Watched Romney’s ‘big speech’ tonight in New Hampshire. I’m glad to report he’s taken my notes. He did not whine. He was not a rich business man griping about how no one understands how hard he works…while golfing. All in all, the speech telegraphed the bulk of Romney’s general election campaign strategy. In a word: Reaganesque. It’s not Morning Again in America, but: A Better America Begins Tonight.
Optimism will prove to be a good response to the Obama team’s thrust so far: Those people are monsters. Obama and Axelrod need a narrative, a vision of their own. So far they haven’t bothered with one. This must change if Obama wants to win. The Romney on display tonight won’t win by a landslide, but he will win if we glide toward November sans black or brown swans. It’s anyone’s guess what a positive Obama narrative would be. But one must exist….somewhere. It’s going to be very difficult to morph Romney into a three-headed, fascist monster. Again, this is a plan to secure votes Obama ought to already have. I suspect we’ll get an Obama vision for the next four years soon.
I remained surprised about the weakness of Obama’s campaign. He’s in a worse position than Carter was in April of 1980. And the economy is not as obviously bad now as it was then. Americans are not being held hostage by a foreign government.
Obama’s weakness is curious. It’s as if he learned nothing from 2010 (You alone are not enough, sir.) or his own campaign in 2008 (No matter what come from strength, and say something about hope.) Romney looked like a president tonight. Obama was on Jimmy Fallon.
The caveat: Just because it feels like 1980 doesn’t mean the result will be the same. The class warfare meme is more potent today. Romney is not Reagan. Obama is not Carter. Obama’s true game I tagged as a ‘checklist campaign’ earlier this week. Molding demographic specific messages is far more advanced than it was in 1980, and Obama’s campaign is on the vanguard. Is it enough? Don’t know. I do know it’s going to be a much more interesting race than the last one.
“Just because it feels like 1980 doesn’t mean the result will be the same”
IN 1980, Reagan pulled it out at the end because he committed treason. Reagan (rather, certainly that little ex-CIA shit, Papa Bush) made a deal with the Iranians to keep holding the hostages in exchange for missiles.
In 2012, obama is the beleaguered incumbent, but he’s the one I expect to commit a crime to win.
Keep an eye on news stories about “voter suppression” by the GOP. If obama falls short in the EV by one or two states, expect them to claim the vote counts there were tampered, and throw the country into chaos & rioting. These monsters will stop at nothing. Be prepared — in a 2nd Amendment kind of way.
Be scared
Obama and a great many devotees will do anything to win a second term. Anything. Commit any crime, tell any lie, cheat, threaten, trick, steal, smarm, attack, charm, promise anything. It’ll be about UsGood versus ThemEvil as usual. A lot have access to various forms of media and money, and there are trolls all over. We heard Barack’s little open mic moment that everybody dismissed as SOP, which it was but don’t be fooled by the ubiquitousness of scamming and sell outs and false narratives – it’s as effective as ever.
Obama’s lost something he had in 2008 but he’s gained also. This time Obama has the White House and The People’s resources; and he has the Clintons. Bill Clinton’s raising money for him, advising his campaign as well as campaigning (vouching) for him. Further, bots have embraced Hillary (witness Texts From Hillary), and she’s embraced them back, and along with her being SOS in his administration it ingrains the message that she’s on his side and vouching for him as well.
He’s lost few votes from 2008 (the Taylor Marsh types who were saying they wouldn’t vote for him again were lying and will make subtle -or not so subtle- arguments for re-election) and he’ll gain the ANonOMouse types defending him.
It’ll be a show but no matter who wins, we lose.
Be scared Again!
Speaking of Taylor Marsh ( I was at TM in 2008, too ) , it’s interesting to see how a blog can take a subtle – or not so subtle – turn in 2012 as well, isn’t it?
Taylor Marsh — once a turncoat, always a turncoat.
“Obama and a great many devotees will do anything to win a second term. Anything. Commit any crime, tell any lie, cheat, threaten, trick, steal, smarm, attack, charm, promise anything.”
They — OFA, the DNC, the RBC, ACORN, et al. — did all of that in 2008. obama has never won a fair election, and never lost a dirty one. This time, their ‘movement’ won’t be anywhere as broad, or the ranks of obots — despite at least one recent recruit — so deep. But their brownshirts will be more fanatical, militant.
Romney will be your typical, bad GOP president. We’ve survived them before. obama has already proven himself to be a mafia thug/banana republic presidente. If re-elected, we’ll see his true nature unbridled: a cross between Pinochet and Caligula.
Romney may be the candidate from Central Casting, but in faint praise, at least he’s not in it for the money, he doesn’t need it, and his friends don’t either. So there’s that.
The media is hysterical at this point, with Chrissie calling R’s the Grand Wizard, during an interview [using the term loosely] with Michael Steele. After a break and a scream in his earpiece, he faux apologized. Surfed just long enough last night to hear Ed Schnauzer proclaim the Volt ‘an american success story.’ Can’t keep doing this while preparing dinner, appetite shot to hell.
“Romney may be the candidate from Central Casting, but in faint praise, at least he’s not in it for the money, he doesn’t need it, and his friends don’t either. So there’s that.”
Because we all KNOW that people who are mega-wealthy, like Romney “and his friends”, are never greedy or power hungry. They couldn’t possibly do anything for the money or in search of more money, BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY DON’T NEED IT and they do everything they do out of a sense of benevolence, duty and patriotism, because the rich are good. AMEN and HALLELUJAH.
“at least he’s not in it for the money, he doesn’t need it, and his friends don’t either”
Politicians’ rich ‘friends’ always need quid pro quo for the money they donate = special treatment to allow them to amass even more money.
Tamer, quid pro quo is the reality, you are right. But I doubt Romney’s friends traffic in Race wars, and hatred of Israel and denigrating our military. So that’s something..It is so dismal that one of our firm American traditions is voting for who sucks least.
I don’t need to rehabilitate Romney & his ilk — whose presence on this planet I consider a waste of precious oxygen — to rationalize the need to use him to get rid of obama. Come 1/21/13, I’ll be working hard to get rid of Romney.
“I don’t need to rehabilitate Romney & his ilk — whose presence on this planet I consider a waste of precious oxygen — to rationalize the need to use him to get rid of obama. Come 1/21/13, I’ll be working hard to get rid of Romney.”
You’re going to use Romney? Or maybe it’s more like Romney’s going to use you! What happened to the plan of using Jill Stein? Give up on that? So let me see if I understand, your plan is vote for Mitt Romney to replace BHO and then, if Mitt is elected, you’re going to immediately begin working against him? That’s brilliant.
Exactly.
I was going to vote for Ron Paul, not because I think he’d be a good President but because he might put the brakes on some of the craziness that’s out of control. But obviously he’s not a viable contender so that’s a waste and therefore a vote that helps Obama.
We have to do what we can to stop Obama. His second term will be much worse than his first. Then we have to oppose Romney.
“I don’t need to rehabilitate Romney & his ilk — whose presence on this planet I consider a waste of precious oxygen — to rationalize the need to use him to get rid of obama. Come 1/21/13, I’ll be working hard to get rid of Romney.”
I like that rationalization! Frankly, it’s the kind of thinking that makes for a healthy Republic and diligent (small-r) republicans. I’m not at all averse to a Romney presidency, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t develop an aversion to it down-the-road if MR missteps.
sophie, one of the few verities: one can never be too rich or too thin. All presidents have to pay those who brung them to the dance. But, some do it more than others…BHO, I put in the that category.
Maybe Romney’s ‘rich enough’ now. ?
Interesting to note though, that in a link posted a day or two ago, if Obamacare is upheld, the increased numbers of low income people who will get Medicaid, will be paid for by decreases to Medicare. Sitting on one’s one’s own petard can be uncomfortable. At least try to enjoy the view, content in the knowledge you are helping others.
Response above to Mouse, who will now get to prove and live her generosity, since the evil inventors, producers, workers and volunteers are so stingy, snobby, racist and hateful.. {did I miss any of her oh so generous barbs?} let us know when you get your letter from Medicare, reducing your benefits.. we can all raise a glass to our Dear Leader, but we’ll have to share the glass, due to the re-distribution of glasses.
sophie says:
“Response above to Mouse, who will now get to prove and live her generosity, since the evil inventors, producers, workers and volunteers are so stingy, snobby, racist and hateful”
Ughhhhh! Those are your vile words Sophie-hyperbole, certainly not mine. And Stingy, snobby, racisit and hateful are all great words to describe most of the Pols in YOUR beloved GOP/TP
I hate to break your super knowledge bubble, but the inventors, producers and volunteers, by-and-large don’t belong to the Mitt Romney realm of the greedy Mega-Wealthy. In fact the Mega-Wealthy more often than not exploit the inventors, producers, workers and volunteers, for their own gain.
