Obama

[Happy Face 29]

In 2005, American liberals achieved one of their most significant political victories of the last decade. It occurred with the resounding rejection of George W Bush's campaign to privatise social security.

 

Bush's scheme would have gutted the crux of that entitlement programme by converting it from what it has been since the 1940s – a universal guarantor of minimally decent living conditions for America's elderly – into a Wall Street casino and bonanza.

 

Progressive activists and bloggers relentlessly attacked both the plan and underlying premises (the myth that social security faces a "crisis"), spawning nationwide opposition. Only a few months after he unveiled his scheme to great fanfare, Bush was forced to sheepishly withdraw it, a defeat he described as his biggest failure.

 

That victory established an important political fact. While there are very few unifying principles for the Democratic party, one (arguably the primary one) is a steadfast defence of basic entitlement programs for the poor and elderly – social security, Medicare and Medicaid – from the wealthy, corporatised factions that have long targeted them for cuts.

 

But in 2009, clear signs emerged that President Obama was eager to achieve what his right-predecessor could not: cut social security. Before he was even inaugurated, Obama echoed the right's manipulative rhetorical tactic: that (along with Medicare) the programme was in crisis and producing "red ink as far as the eye can see." President-elect Obama thus vowed that these crown jewels of his party since the New Deal would be, as Politico reported, a "central part" of his efforts to reduce the deficit.

 

The next month, his top economic adviser, the Wall Street-friendly Larry Summers, also vowed specific benefit cuts to Time magazine. He then stacked his "deficit commission" with long-time advocates of social security cuts.

 

Many progressives, ebullient over the election of a Democratic president, chose to ignore these preliminary signs, unwilling to believe that their own party's leader was as devoted as he claimed to attacking the social safety net. But some were more realistic. The popular liberal blogger and economist Duncan "Atrios" Black, who was one of the leaders of the campaign against Bush's privatisation scheme, vowed in response to these early reports:

 

The left ... will create an epic 360-degree shitstorm if Obama and the Dems decide that cutting social security benefits is a good idea.

 

Fast forward to 2011: it is now beyond dispute that President Obama not only favours, but is the leading force in Washington pushing for, serious benefit cuts to both social security and Medicare.

 

This week, even as GOP leaders offered schemes to raise the debt ceiling with no cuts, the White House expressed support for the Senate's so-called "gang of six" plan that includes substantial cuts in those programmes.

 

The same Democratic president who supported the transfer of $700bn to bail out Wall Street banks, who earlier this year signed an extension of Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and who has escalated America's bankruptcy-inducing posture of Endless War, is now trying to reduce the debt by cutting benefits for America's most vulnerable – at the exact time that economic insecurity and income inequality are at all-time highs.

 

Where is the "epic shitstorm" from the left which Black predicted? With a few exceptions – the liberal blog FiredogLake has assembled 50,000 Obama supporters vowing to withhold re-election support if he follows through, and a few other groups have begun organising as well – it's nowhere to be found.

 

Therein lies one of the most enduring attributes of Obama's legacy: in many crucial areas, he has done more to subvert and weaken the left's political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party's leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe.

 

This dynamic has repeatedly emerged in numerous contexts. Obama has continued Bush/Cheney terrorism policies – once viciously denounced by Democrats – of indefinite detention, renditions, secret prisons by proxy, and sweeping secrecy doctrines.

 

He has gone further than his predecessor by waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, seizing the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process far from any battlefield, massively escalating drone attacks in multiple nations, and asserting the authority to unilaterally prosecute a war (in Libya) even in defiance of a Congressional vote against authorising the war.

 

And now he is devoting all of his presidential power to cutting the entitlement programmes that have been the defining hallmark of the Democratic party since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The silence from progressive partisans is defeaning – and depressing, though sadly predictable.

 

The nature of American politics is that once a policy is removed from the partisan wars – once it is adopted by the leadership of both parties – it is removed from mainstream debate and fortified as bipartisan consensus. That is why false claims in the run-up to the Iraq war, endorsed by both parties, received so little mainstream journalistic scrutiny. And it's why the former Bush lawyer and right-wing ideologue Jack Goldsmith – back in May 2009 – celebrated in The New Republic the fact that Obama was doing more to strengthen Bush/Cheney terrorism policies than his former bosses could have ever achieved: by embracing the very terrorism approach he once denounced, Obama was converting it from rightwing radicalism into into the official dogma of both parties, and forcing his supporters to defend what were, until 2009, the symbols of rightwing evil.

 

Identically, Obama is now on the verge of injecting what until recently was the politically toxic and unattainable dream of Wall Street and the American right – attacks on the nation's social safety net – into the heart and soul of the Democratic party's platform. Those progressives who are guided more by party loyalty than actual belief will seamlessly transform from virulent opponents of such cuts into their primary defenders.

 

And thus will Obama succeed – yet again – in gutting not only core Democratic policies, but also the identity and power of the American Left.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...l-security-cuts

[Rob W 0]

"now he is devoting all of his presidential power to cutting the entitlement programmes that have been the defining hallmark of the Democratic party"

 

perhaps because they are unaffordable???

[Rob W 0]

"the identity and power of the American Left"

 

[Happy Face 29]

"now he is devoting all of his presidential power to cutting the entitlement programmes that have been the defining hallmark of the Democratic party"

 

perhaps because they are unaffordable???

