to hell with Obama

[RGacky3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/obama-poor-energy-cuts-kerry-letter_n_821061.html,

Seriously, what kind of an asshole, RIGHT after giving billions of dollars away to the richest in the country, right after a corporate handout, goes out and makes poor people freeze.

I seriously think that at this point Obama is worse for poor people than Bush was, Obama is pretty much Joe Liberman and John Boner, the human embodyment of corporate personhood, Obama is destroying the county.

This guy has to get out 2012.

[Sasha]

Saying bush was better for poot people than Obama isnt really fair and, sorry to say but typical American shortsighted simplicity. I'm no friend of Obama either but the main reason obama needs to make massive cuts is because bush bankrupted the country with his taxbreakes and wars and when the dems wanted to cut the taxbreakes for the super rich the republicans sabotaged.
Saying this is all some plan of Obama is just unfair and playing into the hands of the FOX crowd.
Again, Obama, from an revolutionary perspective is just less to the right of capital but from an day to day view of an worker an democrat is in the longhaul always still better than the GOP.

[RGacky3]

I was being a little hyperbolic (obviously). HOWEVER.


I'm no friend of Obama either but the main reason obama needs to make massive cuts is because bush bankrupted the country with his taxbreakes and wars and when the dems wanted to cut the taxbreakes for the super rich the republicans sabotaged.


Hold up one second, he could have let the tax cuts expire, that could have been done, he could have pulled out completely out of Iraq (as he promised), he could have allowed medicare to negotiate drug prices, he could have done TONS of things rather than cut stuff for the poor.

He could have ended corporate subsidies, stuff he says he might do, but I guarnatee he won't. Hel could have put in a public option (Which would have helped the deficit).

There is no argument to say Obama had to do this, remember the first 2 years Obama had the whitehouse and both houses of congress, that never happens, he would'nt even of needed a real fight.


Saying this is all some plan of Obama is just unfair and playing into the hands of the FOX crowd.


Not really, what other explination is there? Obama is a corporatist, economically, Obama is really just as corporatist as Bush, I don't see anything remotely more progressive he's done.


from an day to day view of an worker an democrat is in the longhaul always still better than the GOP.

I agree, a real democrat, but Obama is not even a centrist democrat like John Kerry, he's far from a Sanders progressive, he's a Joe Lieberman Corporatist.

Heres why I suggest it might be better for a republican president, with a republican president you have an opposition party coming from the left, less corporatist positions will go through because democrats fight from the left.

Now that you have a corporatist democratic president, you'll have a section of the democratic party that is nothing more than team-democrat, who will follow the team no matter what, when you have a democratic corporatist president the republicans will take the coroporatist stuff, and you have a much weaker left opposition, because the team-democrat democrats will just follow the president.

Thankfully the progressives in the party are leaving Obama, and have been step by step over the last year, but you'll always have the team-democrats.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, people always blame present governments who, although probably no better themselves, do inherit the fiscal burden left by the previous government. I was reading about Cameron in the UK- some were pointing out that the economic gloom in Britain is also down to 13 years of Labour economic policy too. At the end of the day this is a capitalist game they are ALL playing and in times of a global recession and forthcoming crisis it's hard to say that one government in one nation can do much really.

The Bush government was fortunate in that it governed throughout a non-crisis period whereas the Obama government came into power with the crisis!

There was a Roman Emperor who faces with an economic crisis in Rome cancelled all debts- all debts were written off and despite people crying madness Rome recovered. Although there is obviously difficulty in comparing Ancient Rome to a modern state- it would still be perhaps a brave move simply to cancel all debits and credits and ride the storm. I doubt whether it will happen though.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, people always blame present governments who, although probably no better themselves, do inherit the fiscal burden left by the previous government.

No ones blaiming Obama for that, we are blaiming him for the decisions HE made, as opposed to what he ran on.


At the end of the day this is a capitalist game they are ALL playing and in times of a global recession and forthcoming crisis it's hard to say that one government in one nation can do much really.