And in typical fashion, Sophie…..You know not of what you speak concerning Medicare, I suppose in your infinite generosity and benevolence you’d prefer the plan that Mitt Romney endorses called the Paul Ryan Plan? Aren’t you and yours on a Government subsidized Health Plan? You’ve told us quite a lot about yourself, so you might need to look at the impact on your life of the Ryan Budget and quit pretending like you’re concerned about what ACA will do to others, because you’re not. Those of us on Medicare already know the impact of the ACA on the lives of Seniors.
And FYI the LETTER from Medicare has arrived, benefits didn’t decrease, in fact Medicare benefits increased with yearly wellness, screening and diagnostic coverage as well as yearly wellness checkup, free of charge to seniors with no copay . Doughnut hole gaps have been significantly closed and in 2012, Medicare Premiums decreased for many Seniors and increased by less than $4 for others.
In short, more uninformed blah, blah, blah, from Y-O-U
This Trayvon Martin shooting is part of Obama’s campaign. It is being used to reawaken white guilt and focus attention on race, without anyone saying “Look, Obama’s the first black president” in so many words. That’s why MSNBC has been pushing the racial angle so hard (see Bob Somersby’s Wed column) and that’s why Obama made a statement about it when he should have known, as an attorney, not to comment on an untried case. He affiliated himself with it to further his campaign. So, I think your thinking about his campaign is overlooking the indirect.
The biggest threat on the horizon now is what Obama’s been doing to civil liberties and personal privacy. We are becoming 1984 and Big Brother’s onscreen persona can be Romney or Obama without it making the slightest bit of difference. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I have been thinking that it is time to renew my passport.
Last week John Stewart discussed an analysis suggesting that only 17% of reporting so far has been about issues in this election. No one thinks the election will be about issues. It will be about Trayvon and hoodies and dogs strapped to car roofs and whether moms with kids actually work. Obama was elected because no one cared about his experience, his voting record, his stand on important issues. Why should it be any different this time? As long as he pleases his puppeteers, he will be reelected. I see no evidence he has done anything to displease the vested interests, our overlords. As long as the media keep the focus off his accomplishments (or lack thereof) and show us plenty of pictures of Michelle in sundresses with his happy kids, Obama will be reelected. You don’t even have to vote, for that to happen. Watch and see.
Sally, It’s the wrong season for hibernation, but based on your apt description of things to come, I am hoping to find at least, a cool cave.
Oh, and Mouse, interesting to read back all the names you have called me, and others, that you now deny….Read the post, Medicare will be cut After the election if Obamacare passes.
I never thought I would receive it anyway, and probably not Soc Sec either. But I feel bad for all the people currently relying on it. They will have bigger co pays, and fewer benefits, and doctors will receive even lower payments, many already no longer accept Medicare.
Well stated, Sally. As was debated a few days ago here, the prominence of the sidebar ads I see of Michelle “Are you in?” and, just before I posted this, the First Family “together” play off this image promoted by OFA. Maureen Dowd for all her awkwardness in the NYT played off SNL’s stereotypes: O as the TinMan vs. R as Spock. I wonder if he’ll feature his family soon in my sidebars? Probably not, as the powers that be in Cookieland peg me as a Obamabot.
Tamerlane and Sophie and all: I wonder in an attempt at total detachment why the Dems push aside with such insistence the call for photo ID. They protest too much about the “few” cases of voter fraud, but to me, this raises suspicions of exactly that. In an unbiased analysis, I estimate very few who bother to vote do not carry some state-issued card with their mug on it as they go about their business and daily life. These can be obtained easily and at hardly any cost; I reckon they are free to those who cannot pay the few bucks. It’s hardly an imposition to expect folks to show who they are when voting, as with many activities that ask for photo verification. On the other hand, we could all switch to mail-in or voting online or at kiosks, if I.D. photos are such a hardship!
If voting by certain demographics is indeed hindered by lack of photo ID, then the Dems should work on getting them IDs, not on preventing the States from requiring IDs to vote.
It’s just a canard, though. When obama loses Colorado, North Carolina or Florida by a few thousand votes, accusations of “racist voter suppression” will be their rationale to riot in the streets, and for Joe Biden to reject the Electoral College vote.
What he said.
When John said:
Romney looked like a president tonight. Obama was on Jimmy Fallon.
That pretty succinctly summed it up for me. That’s what we’re dealing with.
News talking heads already saying that Obama may have likeability factor but are people and young people going to vote for the “cool guy” again or are they going to vote for the guy who they think can get them a job?
Game-on!
I want Obama voted out, and then as Tamerlane said on 1/21/13 I’ll be looking around for a Democrat with brains and integrity to replace him in 2016. Hopefully by 2016 the left will recover from Obama Kool Aid Poisoning and become a viable voice for the poor, the working class and the middle class… and maybe the Obamas can host a talkshow on OWN or something.
oh wait that was me above – Dan (Dan Sh1138)
I think we’ll need a new party — the Dems are past redemption.
Tamerlane I am afraid you might be right about that. I dont think the Democratic party as a whole is past redemption… I can’t look at someone like President Clinton, who in all fairness I think made some pretty bad decisions as a Democrat…NAFTA being one of them…but had that kind of fiesty attitude and in my judgement genuinely empathized with the poor and working class… but I think the model of Democrat in the inspirational style of someone like Kennedy as the great orator has long outlived it’s shelf life and we see in Obama how that style of effete Democrat has become really just talk.
We’ve talked about it a bit on the blog and you have talked about it on the show, but I think what truly needs to die is the 2 party system.. honestly if Obama v Romney is really the best we can do at this point, for me its a no brainer but the problem really is that does that 2 party system allow for not only the best and the brightest, but those who are really willing to govern at the very least with efficacy? And it that sense I truly think not and in my mind the only solution is to open it up and have third, fourth and fifth parties be viable.
Dan, I agree that the two-party system often fails us with choices between Terrible and Horrible. But, that system isn’t going to change until people de-register as members of one or the other of the two major parties. Be an independent, not beholden to any party (in CA, it’s called “Decline to State”). If an overwhelming majority of people do this, the two-party system will probably come apart; at the very least, it’ll become vastly more open and responsive in it’s bid to win supporters. I de-registered from a major party and became a Decline-to-State some years ago — it’s great. If I have to be registered to vote in a party’s primary (not always the case), i register, but de-register soon after that the vote is cast. I invite others to consider doing the same. I’ve not pondered the downsides of doing this, and perhaps there’re some. Anyone know of any?
We’ll start a new party on our own, beginning with a statement of values & a platform. Or commandeer the Green Party — Stein’s efforts this year excepting, the Greens don’t seem to be using it for much.
I was a life long registered Democrat, I get the begging letters daily for Mitchell, O and the dog.
My vote goes to the dog, at least he’s cute and smart.
Fio, voter I.D. is a sideshow. One can’t even get a library card or a bus pass without it, nor can they cash a check or open a bank account..The above description, does however, apply to illegals, who get paid in cash, and who are needed to vote in Nov.
“One can’t even get a library card or a bus pass without it, nor can they cash a check or open a bank account”
I know it’s tough for some of you folks to understand, but many U.S. CITIZENS, of all ages, live their lives on a cash only basis, and have no vehicle and no need for photo-id.
Many states that have amended their voting laws requiring State issued photo id’s, don’t require a photo-id-DL for citizens over 60. People who don’t drive and don’t have a checking account and pay with cash or money orders only also don’t need a photo ID, not even seniors on SS. If you’re on SS and don’t have a bank account, the Govt now loads the monthly SS money to Debit Cards and like the bank debit card, merchants do not require a photo ID, all the owner needs to use their debit card anywhere is their pin-number. When I signed up for SS, I didn’t even have to go into a SS office. it is now done by phone or over the internet, NO-Photo-ID required.
“The above description, does however, apply to illegals, who get paid in cash, and who are needed to vote in Nov.”
Maybe the (OFA) is going to bus them in from Mexico or Saudi Arabia or Yemen to push Barack over the top. How ridiculous!!!!
“One can’t even get a library card or a bus pass without it, nor can they cash a check or open a bank account.”