 

Nope...

 

About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.

 

But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.

 

Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.

 

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.

 

It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

[Park Life 71]

John Boehner squares up to Obama as House votes for $61bn in cuts

 

House of Representatives provokes threat of veto from Barack Obama – and raises prospect of a government shutdown

 

 

Paul Harris in New York

The Observer, Sunday 20 February 2011

 

 

John Boehner, Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, pushed through a massive package of cuts by 235 votes to 192, declaring: 'We will not stop here.' Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images

 

Republicans pushed through a draconian series of budget cuts worth tens of billions of dollars on Saturday, raising the prospect of a showdown with President Barack Obama.

 

Emboldened by their 2010 midterm election victory and swelled by Tea Party-backed newcomers, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives signed off on federal spending cuts worth $61bn. The axe will fall on federal money for public broadcasting, environmental programmes, Obama's healthcare reforms and the family planning organisation Planned Parenthood.

 

Even Obama's own staff face $120m of cuts. Personnel would be withdrawn from key areas including the reform of Wall Street. Some government agencies face budget cuts as high as 40%; the largest reduction in federal government spending since the second world war.

 

"For the first time in many years, the people's house was allowed to work its will – and the result was one of the largest spending cuts in American history," said the Republican house speaker, John Boehner. "We will not stop here in our efforts to cut spending, not when we're broke and Washington's spending binge is making it harder to create jobs."

[Park Life 71]

This was quite funny in the comments:

 

Does that include all the rich Democrats? Like in the North East, and California? All the Hollywood numbskulls? Whats their role in this "evil class war"? I don't see any of them doing anything. Are they off the hook just because they all came out in droves for Obama in 08? Or just because they made a couple of vague movies vaguely expressing sympathy for poor people or something?

[Happy Face 29]

Now, Barack Obama has surrendered control of the budget to the Tea Party. . . . Commentators everywhere are killing the president for his seemingly astonishing level of ball-less-ness. . . . The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television. . . .

 

The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. . . . We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn't bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won't be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.

 

And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?

 

It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs...a-dive-20110801

 

 

[Happy Face 29]

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

What happened with Obama and Boner in the end? Did Boner deliver the votes on the deal?

[Happy Face 29]

What happened with Obama and Boner in the end? Did Boner deliver the votes on the deal?

 

I can't imagine Boner could NOT deliver the votes for what is 100% of what the republicans wanted.

 

Mind, they want to be able to blame Obama entirely for the shit-storm in a years time, so it might be closer than I thought.

[Happy Face 29]

 

I like these.

[Happy Face 29]

What happened with Obama and Boner in the end? Did Boner deliver the votes on the deal?

 

I can't imagine Boner could NOT deliver the votes for what is 100% of what the republicans wanted.

 

Mind, they want to be able to blame Obama entirely for the shit-storm in a years time, so it might be closer than I thought.

 

That wifey who got shot in the head voted in favour though, so it MUST be good.

[Happy Face 29]

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

What happened with Obama and Boner in the end? Did Boner deliver the votes on the deal?

 

I can't imagine Boner could NOT deliver the votes for what is 100% of what the republicans wanted.

 

Mind, they want to be able to blame Obama entirely for the shit-storm in a years time, so it might be closer than I thought.

 

That wifey who got shot in the head voted in favour though, so it MUST be good.

 

I didn't follow it, Obama gave in then? Oh dear. After all that talk. I'll have to catch up on this sometime. Hey, easy on Giffords, getting shot in the head is some serious shit.

[Happy Face 29]

What happened with Obama and Boner in the end? Did Boner deliver the votes on the deal?

 

I can't imagine Boner could NOT deliver the votes for what is 100% of what the republicans wanted.

 

Mind, they want to be able to blame Obama entirely for the shit-storm in a years time, so it might be closer than I thought.

 

That wifey who got shot in the head voted in favour though, so it MUST be good.

 

I didn't follow it, Obama gave in then? Oh dear. After all that talk. I'll have to catch up on this sometime. Hey, easy on Giffords, getting shot in the head is some serious shit.

 

Not sure he gave up so much as got exactly what he and his financial backers wanted all along. Cuts for the poor, no tax revenue on the wealty. Hurrah!

 

Much like the healthcare 'debate' it's all setup to give the illusion of opposing views. A political game to give the impression there's a party looking out for your interests (democratic for the poor and liberal, Republican for the non-poor and conservative). In fact the democratic and republican plans agreed from the very start on every major point. They differed on $5billion...which is about 0.6% of the cuts.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...-points/242667/

 

Always a plan for the wealthy elites who don't give a toss who's in power because they've got them all in their back pocket.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

What are the ramifications for the middle class and below? And the economy in general? I saw the figures recently displaying the lack of growth. Surely it'd be in the best economic interests to help the middle class, as consumer spending has almost ground to a halt. What's their plan to kickstart the economy?

[Park Life 71]

Good for him sticking to the Iran nuke deal. Well done. Hawks must be hysterically.

[NJS 4411]

Caught two seconds of Netanyahu on TV and the cunt's not happy.

[Park Life 71]

Rattled.

 

[Gemmill 46022]

He's fooling nobody with that hat. Bald as fuck.

[Gemmill 46022]

[The Fish 10963]