Obama: A Leader in the House
The state of the union may not be strong, but, judging from his speech to Congress, the state of his presidency is.
An organized mind at work is a wonderful thing to watch. During his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, President Barack Obama placed the mind of his presidency on display, and it was wonderfully organized. The speech—a State of the Union stand-in—presented a clear, mostly left-of-center agenda for his presidency and a series of forceful rationales for his proposed actions. Obama offered all this up with a now-familiar fair dose of charm and grace. It's been years since any BMOC in Washington has presented such an extensive and well-articulated plan for—dare one say it—change.
This was a political speech, so it had the predictable elements: Americans don't give up, we'll pull together and rise again. But the strategic thrust of the speech was deftly delivered: Obama declared that the crisis—make that, crises—of the moment offers opportunities for fundamental shifts in national policies related to the economy, energy, education, and health care. In other words, the current calamity provides additional cause to proceed rapidly and ambitiously on these fronts.
At the start of the address, Obama said now was not the time to "lay blame" for the current predicament. But he did, noting that for years Washington—a.k.a. the George W. Bush administration—did little to deal with fundamental economic flaws, the nation's oil dependency, and the country's troubled health care system. "We have lived through an era," Obama said, "where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future." So now, he added, a "day of reckoning has arrived."
Thus, a young black guy stood before Congress and in front of an older white guy (Vice President Joe Biden) and a woman (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) to lay out a road map for saving America.
Much of the first half of Obama's speech was devoted to a forceful, yet not partisan, defense of his first steps in office. He praised the passage of the stimulus bill. And as he did so, a televised moment occurred that could well come to symbolize the two parties: Democrats stood to cheer the $787 billion measure; Republicans kept their backsides in their seats. In the next election cycle—when the initial results of the stimulus legislation will be apparent—this image will likely be ammo for one of the two parties. (And when Obama referred to a provision that will provide tax credits for college tuition, many in the chamber applauded; Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, did not.)
Obama then hailed and explained his administration's preliminary endeavors to prevent the further collapse of the financial system and to address the mortgage implosion. He acknowledged that doling out billions to bad bankers is a hard sell. But, once again, he had a convenient foil: the Bush administration. He declared,
This time, [the banks] will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.
This not-too-subtle reference to Bush's botched bailout received a tremendous ovation. And Obama, not shying away from bad news, noted that propping up Wall Street will probably require more than the $700 billion or so already set aside. (He did not go into details about his various save-the-system plans.)
The first half of Obama's speech was about cleaning up the mess he had inherited. The second half was about moving ahead with a largely liberal and daring policy agenda:
The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care; the schools that aren’t preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit.
And he made it seem so patriotic:
History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.
Many State of the Union addresses end up grab-bag shopping-lists of initiatives. Obama made his priorities obvious: energy, health care, and education. He outlined his goals in each area clearly. It was very seminar-like. In the energy category, there was a call for energy efficient technology, solar, and hybrids. He made a pitch to economic nationalism, noting that China, South Korea, Germany and Japan have passed the United States by in these areas. He urged Congress to pass legislation to curb global warming pollution and boost renewable energy: "We will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America." (Clean coal? Perhaps he should check in with Al Gore.)
Regarding health care, he tied the lack of health care reform to the nation's dire economic situation. It's a crafty move: attaching a big-ticket (and complicated) policy matter to the economic crisis. "Nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform," Obama said, "the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough." He did not describe a specific plan. His message was big-concept: the economic downturn is more reason, not less, to get cracking on health care reform. On education, he also shared no details, but he repeated his previous stance: the education system that fails too many children requires more money and more reform. He did lay down a marker: "By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world." (One of the biggest applause he received the whole evening came when he called on parents to take responsibility for their kids' education.)
As for fiscal responsibility, Obama did what all presidents do: he promised to cut unnecessary government spending and to hold a "conversation" on Social Security. But he also did what few have done: he presented a vigorous case for increasing taxes on the well-heeled. He noted he will end the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent and reiterated what he said on the campaign trail: "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year...you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime." He basically dared the Republicans to come after him as a tax-and-spend Democrat.
Obama deliberately concentrated on domestic issues. But he quickly ran through his national security to-do list. When he noted that he "will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war," he earned enthusiastic applause. Even Senator John McCain stood up and clapped. When he referred to his decision to shut down Gitmo, there were more applause. And once the legislators were done cheering that, Obama declared, "I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocate that the United States of America does not torture." More applause—including from McCain and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Obama saved his political poetry for the end. He talked about hope, about the need to transcend cynicism and doubt and to eschew "the petty and the trivial." He pointed out a Miami banker sitting in the First Lady's box who had given away his $60 million bonus to 471 people who worked for his bank. He hailed Ty'Sheoma Bethea, a young girl from South Carolina sitting next to Michelle Obama, who wrote a poignant letter to Congress asking for help for her dilapidated school. "We are not quitters," she had said in her letter.