Why, then, aren’t the proglodytes championing a photo ID initiative? That way, those poor, downtrodden people they *empathize with* and toss spare change to on their way to their creative-class jobs can take out books, ride the bus, and vote! Could it be that the proglodytes actually want the kind of massive voter fraud ACORN committed in 2008? Could part of their koolaid-addled brains be realizing that, a ne’er-do-well who can’t get around to scoring a bus pass is unlikely self-motivate to vote on a cold, rainy Tuesday in November?
Mouse, that’s important info. you’ve provided on how people living on a cash-only basis don’t need a photo I.D. I’ll cop to being ignorant of that. But, surely, you must know that OFA bused people into states, particularly caucus states, in 2008 to vote for Obama; right? Why on earth wouldn’t they do that again?
“But, surely, you must know that OFA bused people into states, particularly caucus states, in 2008 to vote for Obama; right? Why on earth wouldn’t they do that again?”
Bused people in to work for OFA, yes, bused people in to vote for Obama, no. You must have proof of residence in a State to vote in a state. Most states require SS number presentation at registration and residence info. I’m not saying that there’s not some voter fraud, but that fraud is more prevalent in local elections where a few votes can swing an election. In a statewide GE for POTUS you couldn’t get enough votes to throw an entire states into one column or another. A fraud of that magnitude would definitely be easy to prove and it hasn’t been, and won’t be, because it didn’t happen.
NES…..As for the Caucus State primaries in 2008, I haven’t seen any evidence that actually happened, but if it did, please point me to evidence of it because that sounds like a scenario that might be a bit more plausible. Still it would take fraud on a large scale, which would be very tough to hide from State Election Officials.
NES, I wouldn’t waste your time arguing with an obot. But if you happen talk to any reasonable people, you can point them to:
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/
which extensively documents the massive voter fraud committed by OFA, & includes the formal complaints filed with the government by the Clinton campaign.
also see:
http://mydd.com/users/pacific-john/posts/texas-caucus-fraud-updated
“NES, I wouldn’t waste your time arguing with an obot. But if you happen talk to any reasonable people, you can point them to:”
You think it bothers me Tamerlane that you call me an “obot”? No, it doesn’t. You were going to put together some grand plan to organize for an alternative to Obama 2 years ago, so, how did that go? Your grand plan ended up in a default to vote for Jill Stein, now it’s defaulted to Vote for Romney? Who couldn’t see that coming?
And why are you commenting about me and around me without addressing me? Why don’t you just come on out and tell NES that she isn’t supposed to communicate with me any longer by proclaimation of Tamerlane? That’s what you’re really doing, isn’t it?
John can ban me if he wants and then you won’t have to talk around me anymore. No challenges, I’m sure that works for you.
Happy Birthday Hubble…http://lh5.ggpht.com/-25gXh_ZLtyU/T5gWx6WZ4DI/AAAAAAAAd9U/0vBebNZUXNw/s1600-h/butterfly_nebula%25255B9%25255D%25255B4%25255D.jpg
I agree that Obama will do whatever it takes to pull out a win. That includes all those things listed above. I don’t think they want to. They want to be ahead by 5 or more going into the last week.
As to Obama quietly taking care of “those who brung him to the dance”….yes this is true however, I’ve been saying for a while now those people have no issue whatsoever with a President Romney. He won’t have to cover for them…he IS them. That’s one reason why this seems like a year in which anything can happen. In fact, Romney is better suited to continue the pro wall street policies of Obama (Obama was a master of the misdirect on financial policy.) than Obama himself. An Obama re-elected will have to at least pretend to be “for the worker” and this is unpredictable. Whereas our choice between Obama and Romney is dreadful, the same choice for the financial class super rich is just fine. Do they need a pretender to cover, or do they go with the real thing?
show tonight at 6pm pacific:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/johnwsmart/2012/04/26/the-john-smart-show
calls welcome: 877-653-8381
Maybe this will put things in perspective; http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire
Happy Birthday Hubble !
Happy 15 billionth birthday, Universe!
Wow!…blow my mind. Thanks for the link.
One other thing: the argument above re: medicare etc is very much about a generational divide. No one I know under 40 (and most under 50) thinks for a second that S.S, and medicare will be around for them…and the resentment about this is real. this perception is in it’s infancy but it will be a central divide in the next few years. I saw Rubio articulate this recently – rather pleasantly – but it is one reason he’s in the driver’s seat for the veep job. It goes like this: Save grandma’s pension, but fix the system for the rest to get something.
In a very broad, admittedly hard to define way, Gen X and millennials are going to do battle with boomers in the coming years over late in life entitlements…over this sense that boomers are picking the carcass, living forever, and leaving nothing. It’s high stakes politics because the older one is the more likely one is to vote. Not making a judgement here…the fact is there IS enough if we spend and tax right…but we won’t, that system is beyond repair…bought and run by those who will never worry about retirement.
I’m on the boommer/gen x cusp and feel more identified with gen x….what I see is gurgling resentment that both parties will articulate a response to. The GOP’s is clearer right now – repeat “debt” and “next generation” 500 times every time. The meaning is not missed on anyone under 45. Bet this won’t be fully articulated in 2012 but by 2016 it will be a core debate.
“No one I know under 40 (and most under 50) thinks for a second that S.S, and medicare will be around for them…and the resentment about this is real. this perception is in it’s infancy but it will be a central divide in the next few years.”
Ok, now we’re getting to the meat of what’s going on. Are you one of those people who “resent” SS and Medicare? If so you’re certainly not in the majority, unless you consider whines from your friends an indicator of the broader national conversation. I know many 40-50 year olds too, none of them want SS replaced by company run 401k’s or Medicare replaced by private commercial insurance or their retirement destiny put into the hands of Wall Street in their declining years. And For the record, when I was 30yrs old the right was whining about how SS and Medicare couldn’t survive another 20 years, and then they whined, it couldn’t survive until the 21st Century. WTF, it’s still here, whoddathunk it.
On the last major poll taken on this subject ” No major polls have been taken since Ryan introduced his budget for this year, but one imagines public opinion is hardly much different from what it was less than a year ago when an ABC News/ Washington Post poll showed large majorities at odds with major provisions from Ryan’s very similar 2011 budget. In that poll, 69% opposed any cuts to Medicaid, with 52% strongly opposing them; 78% opposed cuts to Medicare, with 65% strongly opposing them; 65% also opposed any changes to the program; 72% favored raising taxes on annual incomes of $250,000 or more, with 54% strongly supporting them.”
John writes of Rubio “It goes like this: Save grandma’s pension, but fix the system for the rest to get something. In a very broad, admittedly hard to define way, Gen X and millennials are going to do battle with boomers in the coming years over late in life entitlements…over this sense that boomers are picking the carcass, living forever, and leaving nothing.”
Do you believe boomers are going to pick the carcass? Rubio is a fucktard if he believes Gen X and millenials are so naive that they want to shoulder the total cost and care of their parents and grandparents in a world where jobs are few and many people are working more than 1 job to survive. What happens without SS and Medicare? What’s the solution, do you take seniors who’ve lived to long, out to a ditch and put up a firing squad? Here’s my anecdote, I have children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews in both gen X and millenial and the Gen X I know aren’t driving themselves nuts to bitch slap granny or grandaddy, they’re more concerned with taking care of their own families and keeping their jobs, period!
This is true.
People say they don’t expect SS and Medicare will be around for them but it’s just words so far. When the reality sinks in, that for years they’re paying significantly into a system that benefitted millions of others who’d paid in but that they’re going to be cheated out of, it’s not going to be pretty. And with diminished retirement funds and inflation, it’s going to be grimmer than most people imagine today. Oh, and those taxes that are now for SS and Medicare aren’t going away whether or not people receive the benefits.
When I wrote “this is true,” it was about John’s post.
SS & Medicare aren’t going anywhere, unless crazy people put the GOP/TP in the majority in both houses and in as POTUS. If that happens the Ryan Budget is might succeed and all hell will break lose. You want a revolution? Then Fuck with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Pell grants, Student loan programs, housing programs, home lending program Dept Of Ed, the Dept of the Interior and I can guarantee you, you’ll get it. You’ll get it in DROVES and it won’t be old curmudgeon’s like me revolting, although I’ll be nearby watching, probably capturing on video for posterity. It will be Gen X, 41 million strong, beating down the doors in revolt, It will be our children and our grandchildren. Book it Dano!!!
ANon, my message upthread was meant for you, girl. It may be subtle but I think you will understand its meaning.
Peace. Take care.
