Discussion for article #237394
Have you ever seen Obama move so fast to help the middle class?
No.
Why. Because he doesn’t give a rats what-do-you-call it about the middle class.
Let this image: Obama rushing to get votes to pass a piece of legislation to install a corrupt global judiciary to trump US laws - let this image define Obama’s tenure in office.
Let these numbers define Obama’s legacy:
The asset values of 93% of Americans has declined under Obama. The asset values of the top 7% have risen 28%.
2 Likes
I have never seen Obama fight this hard and put as much pressure on Congress as he is now doing. He has teamed up with the Republicans to fight the Democrats. He has teamed up with the oligarchs to fight the middle class and the poor. Everything I hope for and dream about as a Democrat Obama has either opposed or dragged his feet on or given only token support to. Obama is a corporate Democrat, a pawn of Wall Street, a neoliberal (in the worst sense of the word.) I’m even starting to think he is a neocon. No politician in my lifetime has disappointed me as much. This makes me unbearably sad.
This is the wrong bill for possibly a good idea. The secrecy and the whole idea of fast track are big issues and lead to the conclusion that there is definitely something to hide. Why Obama goes with this approach baffles me.
I say, shitcan the whole deal, start over with something the Democrats write and believe in and if anyone is going to be pissed off about it, let it be the fricking corporations and their minions, the Republican establishment. Why give Boener and McConnell a win at our expense?
Trade deal, potentially a good thing.
Fast track, deal breaker and suspicious.
Singular authority for fast track, worse on top of bad.
1 Like
A couple of points:
There was a recent column about how the crafting of the US Constitution was itself a closed-door meeting of political elites, necessary due to the difficulty of publicly negotiating a complex agreement with multiple parties. Here is a llnk: http://www.blue-route.org/blog/blog/economy/fast-track-gave-u-s-constitution.
Also, the National Conference of Mayors – made up largely of elected Democrats – endorsed the proposed Asia trade agreement.
Also, the Los Angeles Times reports that Mexican farm workers won what are described as “landmark” concessions on wages, benefits and workplace conditions.
Here is the link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/farm-laborers-in-mexico-win-raises-benefits-in-landmark-deal/ar-BBkKL7q
Any thoughts on possible ramifications of this development, or on how it might impact the dynamics or momentum on the TPP negotiations?
My assets haven’t declined, at least since Obama got the economy back on track and I’m not rolling like a lot of people in my line of work are again. I’ve got great insurance now and all of my children are working steady full time jobs which wasn’t the case in '08, '09 and '10 after the Bush debacles. In fact, I cringe to imagine where we would’ve wound up without President Obama’s leadership.
This TPP thing is highly suspicious but it far from encapsulates the President as you are pushing for.
Your numbers reflect what you want them to reflect but are very fishy compared to many other measuring sticks. The rich getting richer isn’t exactly a new thing or something that Obama created, that is purely blindered horseshit.
2 Likes
If by “assets” you mean your investment as a shareholder in corporate America, that is true (but I’d still be nervous, because the big banks are now doing exactly what they were doing in '08 and before.)
Here’s the real problem: 99% of the new wealth is going to the top one percent. And true unemployment figures are far higher than officially reportated, because they stopped counting people who have been out of work for over a year.
Sorry, but Obama has not put the economy back on track.
I agree!
Obama has not put the economy back on track.
And for THAT, you can thank the GOP, which is clearly your political party. You’re gonna be in for a real surprise when, after six months in office, President Clinton takes office and - lo and behold - 99% of the new wealth is still going to the top 1%.
I’m nervous about trade as job killers.
How much of that decline can be attributed to the collapse of home values?
1 Like
So, you are saying we are as bad off right now or worse than in '08 and '09. That is laughable and I’m sort of laughing.
You sound teabaggerish to a tee. Skewed numbers one way to make an argument and skewed numbers the other way to make the same argument.
Unemployment at 10% is the same or better I guess than unemployment at 5%? Back away from the pipe bro.
You have got to want to bend the numbers to suit yourself in order to believe that. In fact, the fact that you do this brings all of your info into question.