Obama stole her line. "We are not quitters," he proclaimed. We better not be. Obama had laid out a stunningly grand game plan: fix the economy, solve the housing crisis, save Wall Street, transform America's energy system, revive its education system, renew and expand its health care system, and lessen the deficit—and, oh yes, while crushing al Qaeda and resolving wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he outlined all this with a can-do attitude that seemed more than canned optimism. He was both serious and up-beat. He recognized the daunting challenges and he hailed the possibilities for progress. That is, he acted like a leader. He acknowledged these are, in a way, the worse of times, but he contended they could—if the right decisions are made—lead to better times. Let's turn lemons into an energy drink, he urged.
There's no telling if Obama can pull off any of this, or if he wins the legislation he seeks in these areas that these policies will produce a revived America. But for anyone who wants to believe in him—and in troubling times, people tend to want to believe in their leaders—Obama came across as confident and in command. He provided reason to believe. The State of the Union is not so strong at the moment, but the state of his presidency, at this early point, is.
AND THEN CAME JINDAL. The same cannot be said for Republican Louisiana Bobby Jindal's presidential prospects. He delivered the GOP response to Obama's speech, and he served up retro Republican nostrums. An American of Indian ancestry, he started out with class by hailing Obama for having "completed a redemptive journey that took our nation from Independence Hall to Gettysburg to the lunch counter and now, finally, the Oval Office."
Then he lit into Obama and his meta-approach: "The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens." To illustrate this point, Jindal told an anecdote about an unnamed government bureaucrat who during Hurricane Katrina told a sheriff that the sheriff couldn't send out rescue boats without proof of insurance and registration. Yes, the GOP's poster boy of the night was actually making the case that Katrina proved that citizens should trust Republicans more than Democrats.
Policy-wise, Jindal had little to say except cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. And during his brief response, he reminded the viewers eight times that Americans "can do anything." (He also tossed out false facts about Obama's stimulus bill.)
There aren't many—if any—Capitol Hill Republicans whom the party would want to put on national display after an Obama speech. Jindal was chosen because he's young, he's the child of immigrants, and he speaks to the party's base. But he was far from dynamic, and he essentially just read the first (and now tattered) page of the GOP playbook: government sucks. If Jindal, who passes for a rising Republican star, and the GOP want to tie themselves to this weak mast in the middle of the current storm, Democrats at this stage don't have much to worry about.
Oh Please, an organized mind
Oh Please, an organized mind and left-of-center, sounds like an oxymoron to me. It was a speech, written by a speechwriter and delivere by man known for rhetoric and not much else. He finally got the memo about needing to lead rather than just promoting fear and characterizing situations as catastrophic. I wish he would focus on agenda items and see them through to completion. Seems to be flying by the seat of his pants, while he promotes his socialist, left-of-center mind-set.
Obama's Speech
Hey DH,
Put a sock in it. Your sour grapes don't pass for currency here. If we want to keep our country from sinking deeper into recession, attitudes such as yours are the first thing we need to jettison.
Obama gave an excellent speech tonight, and compared to the previous 8 state of the unions, it was absolutely stellar. Jindal came off like some two-faced Mr. Rogers wannabe who thinks after 8 years, Americans are still foolish enough to fall for anything said with a down-home accent.
While I don't agree with everything Obama says, he is the right man at the right moment. Hail to the Chief!
You would prefer corporatism/fascism over socialism/democrcy..?
I suggest you study the two forms of government....most people agree of the two, fascism (corporate run government) is more evil....while you weren't looking we already have some forms of socialism...our military, police, fire department, roads and parks, social security, local governments, schools....all a product of taxes..please educate your self by attending our "socialistic", public schools..
I understand how the haters feel
Dear DH,
You seem like an angry, angry person, but I want you to know I empathize with the way you are feeling right now. I was in that exact state seven times, after seven State of the Union Addresses, during the Bush years.
Good luck getting through these next three or seven years. Pepto helps.
Love,
Gabe
Uhhh.. get with it, man.
"delivere by man known for rhetoric and not much else."
Well, now he's known better for being the most powerful man on the planet and leader of the free world.
It's not the primaries anymore, dude... you've gotta update your frame of reference.
"He finally got the memo"???... "I wish he would see agenda items through to completion"?? He's been in office for all of a month and he's accomplished more in that month than many Presidents do in an entire term.