I agree, more or less, with Mouse’s post of 5:36 pm, above. The rumors of the death of Social Security and Medicare are of longstanding and much-exaggerated. All we need are a few good economic boom years to bring the system back from the brink. I do, however, believe that ultimately some reform is necessary for the system as it applies to the younger and middle-aged generations, leaving untouched the current group of retirees and those within 5 yrs of retmt. (ie, not me). An upward adjustment in retirement age and higher ‘premiums’ or withholdings, eg, would be in order, as may allowing some reasonable portion (not to exceed a third, or so) to be invested in private funds.
At the end of the day, one shouldn’t get rid of the social security net. I’ve lived in the heart of the Third World, where there are zero safety nets…believe me, it ain’t a pretty
sight.
I swear I heard Nero fiddling as I read that (though it could have been a mouse).
A few good boom years don’t just happen. They result from fertile conditions and action. Whom or what do you think is going to sprout boom years out of this drought? Obama? Romney? The kind of Congress we’ve been electing? Corporate behemoths that, other than finding new ways to pinch more from the middle class, are fat and fearful? Banks that refuse to lend? Maybe you think boom years will come from this generation of non-imaginative and unoriginal thinkers who’re mesmerized with fake shiny things and mind numbing little devices? Steve Jobs and pathetic parenting convinced a generation they’re all Martin Luther Kings and Thomas Edisons and Ghandis and Amelia Earharts and Einsteins but they’re not, they’re not even Ted Turners, they’re unmemorable celebrities and shallow status worshipers and beauty product aficionados who racked up student loan debt while learning nothing but how to pass tests they forgot in a month. Nothing in any sector, public or private, indicates a boom is in the offing for the United States. The innovators are marginalized, the rest are distracted with their own adoring reflection.
SS and Medicare viability has been in serious decline since Bush came into office, that’s more than a decade now and the deterioration has only escalated since Obama’s election. In the past year serious projections for both SS and Medicare have lopped more years off its sustainability. We’re limping into 2013 so Obama can be re-elected but after that body parts are going to start disappearing.
In his first term, despite having a Democratic majority in Congress for 2 years and massive deficit spending that outdid all deficit spenders before him, Obama has laid no groundwork for jobs creation or better education or housing market correction or energy shift away from oil dependence or corporate responsibility or Wall Street regulation or investment in innovation or anything that’ll increase treasury revenue; in short nothing to improve our economic decline much less spark an economic boom. And he’s providing no plans now as he campaigns, while of course neither is Romney.
Given our circumstances today, finding reassurance that SS and Medicare, and other New Deal Great Society programs, will be saved by a few good boom years is less realistic than facing foreclosure and saying all we need is a good lottery ticket.
Sockpuppet writes: “ANon, my message upthread was meant for you, girl. It may be subtle but I think you will understand its meaning. Peace. Take care.”
Sorry, I missed your earlier post. You are coming across loud and clear. Peace to you!!
“At the end of the day, one shouldn’t get rid of the social security net. I’ve lived in the heart of the Third World, where there are zero safety nets…believe me, it ain’t a pretty
sight.”
Apparently, maintaining the social compacts is not going to be a popular idea here, but I thank you for having the moxy to go against the grain. Folks who are rallying around the destruction of the Social Compacts as an inevitable and necessary economic outcome to save the Republic (what a con) , have no idea where that road leads. And even less idea about how it would effect their lives. Only those at the top of the food chain would be untouched by it.
Mouse, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what we’re saying here.
Nobody, not one single soul, here is advocating for the dismantling of SS or Medicare. Everybody I’ve seen post here believes in those programs and wants them to continue. We’re … or I should speak only for myself … I’m pointing out the reality that funding them has become increasingly tenuous, worse not better in the many years since Clinton left office, and there is nothing that indicates circumstances will improve soon enough or quickly enough or substantively enough to maintain the programs.
Zal, That’s not what it sounds like to me!
And as I said below, maybe I’m misunderstanding John, because nuance is everything in communication and is difficult to convey in writing, but it sounds to me as if John is saying that Boomers are resented by GenX and that resentment, as articulated by Rubio, will lead to the demise of SS/Medicare. If I’m reading it wrong John should clarify.
The GOP is making a terrible mistake in the Ryan Budget. Anyone who supports that budget or plans to support those who do are endorsing a war on SS/Medicare and the social compacts, A USA with cuts to the primary social compacts would wreak havoc, not just on Boomers, but on Gen X and Y.
Austerity programs that go after the working poor and middle class first have proven to destabilize governments and entire societies. Anyone who believe that SS/Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps Unemployment Insurance have fat that should be trimmed will cut their own throat in the trimming.
John can speak for himself but there’s no question Boomers are resented by GenX and Millennials — unless we subjugate our style and opinions to conform with theirs. And that’s as much the fault of Boomer parents as their children; the most obvious indicator of that was so many Boomers going along with the GenX/Millennial Obama craze in 2008 and since. It’s a very troubling sign about our society.
We have no full throttle States[wo]men because the masses cheer snake oil salesmen and sleight of hand “achievement,” and those who would be Statesmen either are marginalized or conform themselves to what juveniles want. That’s an upside down dynamic that drains wisdom and hard choices from solutions to problems. As for it leading to the demise of SS and Medicare, I think there’s a good chance of that. Not because GenX and Millennials don’t want to receive the benefits of those programs but because they feel Boomers (their parents) should sacrifice for them and not the other way around. SS and Medicare are such big ticket programs, it’s not hard to manipulate GenX and Millennials into regarding them as money drains; they’re working and struggling, not receiving benefits, seeing large sums deducted from their pay while Boomers retire and live in “leisure.” “Parents owe us, we don’t owe them,” is absolutely their thought process and, again, I blame Boomer parents themselves for that. SS and Medicare are in danger of being destroyed by people who will accept a restructuring that will appear to benefit them while removing the burden on them for taking care of their elders.
I think GenX and Millennials suffer from an increasingly severe drought of empathy but I don’t think what I describe is totally Machiavellian: I think these generations have no concept of elderly destitution as a real possibility. Or abject poverty for themselves. None whatsoever. They say “SS and Medicare won’t be there for me” not questioning for a moment that they’ll be okay without it. The notion of eating cat food to survive is a joke to them, not a concern. But in truth, given the trends of our economy and population and institutional structures, it is a real possibility. And unless we have a major miracle of prosperity it’s possible that by the time the reality of elderly destitution sets in it’ll be such an enormous and entrenched problem that solutions will befuddle these unprepared and easy going generations. The fallout of growing up and living in such easy times is believing the insanity of the assumption that no matter what Everything Will Be Okay.
“John can speak for himself but there’s no question Boomers are resented by GenX and Millennials — unless we subjugate our style and opinions to conform with theirs”
I have children & grandchildren and I don’t see that at all. I have 5 grandchildren 19-28, they ask for my opinion more often than their parents opinions. They are interested in their parents lives growing up and they are interested in my stories of life. What I see are the same generational divides that exist between every generation. Most of those issues, at their root, are irrelevant issues, like music, clothing, youth lifestyle, etc. I think this current generation is more accepting of minorities than the “boomers” and certainly much more accepting than “the greatest generation” before us. They aren’t anal retentive over TEH GAY, interracial marriage, the traditional definition of nuclear family, religion, or fear of “the other” etc. Like all generations they will evolve into a society of older and/or old people with a platter full of success and failure, Nothing happening today is any different than the generation before it, it’s just slow social and technological evolution, playing itself out, over and over again.
You just love diversion tactics.
I’m not talking about music or clothing or attitudes about interracial marriage or “the gay.”
The issue of generational differences between GenX and Millennials and Boomers is raised in the context of deficits and debt, underemployment and rising prices and a depressed housing market and rising taxes, and retirement. Not Gap versus Hollister.
The whole notion of retirement in comfort, playing golf, doing crafts, catching up on reading, gardening a bit, hanging out with grandkids, travel, which GenX and Millennials, and Boomers, take for granted, is a relatively new concept. And when did our society come up with it? At the same time we began living longer. Well that worked fine as long as our economy hummed with prosperity or we still had lots of credit to tap but we’re in a different situation now and nobody is showing how it’s going to improve. We can begin collecting SS at 67 and then live 20 or 30 more years. SS was not designed to be drawn on by so many people for so many decades in a depressed economy. And generational attitudes, just as they created the New Deal and supported the Great Society, will have a big impact on how this new chapter plays out.
Mouse, I have always known you and I come from different experiences, but I now think you live in Mayberry, except it now has the internet. Say ‘hey’ to Aunt Bea for me..
“Mouse, I have always known you and I come from different experiences, but I now think you live in Mayberry, except it now has the internet. Say ‘hey’ to Aunt Bea for me.”
