1st amendment. I can’t get the government to make you write something other than that. Nor would I want to do so.

I disagree with it, of course, but I’d die defending your right to say it.

What yesterday’s so called election proved is that our democratically charged republican government is more based upon money than upon democracy and more based upon ignorance than upon money.

Yes, the person who spent $10 million dollars won the governorship of California as opposed to the person who spend $140 million, but when’s the last time you had to pay money to be hired?

Remember 2004? Remember John Kerry’s total distortion of his liberalism? Remember his saying that Bush wanted to win a war in Iraq when what he, Kerry, wanted was to win “the peace” in Iraq? Remember Kerry’s saying that one of the first things he’d do is to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq to win that peace? Remember how Bush later did that and called it a surge?

Remember NAFTA and other “free trade” agreements that enabled the wealthy leaders of corporate America to discard American workers like so many ripped up ole dish rags in favor of Chinese, Mexican and Vietnamese workers who were just happy to make the little bit more that guaranteed them four meals a week as opposed to three? Remember how Kerry backed those “free trade” agreements and has continued to do so even after his loss?

Remember the things that Dennis Kucinich said during his 2004 quadrennial run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency? Do you remember his position on Iraq and “free trade”? Do you remember that those positions couldn’t be more opposed to the positions taken by Kerry? Do you remember Kucinich dropping out of the race and ultimately supporting Kerry?

Kerry was George W. Bush with a different face and a different voice and Kucinich, who, before he drops out of his quadrennial exercise, talks as if he’s just left of Marx. Once he’s lost the nomination, which is standard operating procedure for him, he supports anyone who gets that very nomination, in spite of how vehemently opposed he supposedly is to the positions spewed by the nominee.

And you’re saying this doesn’t look like theatrics? This doesn’t look like a game played exclusively by wealthy people?

How many times did Barack Obama state, in one fashion or another, that his goal was to make sure that every American had access to the health care he or she needed. Did he follow that up with proposing universal health care to the Congress? Or did he start his bartering somewhere in the middle, which led us to have a health care program by which all Americans are required to pay private sector health insurance companies, companies whose existence is quintessentially unethical. Making a profit from someone’s ill health is sociopathic and that’s a compliment. I think it’s worse.

There are no Republicans. There are no Democrats. There are simply people who are wealthy when they decide to run for national office, are wealthy if they’re elected and while they’re serving and are wealthy if they retire or are defeated. Once they’ve served, they receive lifetime benefits that some of us just want to wade in at some point in our lives.

Will the electoral process ever be changed? No.

We, the people, (and I’m really tired of seeing people write or hearing people say that) can begin processes that may level the playing field in the political arena. However, ultimately, we need the very people who are cashing in on politics to finish the process for us and, with all of the perks and money that they receive, they have absolutely no incentive to change anything.

I’ve seen many videos of interviews of people attending Tea Party rallies and have ceased to be amazed at what they don’t know. Those are the people who go to the polls and vote to “take their country back”. Their country? They can have it.

To friendship,
Michael

Oh, by the way, as I wrote, I didn’t agree with Wallace’s positions on anything while he was a candidate in ’68 and it was during that candidacy that he made the “dime’s worth of difference” remark. I guess I add the thing about his making amends to try to steer people away from thinking that I am quoting a racist. However, in looking through many quotes, we can find those made by Nixon, Reagan, even Dubya, which, when taken out of context, can be meaningful. I really don’t care whether or not Wallace changed significantly. I heard he did. We didn’t know each other on a first name basis. So there’s the explanation for my explanation.

[Steve Plonk]

Yes, Mike, there ARE Democrats and Republicans...Jerry Brown, Democrat, has been elected governor of California; & Ms. Boxer, Democrat, has been re-elected US Senator, & everything appears pretty good in the state of the state of California.
Too bad there was a republican blowout in Tennessee and a few other "duh" states who didn't get the message. Cuomo, jr. was elected in New York for governor... some great highlights. Democrats kept control of the US Senate.

Yes, the parties are different... You read my reasoning. I also still maintain
that Wallace, of Alabama, was a "dickweed" to use another descriptive term.
I am, as you know, living in an adjacent state, and have followed Wallace from the beginning until, thank God, the end...I didn't like Strom Thurmond either.

Yes, there are bad things which happened with
the Unions which I am not happy with. Now conservative folks are trying to break the Teacher's and Airport worker's unions... Who started that? Nixon & Ronald Reagan, both republicans...I think trade agreements are good for the most part, but I think tariffs are needed so that countries, like China, will not ruin us or run all over us. We need a better balance of payments. I think that Canada and Mexico will continue to be preferred trading partners. Why not?

I think marijuana should be decriminalized in other states for medicinal and smoking purposes. People are smoking it and it is a lesser evil than crack and meth. What say ye?

Cordially,
Steve Plonk

[mnaz]

I think the main point is that everything (or virtually everything) is corporate controlled and bought. On both the R and D sides. The Two-Party system is basically sold out (and CLEARLY it was the R side that "whored out" first). Hence, corporatocracy. And where the "rubber meets the road," this is the overriding factor. For better or for worse. And yes, Wallace was a dickhead. Maybe the system is not COMPLETELY sold out in every conceivable aspect, but the only question is to what (significant) degree at this point.

[mnaz]

I mean, there's a certain realization in admitting defeat, or at least being truthful about the farce, right?

[mtmynd]

As long as corporate interests control the needs of a country (energy, food and shelter = majority of jobs), the futility of complaining is merely an exercise in dissatisfaction. Now as in the past there will always be leadership, whether it be friendly and helpful or totalitarian, just may be in the hands of the people who depend upon that which the leadership provides to sustain civilization as we are accustomed to, regardless of geographical or cultural differences.