What are you talking about? You're living in the past and future at the same time.. you certainly aren't accepting the present...
socialism leads to communism leads to HELL
Why do the free market types (we have not had a free market since Coolidge) always worry about socialism coming to us and at the same time approve of federally insured bank accounts, medicare, GI Bill, and bailouts for failed enterprises. Unregulated capitalism leads to greed, poverty, uncertainty and now financial disaster. We need to regulate the greed.
Try this plan: don't like govt? do not take any thing they offer or provide. Nada.
Obama gave a carefully crafted speech, not written by him but approved by him, in which he detailed what he had in mind. Sl stop focusing on his speaking abilities and focus on a simple fact: he is president and the Dems are in power because the conservatives have put the nation in a sinkhole and their tiresome mantra-cut taxes, cut taxes--simply won;'t work for people without jobs, lost homes, broken infrastructure etc etc etc America got the change it wanted. Now offer something other than the same old tax cut nonsense. Just check today's polls and you will see how most Americans feel about the speech and the Democrats. Your party sinks deeper and deeper into the sinkhole it created.
DH's comments
-
tagged as:
- solution
DH: I'm surprised you know how to read, never mind read our newsletters. Why are you reading Mother Jones? Are you thinking you can "convert" some us "commie lefty pinkos" over to your small minded, ill informed, knee-jerk fascist, Rush Limbaugh ditto-head nonsense? It won't work buddy, because, you see, we're smarter than you are. We've actually looked into these issues and we believe in a civil society not your barbarous, every man for himself, get out of my way, it's all about me silliness. You need to think seriously about what "small minded" means. Look it up, think about it. I mean really think about it, then know this: It's a description of you. Good luck with that. (ps. I know you're not really adult enough to do that.)
Jindal is boring, unattractive and nothing new
I think the comments on Jindal were spot on and really indicative of the GOP. I think he will be forgotten altogether...and unfortunately, Sarah Palin will be able to sleep better tonight!
Sorry, Anonymous, but you
Sorry, Anonymous, but you are sooooo out of the loop - Obama has a major part in crafting any of his speeches. Some he write himself, some he starts, but he's involved in them all the way. Not like he sees it the first time on the teleprompters. And he knows what he wants to say! And how else does a president "lead" if not by the power of words? I can't think of any other way a president has to persuade people to follow him, at least not in a democracy. The tool Obama has is his fluency with words and the capacity to express his ideas in ways that make people want to follow him. That is what leadership is, doofus.
How many times did you have
How many times did you have to say he gave no details but it sounded good... Come on could you be drinking his cool-aid anymore.... then of course bash Jingle immediately....wonder who you voted for....oh thats right you voted for change....meanwhile I will take my 13 dollars a paycheck and make my house payment
OK, so let me get this
OK, so let me get this right, the Republicans have no new ideas, they just want to change thier image? So we are suffering in economic doldrums from them being in control and thier mesiah Greenspan even says "I was wrong" about the ideals that the market could govern itself with little to no regulation. So they just want to do the same thing? Plus they want to cram thier strict biblical ideology down our throats as well, in defiance of the constitution that they claim they so strictly adhere too? They could dump billions into Iraq but they can't dump the same amount into our infrastructure? When they were funding the billions to go to Iraq there was no concern about the blooming deficit but now they want to cry about it if we spend that much money domestically? So ok they want to keep fighting in Iraq and where ever there is oil and the locals hate us and cut taxes? Us working schmucks pay 35% while some guy that makes $260 million pays 17% because it's not payroll it's capitol gains? Why can't they pay the same taxes as us? They talk about individual responsibility about everything but paying a fair share of taxes. They talk about wanting to cut huge deficits but then want to cut taxes. If you are rich I can see why you like these guys, but unfortunatly for you, us normal working guys outnumber you, by a lot! If over the last 8 years the average person got richer, and the economy was booming, then I would say yeah your ideas have merrit, don't change them. The fact is we are in the crapper because of your policies and your big idea is change your image? Am I the only one that this makes angry?
nurse comments...
I think the Nurse rant indicates the lack of literacy that permeates the angry left. She cannot spell or write , which is what we will be getting from this new lower standard in society. Punish those who do well, demonize and confiscate all you can. It will not last.... I pray for the ignorant. God bless the USA.
Obama's State of the Union
The most offputting observation about the comments regarding the subject is that so many fools seem to want to deride The Prez for real leadership in crises. How can there be enough allegedly literate that are willing to put their less than two cents worth in to put down the Prez? We had to wait for almost 30 years (since Reagan) to get a Prez that understood the basics of our economic life. The economic life that Naomi Klein so brilliantly elucidated in her book "Shock Doctrine." Now we have a leader that is meeting the crises openly, calmly, actively (even proactively), and (at least with a semblance and an attempt at bipartisanship) apolitically. There cannot be any other response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address than "Hooray!!!!!!!!"