Sophie, I love your condescension that attempts to paint me as a “country bumpkin” because it demonstrates your elitist attitude. Keep up the good work of proving my point, snob!!! And please don’t go into the monologue about your Green appliances or your life, it all rings hollow and self-serving. No merit badges for you.
The only way SS & Medicare go away is if we let Congress vote them away.
Well here’s some more ‘uninformed’ comments from the NY Post on that score.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_billion_trick_ImTBFfz7MeuZLJY7JzXEIJ#ixzz1ssXl3ZfI
If costs of entitlement programs become unsustainable, they’ll become unsustainable.
I know this is an unimaginable concept to many Americans today but wanting something to be so doesn’t make it so. Americans in this credit card society think like Diane Keaton in Baby Boom when the plumber tells her her well has run dry and she says that’s okay there’s a faucet and hose on the porch, use it to fill up the well. Wells do run dry, programs that a population wants do get cut. Congress, Bush, Obama, have been spending foolishly and tax cutting us into debt that’s costing a fortune, jobs have not come back and nothing’s on deck to change that; Obama even cut our contributions to SS, what an act of brilliance. The situation that’s been bad for years has gotten much worse, not better.
People have been saying for years that SS won’t be there when I’m old enough to collect it but really they don’t believe that’ll happen. In a few years it’s going to become clear that in fact it’s going to happen. There’ll be nothing left to do but blame your designated evildoer.
“People have been saying for years that SS won’t be there when I’m old enough to collect it but really they don’t believe that’ll happen.”
That is very true, Zal.
Mouse, I do not think you are a country bumpkin in the least, you are far too smart.
But Mayberry is the only place I can imagine with so many i.d.’less people, and after all, it is a fictional place.
Sophie, I got your Mayberry reference and obviously it was right to the point. We don’t live in 1955, it’s 2012 and we’re such a huge, mobile, stranger, society (many if not most vendors we deal with don’t know us and our family as they did in Mayberry), and photo IDs are so easy to come by (for law abiding American citizens), they’re by no means an unreasonable demand. I’m asked for mine as a matter of course several times a year.
It’s possible to live today’s society without photo ID, but given how long the current structures have been in place it’s a choice that justifiably is suspicious.
“But Mayberry is the only place I can imagine with so many i.d.’less people, and after all, it is a fictional place.”
Well, we’re discussing two different things. ID-less and not having a state-photo-id is not the same thing. And the fact that you see the world, that isn’t located in a metropolitan area, as Mayberry is part of the problem. Mayberry may be a fictional place to you, but over 50% of Americans live in small town suburbs and in rural communites.
I’ve known a lot of people, some very well off, who do not trust banks and prefer to work with cash only. They’re not illegals or criminals or anything of the sort. They’re just not you.
First of all I don’t believe you that the “very well off” people you (suddenly) know deal only in cash. With the large funds and the kinds of transactions that very well off people deal in, doing it all in cash would be at best massively cumbersome, and really tinfoil-hat-time, in 2012 America.
Secondly, I have a house and spend more than 50% of my time now in a small town and photo IDs are common; what’s rare to practically extinct is the lawful American citizen who doesn’t have one.
Anon, passionate, but over the top based on what I said. I believe a revolution may well come., but it will emerge out of a rebellion against government, not in defense of it. Kids will NOT take to the streets to defend Pell grants. Not in any number. If and when they understand what Obama and the NSA are building in Utah – they might.
I direct you to the past 3 years for exhibit A. Small govt. types won an election. Big. Occupy, the response, fizzled. One can narrate the story about who funded what – but one worked and the other didn’t because humans showed up for one and did not for the other. Why? Generational shifts. The old hippies expected the college kids to show up for Occupy. They did not in any meaningful number. And MSNBC and left leaning outlets tried mightily to push Occupy as an important event. It wasn’t. The children of the Greatest generation are now retiring – from their perspective they changed everything for the better along the way. I am predicting right now: that it will be clear within 5 years that for the generations that follow the perspective will be not nearly as glowing. Rising taxes – and they will rise – stagnant wages -and they are stagnant – will combine to create resentment against the huge demographic moving into retirement. Don’t blame me for saying this. I’m observing and predicting, not endorsing.
Of course, FDR and LBJ’s legacy polls well. Most of it has worked for a long time. What polls higher now? Distrust of government. All institutions really. Distrust of government, now add in cynical Gen X and disconnected Gen Y – WATCH as these groups move out of media/facebook power and into political power in their 40s and 50s… Not political office, but political power. Look across the landscape: Where is the energy? Which side has the animating ideas that add up to policy? Ryan puts out ideas. Reid doesn’t even allow a budget to be written. Brewer is an old school rightie hack, but her neighbor Gov. Martinez…perfect example of a Gen X politician. And its working so far. Again: NOT an endorsement BUT the TP has already produced a slew of up and comers. The ‘historical” advent of Obama has produced fired employees like Van Jones, and media massagers like Media Matters. It’s something, but what “it” is doesn’t compare. FDR created generations of new dealers. Obama will produce no on going political legacy. The last true socialist in America is 80 something Bernie Sanders. The only real interesting liberal on the scene now with even a chance of attaining real power is Ms. Warren and she’s a policy wonk, not a movement leader.
Should Obamacare go down, and it may well by summer, the last big government program will have been Bush’s Medicare addition. And Obamacare really has no connection to the New Society. It’s a corporate/statist animal. I am sad about this, but it is true: The new deal/great society is dying a long 20 year death. Historically it cannot last. That is a simple fact. we could deficit spend in the 30s to save our asses because had endless resources, we could create the great society and fight a war in the 60s because we were the world’s leading oil producer. And oil is power. We are not close to either of those power positions now.
There will be wins and losses but the trajectory of history is toward less entitlement spending, not more. As the boomers retire this will be brought into sharp relief. More college kids showed up to one Ron Paul rally than an entire month at Occupy LA. Those kids will moderate, but they won’t move Left. Take away racial issues and almost no kids care about the left other than a few social issues. The rebirth of a muscular women’s movement is hopeful. The gay right’s movement is an ongoing success. But again, those are social issues. The union movement has been on life support for a generation. Wisconsin is interesting but that is GOVERNMENT unions
…the last bastion of union power. GM survived because the middle class paid for it to survive and because it sold itself to Fiat. Most elements of the economic left have collapsed. Obama is giving lip service to saving it now, but it is just that: lip service. He won’t bother with it if he wins.
Yes, a revolution may well come. We’re due. It will not produce a return to the Great Society though.
Spot-on start to finish, John.
“Anon, passionate, but over the top based on what I said. I believe a revolution may well come., but it will emerge out of a rebellion against government, not in defense of it. Kids will NOT take to the streets to defend Pell grants. Not in any number. If and when they understand what Obama and the NSA are building in Utah – they might.”
A center in Utah? That big old spy center? That is being built per the order of King Obama? Surely you know nothing gets built without the allocation of funds and the approval of the U.S. Congress. No doubt our government has and continues to try to watch us and invade on our privacy. Soon we’ll have police officers who can pull you over and make you show proof of citizenship or work papers IF your skin isn’t the correct shade. Where’s the gnashing of teeth over that law? Or how about the traffic cameras in every city of any size that watch your every move. Or the satellites that can zoom down on your home and watch you cut grass from outer space, Or the electronic surveillance in your cellphone that can find you in a Gay Bar in Madrid. Or the electronic surveillance in your car, that can find your car on a dirt road in the Grand Canyon. I’m not thrilled with any of it, but most American’s are walking, talking human homing devices and they don’t even think about it, nor do they think about the fact that they purchased those homing devices and planted them on themselves.
John, since I can’t hear the nuance of your voice, the message I came away with was that you are in basic agreement with the people you know about the paragraph below.
John writes: “No one I know under 40 (and most under 50) thinks for a second that S.S, and medicare will be around for them…and the resentment about this is real. this perception is in it’s infancy but it will be a central divide in the next few years.”
I don’t know why you want to believe that the people of this country, primarily middle class and working poor, are lining up to abandon SS & Medicare or any of the social compacts, because it simply isn’t true. No poll indicates it, no anecdotal info indicates it. Using young people attending Ron Paul events as a barometer of young people overall is a bit of a reach to prove your point. Paul’s youth crowds paled beside BHO and even HRC, Nothing in the current environment points in the direction that Gen X or Y is on-board with disbanding Social Safety nets and throwing their parents or grandparents or themselves under the bus so that the rich can get richer and Wall Street can suck a few trillion more tax free dollars out of the economy. The fact that the economy as a whole is doing poorly is even more reason why SS/Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Pell Grants, Student Loans, Housing loans and assitance, etc, are more important to the majority of people than ever.