Well in this case he could have kept the power on for poor people, and not give tax brakes to major corporations, I could give many many more absolutely plausible things he could have done, and people from the left TOLD him to do.

The fact is he's a paid off corporatist.


it would still be perhaps a brave move simply to cancel all debits and credits and ride the storm. I doubt whether it will happen though.

For many economic reasons thats impossible, but honestly, the national debt is'nt really an economic problem and it won't be for a long long time, there is'nt really anything disasterous thats gonna happen by the state holding that debt.

[ComradeMan]

No ones blaiming Obama for that, we are blaiming him for the decisions HE made, as opposed to what he ran on..

So people believed a political electoral campaign.... :lol: More fool them.


Well in this case he could have kept the power on for poor people, and not give tax brakes to major corporations, I could give many many more absolutely plausible things he could have done, and people from the left TOLD him to do...

What does "kept the power on for poor people" actually mean?

Secondly, in a capitalist system and economy that is not going to happen is it? Power comes from economic power and money- I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's how it is. The last time I looked Obama was not a communist.



The fact is he's a paid off corporatist....

And.... tell us something new. What do you expect the president of the US to be? Do you think corporate interests are not what counts in the US? Who was it that said "What's good for General Motors is good for America?".


For many economic reasons thats impossible, but honestly, the national debt is'nt really an economic problem and it won't be for a long long time, there is'nt really anything disasterous thats gonna happen by the state holding that debt.

There are no economic reasons why that is impossible, unless- and this is the big UNLESS, you are going to defend corporate interests and hey- you've just become a capitalist.:thumbup1:

[Across The Street]

Comrade Man: "What does "kept the power on for poor people" actually mean?"

I think this was in reference to people who are without heat during the winter storm that just hit a 3rd of the US.

[ComradeMan]

Comrade Man: "What does "kept the power on for poor people" actually mean?"

I think this was in reference to people who are without heat during the winter storm that just hit a 3rd of the US.

Ah.... I see, okay- keep the power as in "electricity"...

Thanks.

[RGacky3]

So people believed a political electoral campaign.... :lol: More fool them.


I absolutely agree, not the radical left though.


And.... tell us something new. What do you expect the president of the US to be? Do you think corporate interests are not what counts in the US? Who was it that said "What's good for General Motors is good for America?".


Well if American democracy worked correctly, I'd expect the president to represent the people.

BUt yeah I totally agree with you, and thats kind of my argument.

This is more a post of frustration. I hope Americans fight from the left.


There are no economic reasons why that is impossible, unless- and this is the big UNLESS, you are going to defend corporate interests and hey- you've just become a capitalist.:thumbup1:

The economic problem is a dumping of US tresuries which would cause rediculous inflation, and thus turn the US into Zimbabwue.

Anyway, whats the problem with a national debt?

Also what the hell does this have to do with cutting heating for the poor?

[Die Rote Fahne]

To hell with the bourgeois and all of their servants in government.

[Hexen]

To hell with the bourgeois and all of their servants in government.

In more accurate terms.

[Dean]

Saying bush was better for poot people than Obama isnt really fair and, sorry to say but typical American shortsighted simplicity. I'm no friend of Obama either but the main reason obama needs to make massive cuts is because bush bankrupted the country with his taxbreakes and wars and when the dems wanted to cut the taxbreakes for the super rich the republicans sabotaged.
Saying this is all some plan of Obama is just unfair and playing into the hands of the FOX crowd.
Again, Obama, from an revolutionary perspective is just less to the right of capital but from an day to day view of an worker an democrat is in the longhaul always still better than the GOP.

You're both wrong. Obama's austerity measures are deliberate policies of the major parties. Obama "has to" do this because its a part of the investment program of the industries that back the party.

Obama is a bit better than bush, by nature of the fact that Democrat's financial backers have a greater interest in seeing value and demand retained within the US borders among a large consumer population.