ALERT: PROGRESSIVE
ALERT: PROGRESSIVE CRITIQUE
If all we do is compare Obama with Bush, of course he will sound organized. But that's not some type of revolutionary presidential quality - neither is having a plan.
Also, sounding "left" or "left of center" is a matter of perspective. I suspect the author of this post is again constrained by the Bush years - such that Obama's fairly mainstream rhetoric causes goosebumps. Having a black man talk to old white men and a white woman makes provides progressive symbolism, but it is not progressive substantively.
Also -- Obama slammed Bush's bailout, but he voted for it and demanded that Congress release the second half without imposing any legislative strings. Also, Geithner and his (and Obama's) buddy Rubin worked diligently with Paulson to grab money for Citigroup under the old bailout.
Finally, if you factor in rendition, Afghanistan, indefinite detention, and other elements of the war on terrorism which Obama has embraced, then this looks closer to "more of the same" than "left of center." Obama gives a friendly face to militarism, and he laces his policy discussions with language like "energy efficiency," which make liberals gush. The proof is in the pudding. And so far, I am thoroughly unimpressed.
PS: I am not Republican, conservative, racist, capitalist, mean, angry, (fill in the blank with all the other smackdowns of Obama's critics)......
Definately left of center,
Definately left of center, classic liberal stuff: Cut defence, huge spending, raise taxes, promise endless social projects, pretend to balance budget, blame others for your problems.
Hopefully, he won't make
Hopefully, he won't make things much worse before we can get Jindal in in '12 to fix it.
from nurse "Us working
from nurse "Us working schmucks pay 35% while some guy that makes $260 million pays 17% because it's not payroll it's capitol gains? Why can't they pay the same taxes as us?"
uh? could it be because that guy has created/invested in businesses that employ folks like you? and if you are paying 35% in income taxes I want to know what sort of nursing position you have.
But let me suggest that you engage a financial planner and a tax accountant to help you reduce that burden.
and finally I want to know how that individual made $260 million in capital gains in one year
OK so lets see I get one guy
OK so lets see I get one guy that can't address the fact that were in the crapper after the fiscal policy of his dearest Republicans, all he can do is critique my writting? And then the other guy who feels that the rich are enttitled to pay less because they supposedly creat jobs? Many people that I am talking about that make hundreds of millions of dollars do not creat any jobs what so ever, they trade things on the stock market and make money for other rich people. So once again it's all about individual resposibility unless it means paying a fair share of the tax burden. Your argument that just because someone "creats jobs" they should not have to pay a fair share of taxes is ellitist, arrogant and unamerican.
Paying a fair share
While senior hedge fund and private equity executives certainly should be taxed at the same rate as other wage earners, profits made legimately from long-term holdings should be taxed at the prevailing capital gains rate as they have taken real and identifiable risks in making those investments.
But these people do not simply make money for other rich people by trading. They create efficiencies in businesses, hold companies to account by purchasing their shares in large enough quantities for their voices to be heard, invest in new businesses and hire others to work with them. They make money not just for rich folks, but for tens of millions of people dependent on pension plans or relying on help from endowments and foundations, all of which invest heavily with these firms out of necessity. Without them they would struggle to meet their acturial assumptions, in the case of pension plans, or to meet the obligations they have set for themselves, in the case of the other type of institutional investors.
More generally, however, in the real world the Bush tax cuts resulted in the top 1%, 5% and 10% of earners paying more as a percentage of total federal taxes than at any time in history without reducing the overall percentage of average GNP collected by the federal government for the past 50 years. For Obama to say that at this moment the economy is too bad to raise taxes on those with higher incomes suggests strongly that marginal tax rates have an economic impact with they are raised or lowered. It also suggests that in a more normal environment Democrats are willing to accept a lower private sector growth rate by raising marginal tax rates in exchange for the social engineering it wishes to impose. The question remains whether we believe that improving growth in the private sector adds more in the way of long-term jobs and income than expanding government. That is what we are about to find out.
Congress is the Culprit
Congress hides behind the President’s popularity with less and less effectiveness. They are responsible for the collapse, and this Mother of All Spending Bills Pelosi spawned is raw, in your face pork and everyone knows it. It looks like she knows they are going to be out in two, so she just pulled everything off the shelf, locked out the Republicans, and had a brand new president say it had no pork at all last night. You could hear people spontaneously laugh. Even Democrats know she has done some major damage to his built-up capital and just needs to go. There was no reason to squander a chance to pull a nation in real trouble off the edge by narrowly confining the stimulus to . . . stimulus – targeted, temporary and effective cuts and spending. That package is a catastrophe and the reality is, just how bad is it going to hurt the American worker when we have to work it off whilst coming out of this quagmire. They have us running through 100 miles of waist-deep water.