“the last bastion of union power. GM survived because the middle class paid for it to survive and because it sold itself to Fiat”
GM didn’t sell itself to anyone. GM owned a 20% stake in Fiat from 2000-2005, but sold that stake back to Fiat in 2005. GM is still GM. Perhaps you’re thinking of Chrysler, because it began an alliance with Fiat in 2009. Of course you know U.S. authomakers have entered into collaborative ventures with foreign automakers for decades, right? As for the Unions, don’t hold your breath waiting for them to go away, if you do, it won’t be the unions we’re saying goodbye to.
“The children of the Greatest generation are now retiring – from their perspective they changed everything for the better along the way. I am predicting right now: that it will be clear within 5 years that for the generations that follow the perspective will be not nearly as glowing”
Man, you have some major boomer generation resentment. We’ve had this discussion before, I didn’t get it then, I don’t get it now. You’re a trailing edge boomer, not a cusp’er, unless we’re discussing an Astrological Chart. I understand that you feel more like a gen X’er (boy I wish I could too, I need a good old shot of youthful vitality), but reality is what it is. First of all, I don’t see any generation as “glowing”, Each generation of my lifetime had it’s good and it’s bad, it’s accomplishments, it’s failures, but I predict that in 5 years this blog will be gone and you and I won’t be able to discuss your prediction. Oh well.
The only was ‘social compacts’ can survive is through smaller govt and deep, deep cuts to everything else. Maybe state militias instead of a military ? Empty all gov’t edifices of employees and turn them into B & B’s ? Govt employees should work in storefronts like the rest of Americans do anyway. We’ve already killed off NASA, how about the EPA too ? What remains of the gov’t can be a collection agency, that takes money from one group and hands it to another.
Our debt has increased to the point of no return, I would not be surprised if we ultimately defaulted on it, which is unthinkable, but if I’m thinking it, maybe others are too.
Any fool knows you can’t keep spending more than you take in, yet gov’t and it’s minions keep trying. Of course the citizens will not abandon SS and Medicare, it will abandon them.
er: the only way, not the only ‘was’..
Sophie writes: “The only was ‘social compacts’ can survive is through smaller govt and deep, deep cuts to everything else. Maybe state militias instead of a military ? Empty all gov’t edifices of employees and turn them into B & B’s”
Himmmmm!!! State Militias? Empty all state offices? With that view as the only or probable solution, how do you drag yourself out of bed in the morning?
Maybe a better solution would be to stop giving tax breaks to major corporations in the hope that will somehow translate to jobs or that some of that might trickle down, when we have YEARS of proof to the contrary. Same goes for the wealthy. Pay up!! No more getting rich here or padding your wealth here then using every nook & Crook to get out of paying taxes by putting the bulk of your wealth in off-shore banks or finding other nifty little tools to shelter it.
Long ago our society entered into a social compact, The Middle Class and Working poor keep this country safe and working, We police the streets, fight the fires, protect and defend this country and it’s institutions and corporations. We build the infrastructure, the roads, bridges, utilities, and we work and maintain all aspects of that infrastructure, including Airports, railroads, Interstate Highways, Dams, etc. The Rich and Corporations don’t do that for us, we do it for ourselves and they benefit in a monumental way from the sweat of our brow and the shedding of our blood. Despite the efforts to save them, so they can buy a couple of more yachts or homes in foreign countries. they WILL step up or they will reap the consequence because the social safety net programs will not go, while the well-heeled skate. The GOP is trying to sell us on a plan that goes mightily at the middle class and poor while letting the richest of the rich and major corps off the hook? Not gonna happen.
You keep saying that as if it makes sense.
Obama’s been in office three years, two with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, and that’s exactly what happened. When Obama had a wide Democratic majority he arm twisted them into extending Bush’s tax cuts when he could have done the opposite; there us absolutely no indication he’d do anything in a second term other than letting the richest of the rich and corporations off the hook.
“Obama’s been in office three years, two with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, and that’s exactly what happened. When Obama had a wide Democratic majority he arm twisted them into extending Bush’s tax cuts when he could have done the opposite;”
Zal, You’re wrong, the Bush tax cuts were set BY LAW to expire in Dec-2010, The tax cuts would have expired, but the GOP refused to support an extension of Unemployment Insurance measures and other job creation mesures unless the Bush cuts were extended for 2 years. In Dec-2010 the Dems no longer had a filibuster proof majority to use to push through Unemployment Benefit extensions. They tried, I watched the debate and the votes, they couldn’t get it past the cloture vote margin of 60. Consequently the compromise was made. No one was happy with the compromise, but that’s why the Tax cuts were extended and for no other reason.
You make it sound like a POTUS can wave a magic wand and make things happen. I’ve been an avid observer of the U.S. Congress for many years and that isn’t how it works.
I miss walthe310.
I miss commenters here who once proclaimed that they are liberals. LOL!!!! Just a mirage I suppose
Commenting about me, but around me again. Am I that intimidating? It’s sad the truth of the extension of the Bush tax cuts doesn’t fit your or Zal’s narrative Tamerlane. If you want to beat Obama, better use facts, fiction is too easily debunked.
If you believe that nonsense you’re saturated in Kool Aid.
Throughout 2009 and most of 2010 Obama didn’t need a magic wand to work with a Democratic super majority Congress to pass his own tax legislation hitting the super rich and major corporations. He didn’t do it. A President doesn’t need a magic wand to pass tax legislation he wants; Reagan did it, Clinton did it, even bumbling Bush did it — all without the kind of party majority Obama enjoyed his first two years.
And you conveniently cut off the second part of my comment, which is the point. I’ll repeat it:
If Obama didn’t have the Presidential chops to formulate and implement policy, and a strategy, to work with a Democratic majority to play hardball with Republicans on taxing rich individuals and corporations, and extending unemployment compensation, in a job-strapped economy after huge bank and corporate bailouts, there’s nothing to indicate he’ll do better in a second term. If you see something that indicates otherwise, go ahead and post it.
Zal, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about
An Article from the Washington Independent that lays out how quickly the super majority vanished on the Dems soon after Obama took office in 2009
http://washingtonindependent.com/74033/the-four-month-supermajority
“The irony is that if Democrats lose the seat, they will have had a working 60-seat majority for all of four months — much of which was spent with the Senate in recess. They opened the Congress in January with 58 votes, counting the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), not counting Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), whose razor-thin victory was held up by lawsuits from former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). On April 28, 2009, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) switched to the Democratic Party, bringing the Democrats to 59 votes without Franken. When Franken was finally sworn in on into the Senate on July 7, 2009, the badly ailing Kennedy was unable to vote and break filibusters. Kennedy died on Aug.25, 2009, but it took Massachusetts Democrats — who run every aspect of their state government — a full month to pass legislation seating a replacement, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.). He took office on Sept. 24, 2009. Only then, and only depending on whether Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was well, did the Democrats have a supermajority. Whatever happens in Massachusetts,(WE NOW KNOW THAT SCOTT BROWN WON IN MA) I’d expect the clamor on liberal blogs and op-ed pages for filibuster reform to increase in volume. Right now the Democrats have the worst of both worlds — the appearance, but not the reality, of total control of Congress.”
I love it when bots talk to independent thinkers like we had our memories erased.
I was here, reading and listening and watching what was happening as it happened.
You think you can fool me into cowering under ObamaSpin? LOL! I never even fell for ClintonSpin and I like them.
Democrats controlled both the House and Senate with a substantive majority (fine, you want to quibble my lower case word “super”) for two full years. 730 days and nights. That’s what our popular Democratic President had to work with, that and a Republican opposition severely weakened by the exposure of Bush’s incompetence, and a nation frightened by a financial crisis and crumbling economy. If Obama couldn’t get tax legislation on the rich passed then what makes you think he’ll be able to do it after 2012?
Try answering my question.
Ok, let me copy & paste most of your question
“to work with a Democratic majority to play hardball with Republicans on taxing rich individuals and corporations, and extending unemployment compensation, in a job-strapped economy after huge bank and corporate bailouts, there’s nothing to indicate he’ll do better in a second term. If you see something that indicates otherwise, go ahead and post it.”
Not sure I understand question, and I’m not sure YOU understand your question either. But I’ll try to answer.