I know lots and lots of middle classers that are absolutely kicking ass and would laugh in your face at your exaggerated claims. I’m right here with them.
We all do see what is going on here. Obama is showing Wall Street that he feels their pain to keep those campaign dollars rolling in for the DNC. Then Hillary will dump major criticism on the final vote later as an example of how income inequality works.
You can almost see them working in tandem here even if neither one of them knows it yet. It’s almost like Hillary will get a chance to show the underemployed, outsourced middle class that she is stabbing Bill in the back for NAFTA without actually having to say so or show her bloody hand. Very diabolical and Lady Macbeth.
The TeaParty, of course, won’t understand anything that is going down. The Koch Brothers will be foiled again. I do love how things just seem to be coming together thee days for Democrats without them even trying, Either the Republicans give us freebies like Hastert and Brownback or destiny intervenes with Congressional votes designed to showcase and further our campaign points.
I want to give you a like on this but the Clinton comment bothers me. Don’t really know what to make of it.
Whoa, quite Machiavellian Sandy. That will take some time to pan out. We shall see.
The fact that the Constitutional Convention labored in secrecy—it was essentially creating a brand-new country with explicit rights for the new citizens—in no way justifies the extraordinary secrecy that the Obama administration has been pursuing for a goddamn series of trade agreements that have the potential to affect every American citizen WITH NO FUCKING RECOURSE.
That’s something I will never support. If this passes Congress and Clinton doesn’t come out in opposition, I think it has the potential for dispiriting and angering a large segment of the activist Democratic base, and I don’t blame them at all.
If legislation is being considered in Congress that has the potential to impact every sphere of public and private life yet the public does not have the ability to read all of the details before its passage, then it’s even more important than usual to follow the money. I know where the money is on this, and it’s in the hands of people who don’t give a flying fuck about me, my family, or any of the people I care about.
That Obama doesn’t seem to be able to understand why so many people are uneasy with what’s being forced on us in secrecy, or doesn’t seem to care, is especially galling since I voted for him twice.
More here about another one of the trade agreements: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement
2 Likes
Explanation: What Valentinus and theworm are trying to do is make it seems as though this POTUS has promoted situations that no other POTUS has done or will do. I’m NOT saying that Pres. Obama is blameless in the downward spiral of the middle class. However, the GOP is largely to blame on keeping him a “one termer” and stopping any sort of economic progress we could be making. Pres. Clinton (HRC) will face much of the same obstruction. That’s a fact.
1 Like
The act of having to pivot on a dime is a real art. Those of us who have had to walk on high heels for most of our lives have had a lot of practice. The Republicans are being set up to defend something they obviously champion but which is very unpopular with Independents and even poor grassroots Republicans.
And the beauty of it is that no matter which way the vote goes, Hillary holds the trump card which she can play through the entire campaign to great effect. I wonder if it was Obama’s camp or Bill’s that came up with it. No one can call either of them on it because of Bill’s NAFTA history.
I agree that it does. However, it doesn’t seem to be dispiriting and angering the vast majority of Americans who either don’t know about TPP or don’t care. They are the ones who vote. We shall see whether or not Clinton will come out against it or not. I suspect she will be rather evasive about it because it kind of catches her on the backfoot in some ways.
I needed that. I didn’t really doubt you but something wasn’t quite making sense to me. So thanks, I now like your comment and we can return to our normal programming ; )
Why is it, do you think, that some of these people will go to such great lengths and waste so much time trying to push false info and meme’s? There is enough real stuff to argue and go off on about including the TPP fast track authority, so why derail a legit argument to make a horseshit one. Its pathetic.
It would be like trying to say Bush was a secret Muslim then arguing that to death when there is a myriad of real complaints that can be made and should be.
I could probably pivot on a silver dollar if I really had too because I’ve been wearing work boots or some kind of boots my whole life : )
Its definitely a tempting thought. If it plays out like you say, then the Obama legacy of suckering the goobers on the right will be near completion and into the final act then gracefully handed off to Hillary.
You should send this to Whitehouse.gov just in case they haven’t thought about it.