After eight
After eight LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLONG years of semi-retarded leadership, now comes Mr. Obama who actually looks good and sounds smart. The dramatic differential is cosmic in dimension.
~and
~and
So saith the duely appointed (former) president of the United States . . . .
(It is actually miraculous that our economy is as good as it still is.)
But the news story from yesterday which escaped was that Fed Chairman Bernakie lied.
His own internal (Fed) reports show that the US economy will, definitely NOT come out of recession this year and he well knows it.
Any blogger who wants to loose whatever money they still have may bet me any amount with 5-1 odds that the USA does not come out of recession this year
Respectfully submitted~
Obama and the Democrats have
Obama and the Democrats have earned the right through the election to implement their policies and pursue their agenda. But let us make no mistake that this effort will mean the most costly expansion of government in modern history that will either establish Obama's legacy as a leader of vision and understanding or usher in a new Republican majority that next time may actually act like conservatives. I have grave doubts about the ideas the Democrats have and the policies and programs they believe will make them a reality. On the other hand, we have had roughly 30 years of prosperity that until recently was linked to generally conservative policies. Voters have, in part, rejected those policies so Democrats deserve to follow through on their theirs.
We should welcome this, even those of us who believe it will leave us weaker, more in debt and with new social benefits we will be unable to abandon and will thus cost us even more in the long run. Only in this way can the public, supporters and critics alike, learn whether one side or the other is more right than wrong. This, in the end, is what will bring us together insofar as creating a consensus as to which direction makes the most sense. Without actually experimenting in the real world the ideological divides will only increase. Let us see what happens.
El Caudillo Maximo
So, jaw thrust out in typical socialist fashion like Fidel or Hugo, our 'slightly-left-of-center' Maximum Leader proposed government regulation of banker's salaries and policies that would amount to the quasi-nationalization of the banks, blamed the now effectively nationalized auto companies' problems on their feeble management and not on the predatory unions which have crippled The Big Three and now the taxpayers with endlessly increasing labor costs, declared his intention to nationalize health care and proclaimed his desire to invest trillions converting to the most expensive, unreliable energy sources in his Quixotic quest to bring the weather under the control of the State. A nice evening's work for our 'slightly-left-of-center' Caudillo. The markets are only down 150 points so far this morning but give them time to mull over the Stalinist nature of his proposals; stocks will soon be as worthless as the currency we have to buy them with. This is good. The Wall Street types who were so groovy and voted Green deserve to have every penny of their Capitalist loot striped from their pudgy fingers by these Marxist harpies. We can all smile in anticipation when we think of the Cuba-style health care we're about to receive. After all, didn't Michael Moore say it was so much better? Thank goodness we're getting 'slightly-left-of-center' policies, like Hugo or Fidel, instead of 'really-left-of-center' ones like Pol Pot or Kim Jong Il.
http://www.skep41.blogspot.com/
Very interesting contradictions
Hmmm...I wonder how our bankers will gain confidence, as the Obama government casts them as vile and greedy people? And looks to punish them...oh yeah, I'll love you after you beat the tar out of me....uh huh !!
And we're supposed to believe that the government officials will respond quickly and surely to economic situations, which they mostly started and protected. Have you ever seen the congress respond thus?? And what do THEY know about economics anyway? Their expertise seems a little cynical....
And now we're gonna fix healthcare by government oversight? Like Tom Daschles plan to let old folks, with medical problems deems too expensive for THEM, to just shut up and die?
And the housing fix to identify and eliminate 'non-worthy' buyers...which one of our great government entities is going to do this job??
And the debit fix, down the road 10yrs......
OK, say I believed all this stuff.....give me some specifics I can chew on....oh, those are missing...but, trust Obama and the government, right???
My trust level is sinking faster than the Dow is tanking....soon we'll all be asking these questions...and I fear only the true believers will be left...and then their only choice of action is to force us to obey......
Now that's the real aim of this government.....they should say so, out front....let's see if America will respond to them in a positive manner.
I guess my years in Navy
I guess my years in Navy Intel ruined me, instead of looking at events separately, I try to connect many seemingly unrelated events but have the same thing in common, which is moving this country more toward Socialism.
I said before that I believe the next “created” crisis will be a food shortage which will move the USA to total Socialist control.
The more I look into events, the more I believe that George Soros and the Democracy Alliance and their Puppets, Obama and the Democrats, plan Global control, with power to Govern vested in the United Nations.