Since I don’t have a crystal ball, nor do I have your disco ball and don’t know what the outcome of Congressional elections will be in 2012, which is a better measure of what might be accomplished. Note I said “might”. I have no idea what Obama will or won’t be able to do or even try to do if re-elected, anymore than you know what Mitt Romney will do or try to do if elected. You’re asking me to answer a question that can’t be answered. All I know is what the candidates say they will do. Except in Romney’s case we know what he said he’d do this week, versus what he said he’d do last week, versus what he said he’d do 6 months ago, versus what he said he’d in election 2008 as a POTUS candidate, versus what he said he’d do as Gubernatorial Candidate, versus what he did as Governor. Romney is undoubtedly the most egregious flip-flopper of any candidate I’ve ever seen. But, they’re all flip-floppers in the end, no matter what party or what promises they make, they all fall short accidentially or on purpose.
Why don’t you tell me why you think Romney won’t try to pass the Paul Ryan Budget which takes a knife to the social compacts. Or why you think Romney voiced support for a Personhood Amendment or why Romney voiced support for a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage? Are those just far-right positions he took to win the Nomination or has he evolved AGAIN, for the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time to these new positions, WHICH HE ALREADY IS TRYING TO MOVE AWAY FROM
That’s just you being disingenuous again. If you have no idea what Obama or Romney will be able to do or even what each would try to do, you can’t reasonably conclude Obama would be better as President.
Either you can’t answer the simple question, the most basic of questions about one’s support of a Presidential candidate, or you’re too cowardly to.
No, with Obama you know what he says during a Presidential campaign versus what he does and doesn’t do as President.
Ditto Obama, what he said running for State Senator versus what he did as State Senator versus what he did as US Senator versus what he said running for POTUS versus what he did and didn’t do as POTUS.
Romney’s a Republican. Those are Republican positions. I don’t like him, I don’t like his Party, and I don’t like his ideology. Also I don’t like that he traveled with his dog on the roof of his car — but at least he didn’t eat the dog.
Mouse, by most world standards, you are very successful. You have a roof, a car, a computer,medical care,, and go on vacation. Why are you so resentful of the same success in others ? It makes no sense.
The’ rich’ already pay over 30% of all taxes, a big fat ‘reward’ for working their butts off all their lives. 47% of our citizens pay no income tax at all, yet use the most services..It is comparable to the least productive employee in a business making the biggest salary and getting the most time off. How is this fair ? While we surely are our brother’s keeper, in the case of the elderly, ill and hurting, we are not obliged to provide every one else with a worry free life.Or non citizens with free open heart surgery, as we do now. Or students at tony Georgetown with free 9 buck birth control pills.. This is not ‘progressivism, it is the tail wagging the dog, ie; tyranny of the self- oppressed. As long as American kids have a neighborhood school, textbooks and paper and pencil, they have the same opportunities as anyone else. Americans have been fighting over SS and Medicare since the beginning, reality tells us that a draw down is all but inevitable. As long as gov’t is too big,warlike, and corrupt, and the voters keep sending the same losers to DC, the results will be the same. On a personal note, I don’t think I know any really ‘rich’ people, or if they are, they don’t talk about it. I do know one gentleman, a widower, who I suspect may be ‘rich’, but he started his career as a bug exterminator in housing projects in the Bronx, raised and educated a fine family, Why the heck should someone like that “pay up” to use your words, so Bubba or Jorge’ can have more food stamps ? Maybe Bubba should buy a few tomato plants, go fishing, and learn to feed himself, that’s what we do at our house.
My secretly rich friend does not owe anyone anything, he is the backbone of what used to be our country. We should be encouraging more like him, instead of laying more and more regulations on business and entrepreneurs, not to mention taxing them out of business..Even farm families are now being told by the govt how much their underage children can work. Just another example of our overbloated gov’t at work. So after you count your many blessings, why don’t you take some time to study our economic policies, and their wastefulness.Or maybe ask O politely not to give millions to the PLO, as he plans… “Pay up’ is not a policy.
Wow, all of that could have come directly from Fox News, and it likely did. Everyone in this country who works pays taxes, either taxes toward their contribution to SS/Medicare and/or State taxes, People who don’t pay, or receive a refund of all of their contribution are basically subsisting. Which should tell you everything you need to know about our struggling society
Every recent study demonstrates the uneven distribution of wealth in this country, Univ of Cal did a study in 2007 and amended in 2010 that looks like this.
The top 1% own 35% of this nations wealth.
The next 4% owns over 27% of this nations wealth.
The next 5% owns 11% of this nations wealth
the next 10% owns 12% of the wealth.
And then there’s the bottom 80% who own 15% of this nations wealth.
How do you keep the lid on that Sophie? Do you think the reason for this total wealth distribution clusterfuck is because the bottom 80% don’t work hard? Of course not. It’s because they live a subsistence life, doing low paying clerical, customer service or manual labor jobs and most of them come from families of gnerational poverty, with no shelter from the storm.
You know Sophie, my concern isn’t just for poor americans or middle income Americans, it’s for all Americans who’ve bought into the illusion that all it takes is hard work and an education to get on top and stay on top, because it’s untrue. Most Americans work very hard and many of those have a very good education, still they never know real financial security and are only one tragic event away from total financial destruction. That isn’t a democracy, this is an aristocracy/plutocracy, it’s one that even you don’t belong to if I understand your descriptions of your life correctly. You’re just slightly better positioned to survive a tragic event than 80% of Americans. You may have a better network of family safety nets, but still you have but the illusion of being safe. The playing field in this country is uneven in favor of the mega-wealthy and they have the resources to keep it that way, unless the majority decides differently.
“A President doesn’t need a magic wand to pass tax legislation he wants; Reagan did it, Clinton did it, even bumbling Bush did it — all without the kind of party majority Obama enjoyed his first two years.”
What Zal said.
This whole debate over when the “super-majority” took effect or how long it lasted underscores the massive brain damage of proglodytes. Could a single obot please define exactly how many seats in Congress teh Messiah needed to work His magic? Were any of His many promises of miraculous works accompanied by the caveat: ‘but only if I get to have a super-majority’?
These dopes make excuse after excuse for the lame performance of their affirmative action community-organizer-in-chief. Anything to avoid the obvious conclusion that he just plain sucks. They even blamed the American people for “betraying” (WTF?!) teh Messiah in the 2010 mid-terms. Why couldn’t the divine obama accomplish what mere mortals like Reagan, Clinton & Bush could?
And again, you talk around me, the progolydteness. Oh, how sad it all tis. Or not
On this I agree, much of what Obama has done sucks, but he’s NOT QUITE THE SUCKER that Romney is.
All sucking is not equal.
So why did you flee Jill Stein, tamerlane? Does she suck too? If not what has run you into the arms of Mittress?
And FYI Tamerlane, any POTUS, including Romney, needs to be able to patch together 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. No bill can move from the House to a straight majority up/down vote if it can’t succeed a cloture motion, which is 60 votes. That’s not how it should work, but that’s how it does work, And getting a bill through the house and through committee reconciliation and to consideration by the Senate takes time. Not days, most of the time not even weeks, it takes months for larger issues.
“Traditionally, the Senate has functioned as a body that facilitates the exchange of ideas and promotes interaction across party lines. Currently, however, abuse of the filibuster has transformed the Senate into a dysfunctional body incapable of constructive deliberation on almost any issue. Members of both parties have abused this tool, which developed by mere accident. In its present form, any one senator can object to proceeding on a measure. The filibuster usually takes the form of an objection to proceeding to debate a measure, or to voting on an amendment or final bill. In order to overcome the objection, a cloture motion must be signed by 16 senators, presented on the Senate floor, and then voted upon. Three-fifths of senators must vote for the cloture motion for the Senate to proceed to debate or vote on the matter. As a result, 60 votes – rather than a simple majority — are required to pass nearly any legislation. Over the past two years, the filibuster has crippled the Senate, eroding bipartisanship, compromise, accountability and the government’s ability to function efficiently”
You might read this from 2010 CREW article concerning the filibuster, it might inform you
http://www.citizensforethics.org/policy/entry/filibuster-reform
Mouse, I’m curious as to how Obama managed to push the ACA through Congress when the Dems controlled both chambers. In my view, it must be because he wanted ACA to be his legacy; he was motivated to break a sweat where his ego was involved. Putting any real sweat behind other legislative initiatives has been beyond him.
Glad to see you’re commenting to me.
Here’s my opinion, remember you asked for it.
Everyone who was commenting here in 2009, knows I gave BHO hell over the compromises made on Healthcare Reform and the end product the PPACA. Most of those compromises were the result of refusal by Blue Dog Dems to support anything that looked like SPUHC or Medicare for all and also their refusal to entertain anything that covered abortion services. The GOP, on the other hand, gave no support to any sort of National Health Insurance Program, particularly not SPUHC or Medicare for all, They sat on their hands and refused to do anything but bitch, because that’s what they do. The GOP were spectators to the entire process. The GOP unanimously cast Nay votes in both Houses.