Until there is a consensus favoring an economic system that values hu'manity over profit, a system that is more equitable than what we have today, change will be so incremental within the current monetary-driven capitalist system currently in place we will continue on our path as we always have in our lifetimes.

[mnaz]

pretty much agreed, cec. and yes, leadership is important. (ironically, this is where obama has come up short, btw, and i'm not the only one, "pro" or "anti"-obama, to say that-- where's the consistent hammering home of his philosophy and message? or is he simply the less desirable corporate option that corporatocracy would prefer to limit to only four years?) anyway, yeah I pretty much agree. "it is what it is," to recycle a worn-out cliche. but let's not pretend it's anything else. we'll be fighting "terrorists" in resource-rich "3rd-world" countries for generations. we'll be screaming about "socialism" as corporate welfare rapes us, getting deeper in debt all the time. it's a work in progress, no doubt.

but we still have the american dream. actually, this country is pretty fucking amazing, and I'm grateful to have been born here. eyes open, that's all...

[mtmynd]

naz: "ironically, this is where obama has come up short, btw, and i'm not the only one, "pro" or "anti"-obama, to say that-- where's the consistent hammering home of his philosophy and message? or is he simply the less desirable corporate option that corporatocracy would prefer to limit to only four years?"

with elections pretty well in the hands of the mega-wealthy, I'd agree with you on Obama... a man who had his election firmly in hand two short years ago. I strongly feel that his election clearly bothered, if not outright scared, the 2%'ers and their stooges. What with the mortgage crisis, the unwillingness of the banking system to be fair lenders, the same banks and mortgage companies foreclosing which builds up their capital with property, and the Republican SCOTUS radical law change favoring the corporate powers that be to do what we saw reflected in that decision to oust most of the Democrats who had no chance in hell of running ads to counter-attack the distorted message... a message that will echo in the Chambers of Congress far longer than the general public will be willing to hear... so quickly and thoughtlessly the Republicans and T-P'ers were rammed into office.

America always gets what it deserves as history has shown... some greatness along with some outlandish decisions that have taken the country on far too many trips into the unknown territories with trust as the only motivator. It may be too early, but quite possibly this Republican led House may prove to be the unveiling of their lies and deceit... and their promise breaking if the economy does nothing to improve the situation of the majority of Americans... as always time will tell.

The biggest lie is the most obvious as anyone who bothers to listen to the Republicans is the myth of tax cuts for the wealthy - it will bring about jobs which the country desperately needs. But the same tax cuts have been around for 8 years and our economy has yet to benefit from the tax cuts put into place by Bush II. But a hungry populace will eat anything fed to them including promises of wealth and security without government intervening in the path of Corporate 'good"...

[stilltrucking]

What I would like to see Obama do is give them more Hell (in the manner of Harry Truman.)


I lost my illusions about Obama during the campaign when he started talking about clean coal, and ethanol as solutions to our energy needs. But I still voted for him because I thought he was a shrewd politician. But I think he has been outFoxed so far.
But I had my faith in him restored when he started wearing an American Flag pin in his lapel.

I would vote for Obama again in 2012, hoping he will be wiser and more astute. And shrewd politician.
What the hell is wrong with those people around him, the advisers who give him political advice?)
That is what I remember about Kerry too, like he was sleep walking through the campaign. What kind of advice was he getting?
"I can kill them better Kerry" as e_dog used to call him,.



I went to a Wallace rally in Baltimore in 68, just to see what I could see. They had a black man come on stage decked out in Wallace paraphernalia and the guy danced and pranced around while the crowd went wild. They all cheered and clapped. And I felt pretty lonely in that cloud

in friendship
Jt

If he doesn’t work on election reform, I want him to step down and hand his position over to somebody who will.

dam straight Cecil.
But did you notice Russ Feingold was defeated in Wisconsin?

Yes mnaz this is a great country. I keep hearing that we are the richest most powerful country in the world. Is that still true and even if it is, what good is it doing us lately?

Oh well maybe the house will busy itself with impeaching Obama and not have time to meddle with anything else. On the upside the guy who apologized to BP is now slated to head up the house committee on energy. I look forward to that.

This country has been good to me and my family. Except for a simple twist of fate the Baron De Hirsch could have sent us to Argentina. Nothing wrong with that now, but lord lord the hell those people went through. Are we headed that way in the F.U.S.A.

[mtmynd]

JT: "Yes mnaz this is a great country. I keep hearing that we are the richest most powerful country in the world. Is that true and even so Just what is that doing for us lately? "

We are the richest and most powerful of nations in history... and one (1) percent, i.e. 1% presently own 24% of the nations wealth. That's pretty historic... but unnecessary if we had leadership to change that percentage. The question is either "can Obama change this discrepancy?" or "will Obama change this discrepancy?" Today's Obama seems to be going out of his way to serve both parties at the detriment of his own party.

[Doreen Peri]

I thought it was 2% or 3% of the world's population that own 95% of the world's wealth.

[mtmynd]

DP: "I thought it was 2% or 3% of the world's population that own 95% of the world's wealth."

That may be true of the world's population, but what I was speaking of was regarding the U.S.. Seems as if the percentage is variable among the studies, but the fact remains that the discrepancy percentile is the highest it's been between the rich and the rest of us since the Great Depression.

Wikipedia: In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

Our future doesn't look good given the fact that the vast majority of wealth is in the hands of a comparative few... a sign that all is not well but for that few.