Who else but George Soros and The Democracy Alliance Members have enough money in money market funds to pull off a run of 550 billion in 2 hours on the banks. Who else but they could threaten the rest of the world with total economic collapse unless they join a Global Alliance with a more powerful United Nations, with a larger better equipped “peace keeping” force able to enforce international law.
Wow, Navy person
You sound like you're a bit paranoid...or maybe George Soros is out to get you! Maybe you're just a conspiracy theorist who's off his/her rocker.
Typical comment from some
Typical comment from some one who looks to others for information and is programmed to neither see hear ore read that what he has not been programmed to believe.
When you ASS U ME anything about me you make an ASS of U
Up-tighty righties
Nicely summarized, David Corn.
I'm with the nurse on this one. The labor tax is higher than the investment tax, which is a major contributor to how we got to the wealth redistribution scheme where 1% of the population controls 50% of the wealth. And further, those who refute her ideas based on her grammar simply prove that they cannot defend themselves in a fair fight. She kicked you in the nutsack.
Regarding "Marxist harpies"... Marx was right about some things, you know. One of them was his concept of the actual value added to goods and services. For a long time the trend has been that the moneyed class has defined their own additions to the manufacturing chain much more highly than the actual labor that creates the consumables. They have basically seized money from the workers by force, which is one definition of robbery.
I believe that we are on the cusp of far-reaching systemic change, which ought to make the right wing tremble. Those of use in the bottom 99% are awakening, and we don't like what we're seeing.
-Wexler
________________________________________________
If I would have known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
~~~ George Burns
I guess my years in Navy
I guess my years in Navy Intel ruined me, instead of looking at events separately, I try to connect many seemingly unrelated events but have the same thing in common, which is moving this country more toward Socialism.
I said before that I believe the next “created” crisis will be a food shortage which will move the USA to total Socialist control.
The more I look into events, the more I believe that George Soros and the Democracy Alliance and their Puppets, Obama and the Democrats, plan Global control, with power to Govern vested in the United Nations.
Who else but George Soros and The Democracy Alliance Members have enough money in money market funds to pull off a run of 550 billion in 2 hours on the banks. Who else but they could threaten the rest of the world with total economic collapse unless they join a Global Alliance with a more powerful United Nations, with a larger better equipped “peace keeping” force able to enforce international law.
Re: Socialism
From the outset of my brief response, please note that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and did not vote for Obama.
It cracks me up that "socialism" has been evoked as a criticism of Obama. Have we already forgotten that it was Mr. Bush whom launched the first round of bailouts? I believe it was Bill Maher (take him or leave him, I guess) who said "we're getting all the worst parts of socialism," referring to government ownership of banks and privatized social services. It is thus important to distinguish between true socialism (which embodies a cultural element just as must as a political one) and the ridiculous brand of bailout capitalism we are getting now. Furthermore, that the term "socialism" is still spouted as an attempt to discredit a political stance with which one disagrees is indicative of the political immaturity of this country. While I am not attempting to place socialist policy on a silver pedestal, I think is certainly worthy to point out the the US ranks among the lowest on just about every indicator prosperity and "advancement" (i.e. life expectancy, infant mortality, access to education, gender equality, access to health care, etc.) than any other post-industrialized country--for those of you countering with our GDP, I urge you to look at income distribution. Also, the countries situated above us in terms of these indicators have, for the most part, adopted some form of socialism (whereby government ownership is redistributed to the public through social services). An important conclusion arise here: since the red scare is over, the term "socialism" ought no longer be evoked as a method of political disapproval--or, if it is, the charge ought to have substance.
hey, sailor boy: I did two
hey, sailor boy: I did two stints in two wars and I got the G.I. Bill...now what is that but socialized education? you got health care, clothing, housing, pension--like that socialism? sure you do or you would renounce it.
When i was Forced to go on
When i was Forced to go on disability in 1978 because of injuries received while serving this country, i was earning over 140K a year with opportunity for advancement...why the hell would i choose or want to go on disability.
right bloggers turned out for this one...
im with the nurse and wexler, It seems like a lot of republicans know where they can use their "tired old arguments" to stir up trouble. wexler nailed it, the nurse became a surgeon and sliced you up. republicans are trying to change their image with people of color. people can only hope to be articulate and graceful enough to get them a position like idk, head of harvard law review. obama is one of the best, JINGLE, lol is one of the worst lol. jingle sux
His speech was
His speech was well-organized because it was wirtten by others. I'll give him this: he gives great speeches, just like Hitler did.
This is hilarious and deeply
This is hilarious and deeply revealing of the liberal "thought" process. King Obama of Nazareth gave a pretty-sounding speech; ergo, he is great. Jindal wasn't smooth, so he is stupid. Style over substance wins out every time! No wonder so many in Hollywood are liberal.