As for Barack he never wanted or supported SPUHC, but even if he had, he couldn’t have gotten it out of his own party. The Commercial Insurance Lobby, the entrenched money grabbers in commercial for profit hospitals, pharmaceutical companies along with the objections of the right-to-lifers to universal healthcare or medicare for all (which would have covered choice), was too powerful. I supported the Conyers Bill HR 676 Medicare for All, it had quite a few sponsors, but it never got out of the House. I’m hoping that IF the PPACA isn’t repealed that it evovles into Medicare for All in time, but who knows!!!
The issue of the Bush Tax cuts, which was the issue we were discussing earlier, was in-force law when Obama took office in 2009, set to expire December 2010, a year after the passage of PPACA, which passed December 2009. The complexion of the Senate was a bit different in December 2010. If you look at the link I provided to Zal earlier, you’ll see who changed the makeup of the Senate, a Senator from MA who replaced Ted Kennedy and the Dem sit-in for Kennedy, Paul Kirk, his name is Scott Brown (R) and was sworn in in January 2010.
The fact is the Dems struggled through much of 2009 to maintain the 60 votes needed for cloture. The illness of Robert Byrd & Ted Kennedy, was an obstacle throughout that year, Kennedy, who was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of 2008, died in August 2009, but Kennedy was sick and not present for voting most of 2009, his replacement Paul Kirk, wasn’t sworn in until late September 2009. Robert Byrd had similar issues concerning be well enough to be present to vote. When the PPACA passed, the Dems got a vote from Byrd, a vote from Kennedy’s interim replacement Kirk,(appointed Sept 2009, term expired Dec-2009) and were able to reach the cloture threshold. The Dems had 60 votes (including 2 Independents) for both the Cloture vote and for the bill passage vote. I remember Robert Byrd was very ill at the time, but came to the Senate floor specifically to cast that vote. Byrd died 6 months later.
Back to the Tax Cuts, The Dems tried to work a deal with the GOP to extend the tax cuts only for those earning under $250K. But that deal fell through. Here’s a brief explanation of that debacle
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/pete-davis/2062/bush-tax-cut-extension-compromise
When the Dems couldn’t get the votes needed, and with the Xmas break looming, they had to compromisedbefore the Senate left session in Dec 2010. If they hadn’t the bill would have been tabled until the new Congress was sworn in, in January 2011, That new Congress gave the GOP a house majority and more Senate Clout. When they were sworn in, in January 2011, it would have doomed the Unemployment Insurance extension and the jobs & training program, in the House, BUT the Bush Tax cuts would have lived on because they’ve all sworn an oath NOT TO RAISE TAXES. So the Dems compromised and IMHO, It was a compromise worth the benefit to the long-term unemployed and the States that desperately needed the monies for jobs, job training and to keep state & local governments up and running.
How quickly people forget the impact of the collapse of late 2008/2009. How quickly people forget how desperate many States were, how desperate many communites were, how many people were still among the long term unemployed in December of 2010. I can’t forget it because it was very personal. Many friends and several members of my immediate family were unemployed during that time, my household expanded as I took in 2 family members, for over a year, The unemployment rate in my county was above 15% for much of 2009 and 2010, the adjoining county unemployment was nearly 20%. There were simply more applicants for employment than employment.
That’s my take on it,
“In my view, it must be because he wanted ACA to be his legacy;”
He wanted the ACA to be his legacy, no doubt, but it almost didn’t happen, and it almost didn’t happen because of the cloture rule.
Had Robert Byrd been too ill to vote from the floor that day and had Kennedy not died in August 2009 (Kennedy was to ill to get to the floor to vote for most of 2009) and had his replacement had not been sworn in to serve the last 3 months of 2009, The ACA would not have happened. It’s just that simple. Robert Byrd had to live and be strong enough to get to the Senate floor and cast a vote and Kennedy had to die in time for a replacement to be named, because he wasn’t strong enough to vote. Strange, but true.
Mouse, I’ve never not addressed you. And, I wouldn’t ask for your opinion if I didn’t want it. Thanks for the response. More later.
Mouse, I never watch Fox, I hate their clothes, they all look like game show hosts.
They all look like game show hosts, even the CNN and MSNBC folks.
I KNEW that if I lived long enough, I’d see Mouse and Sophie agree on something. Hallelujah.
“with Obama you know what he says during a Presidential campaign versus what he does and doesn’t do as President.”
Here’s obama vs. obama on the health insurance mandate:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/bOaLLdpVzAs?autoplay=1&hd=1
They could make a hundred videos like this.
They could do that with Romney as well. In fact, some enterprising individual could make bookend videos: Obama v. Obama vs. Romney v. Romney. Why bother running against each other when they could each run against themselves.
That’s a brilliant anti-O video, Tamer. Good laugh.
As you say, SophieCT, similar ones can be made about Romney, but I’m soooo enjoying this and the “O is cool” one made by Karl Rove’s diabolical machine.
It startles me that some are acting as if Romney has a record, whereas Obama does not. We know a lot about how Obama behaves after 3.5 years. HE HAS A RECORD. We know he’s every bit the flip flopper Romney is tagged as being. And of course, we know in general terms what both men will attempt, though I’d argue that one can assume Romney’s stances if he wins more clearly. I haven’t the foggiest notion where Obama will land if he wins. Muscular liberal – the day before he won in 2008, or Larry Summers stooge…a week later. He was for the public option before he was against it. He was against the mandate before he was for it. The Bush tax cuts..hmm foggy here…he hated them, then signed off…or something. He was furious about the debt ceiling being raised in the senate, before he begged for it to be raised later. He was the grand protector of civil liberties until he destroyed them….
I’m being asked to ASSUME he’ll defend great society/new deal programs…but why should I? He doesn’t deserve any trust. He’s earned distrust. will Obama be the great defender of the liberal faith…finally..if he wins? Or will he work half time and govern when he feels like it like he does now. Do we believe what he says or what he does?
Romney must be forced to defend his record. This is the way it works. But so must Obama. Just because he says he protects us from the rapacious rich doesn’t mean he has… or will. The record indicates he won’t in fact. Ms. Warren would be busting balls in the consumer protection agency she invented if Obama really gave a shit about reigning in the rapacious rich.
Same standard. That’s the goal. Both men have records. Not just the challenger.
What’s funny about this what’ll they do business, especially with the Mouses, is that, of the two, Obama’s the most likely to successfully begin dismantling Social Security and Medicare. In fact he’s already started with Medicare and we’ve seen what happens when he does versus what happens when a Republican goes after those programs.
Bush tried to take a step toward restructuring SS and Democrats wouldn’t let him. They also won’t let Romney do it, not without a fight on the Hill and on cable with sideshow groups like AARP and AAs and NOW screaming bloody murder.
But when Obama took away Medicare Advantage not only did Democrats let him, they attacked anybody who criticized what Obama was doing.
Romney is a Baby Boomer with at least some sense of responsibility for the more vulnerable (he put the dog on his roof but he took the dog along) and Obama, though technically a Boomer, is really a GenX in nature (he ate the dog). Obama will not only be fully comfortable taking apart SS, he wants to do it. We know Obama’s grandmother was old and sick for a long time without him bothering to see her, until Obama’s handlers decided it’d be good for his campaign for him to fly to Hawaii; and we know Obama has an aunt who was an illegal living in poverty without him assisting her or even caring if she existed.
Given what we know of the two men and the way Democrats respond to Republicans versus Obama, there’s little question who’ll have the desire and the Democratic support to begin –or really continue– taking apart the New Deal and the Great Society.
Romney’s rich, born and raised rich, and they can be insensitive to the needs of the vulnerable. But Obama is wannabe, and nobody is more vicious toward the vulnerable than wannabes who grew up longing to be rich and powerful and then getting it.
Just like blue collar Bushies and 2008 Obots, the Mouses of America will be oh so boo-hoo disappointed in Obama in his second term. And it’ll be their fault he gets it.
Obama, more and more, seems like one of those people who are famous for being famous. Teflon coated, and bullet proof, they make great Prom Kings and CEO’s..They seem to be trophy magnets, who acquire life’s rewards by merely breathing. Yet no one in their acquaintance can remember ever exchanging more than a few words with them.
Maybe there IS something to be learned from Astrology, or is it Tarot cards ? Can’t remember s..t
lately.