Obama / Jindal
AZman:
Some people come off better then others in their public speaking. Mr. Obama is exceptional, as you have already agreed. So was Dr. M.L. King Jr. an exceptional public speaker. BTW: Gov. Jindal is NOT a shabby spokesperson at all. This is why he is widely seen as the conservative Republican's "Great nearly-Black hope". So I think your point falls on that basis. Jindal is clearly above average (especially for Republicans--who only have had one Ronald Reagan--in the past 100 years.)
But for any speaker to rise from "above average" to "exceptional", it is usually a requirement that they themselves believe their own statements. And that is where the 21st century Republican leadership suffers its weakest-link. Either they are brain damaged (and/or brain-washed) like Bush-W and Sarah Palin, in which case they come off sincerely though naively, or, they are too smart to believe their own bull-jive (like Jindal and McCain) in which case they can't avoid sounding profoundly constipated.
Respectfully submitted~
why make parallels between
why make parallels between obama and hitler? you guys that do this are f'd up. you refuse to work toward a better good. you should take advice, take a class where you can learn not to evoke the names of past dictators and failed ideologies when trying to make a point. it saddens me that you could call yourself an american and attack your leadership in the same sentence. you truly have no respect for decency.
The GOP spent the past 8
The GOP spent the past 8 years looting the country and rewarding their buddies -- and now think they have the right to whine about state of our economy, obstruct anything that could help, and serve up Jindal, who sounded like he was reading a bed time story. Palin may be sleeping better after last night, but it will be only in her dreams that she ever gets elected to the WH.
Know your facts: The
Know your facts:
The Leftists gained control of both houses by claiming the war was lost and they would withdraw the troops, thereby insuring defeat. They hoped to ride the same horse into the White House, but since the surge was working so well they had to go with plan “B” which was already in place. By having their wealthy cronies manipulate the stock market and futures markets they engineered a financial meltdown.
THE DEMOCRATS PLAN “B”
In September 2003, then President Bush proposed that oversight of Fannie Mae be tightened. Congressional Democrats balked at the idea and vigorously opposed and blocked it. Then, in a 2006 bill, Senate Republicans created a bill calling for oversight of the Democrat-run corrupt Fannie Mae (and its partner organization Freddie Mac) US mortgage giant. At that time, those who ran Fannie Mae (again—ALL Democrats) had already been caught in an $11 billion accounting scandal. Tragically—for all of us—this bill was shelved. Wimpy Republicans actually wanted bi-partisanship and Democrats refused. Despite their protestations to the contrary, Democrats do not want bi-partisanship. This is an historical message that the now-liberal Republican Party leadership refuses to learn from or even acknowledge. Note: At this time the Democrat/Leftist-created financial catastrophe of 2008-2009 could have been brought to light and prevented. However, it appears that dark forces were at work to purposefully bring forth said disaster.
In September 2007, Fannie Mae began (the truly intelligent said inevitable) its two month downward spiral that would culminate in its November crash. Then, in September (September again—weird) 2008 a strange one to two hour electronic run on US banks to the tune of $550 billion was affected before authorities were able to put a stop to it. One Democrat—Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5 ½ TRILLION would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US and within 24 hours the collapse of the world’s economic system. There are certainly those within our own government who know who and what were the perpetrators. But, no one is talking.
Let's Resend the 22nd Amendment
I'm not a fan of Gov. Jindal. I think we would be much better off if we could have George W. Bush back in office!
Obama's address
Obama showed himself to be a real and honest President last night. This is something we have badly needed for so long. He spelled out clearly just how we have messed up our country and how to take steps to regain our honor inb the world.
So let me get this straight
So let me get this straight a speech that sounds intelligent is all you really care about. Style over substance. Trillions of $$$$ in wasteful spending and no job creation. I think you should stop trying to re-write the historical past of the last 8 yrs. The financial mess we are in goes back decades to the CRA started by Jimmy Carter, and enforced aggressively by the Clinton admin..... remember Janet Reno! In addition, the financial mess we are in became most significant under the Dem leadership....seems you want to forget who has had control of both houses in Congress for the last 2 years. Don't you remember how they were going to get oil prices down and under their leadership it was over $4.50. They are all so entrenched with lobbyists, unions, etc...They should just call the so called stimulus bill: the Democratic get-out-the vote bill. How can you stand the incompetent and corrupt policies of Barney Frank (Fannie/Freddie), Chris Dodd (banking policies), Nancy Pelosi (the swamp mouse), Harry Reid (train to Vegas), et al....
I would feel better about this president if he took the supposed smart people he has surrounded himself with and together they drew up the policies, instead he opts out to those entrenched, liberals on capitol hill. This is not hope, nor change!
The problem with the GOP was a loss of their values when they started to spend and act like liberal Democrats. By the way: Conservative policies stand for assisting those less fortunate to make something of themselves. Liberal policies keep the less fortunate in their place so your liberal elite can continue to be in control.
Why does Obama still liue
Why does Obama still liue about being a member of the NEW PARTY
New Party Icon October 1996 Update :
Running to Win : The Key Races
New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races:
Arkansas: The Little Rock New Party has a full slate of candidates up for election in November. LRNP steering committee member Michael Booker is running unopposed for re-election to the Arkansas State House. Two NP members - Paul Kelly and Genevieve Stewart - are running for at-large (city-wide) city council positions. And in a head-to-head battle between the New Party and the conservative right, NP member Jayne Cia faces the Arkansas state chair of Empower America (Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett's organization) for a Justice of the Peace (county board) position.
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
Maryland: Two New Party members are up for school board seats this fall: Doyle Niemann in Prince George's County and Dan Parr in Montgomery County.
Minnesota: Despite the successful effort by conservative Democratic Party forces to deny Progressive Minnesota the opportunity to use fusion this fall, the state legislative candidates that sought our nomination still see themselves as Progressive Minnesota candidates, and we're still backing them in the general election. PM/NP endorsed candidates include Ellen Anderson, Karen Clark, Andy Dawkins, Linda Higgins, and Sandy Pappas. Progressive Minnesota has also endorsed Green Party State Assembly candidate Cam Gordon.
New York: The New Party of Long Island is backing three candidates for office this Fall: State Assembly candidate Tom DiNapoli and Congressional candidates Carolyn McCarthy and Nora Bredes. NP members collected the necessary signatures to nominate progressive Democratic Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli on the New Party line, making this the first Democratic Party/New Party fusion effort. The chapter is supporting a major voter registration drive in African-American and Hispanic communities in McCarthy's district.
Washington, DC: DC New Democracy/NP is backing ten candidates for Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (Almedith Bass-Williams, John Jordan, Laine McRaney, Henry Fernandez, Todd Mosley, Daniel Rosenberg, Gerry Lorentz, Will Hill, Dennis Dolinger, Violet Hewlett), neighborhood-based councils that represent community concerns to the mayor and city council. In addition, DCND is recruiting candidates to run write-in campaigns in some of the 80-odd ANC races with no candidate.
Wisconsin: In addition to the four Progressive Milwaukee-backed candidates running for state office (Spencer Coggs, Dale Dulberger, Gwendolynne Moore, Johnnie Morris-Tatum, see Sept Update), two New Party members in Fox Valley are running for the state assembly. Progressive Fox Valley founder and chair Tony Palmeri is in a surprisingly close race against an four-term incumbent conservative Republican in Oshkosh. New Party and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) member Corky Van Handel is also running for the state assembly in a nearby district. Both are running as Democrats.
Membership Growth
September was the New Party's all-time high month for membership recruitment - more than 1000 new members joined! Welcome aboard.
As always, onward and upward...
Go to top
Back to NP Home
© 1997 The New Party
America does not want this
America does not want this spendulous pakage. Why don't you Democrats listen to the people of America and cut taxes instead of this horrible democracy killling loan. It has been proven that the top 1% of the earners in Amerika pay 90% of the taxes here. If you take the bonuses from these leading bankers and CEO'S, then all of the truly talented people will not stay in charge of the banks, but will leave for better employment elsewhere and we will be in even worse shape. The Congress should cut taxes for them, and they will use that money to create jobs. There are no jobs in the spendulous package, just welfare contracts. The democrats created this economic mess by stopping the regulation of industry. This is a center right nation, and the rising tide of discontent will soon drown the social democrat fascists. The Amerikan people are keeping track, as Rush has observed on his radio show from the anger and disbelief in phone calls to his show. Please, for you're own good, democrats, change your direction. If regulation of industry is increased, then the free market will die, and our country will suffer. All things considered, and I think you'll agree, President Bush, like another president that War was forced on (Lincoln) was not so bad in hindsite.
Marion, you need to get a
Marion, you need to get a life.
he is a leader. u should follow.
Obama has enough cred, and knowledge to take any one of us down in argument. people who trash him, don't realize how knowledgable he is. that must be confusing for people who don't really know anything but copy and paste.
RE: America does not want...
Marion, ".....does not want this" ?? But a comfortable majority of Americans just got done voting for Pres. Obama! What do you suppose they DID want?
And even more support him now than did before the election!
Fact is, what he's offering, most Americans do want! And not just the results, but the methods. And, yes, the style.
As for Rush, since he cuts off anyone who disagrees, it's not exactly a representative sampling there. Right?






























