Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's Faustian Bargain (270 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Going to repeat my comment (28+ / 0-)

    response to you from here.

    Great job, cosmic and it saves me from writing one about that Jeffrey Sachs piece, which I had planned to do.  I just finished reading it this morning.  It is depressing.  It takes a lot to really depress me these days.  I'm somewhat immune to it and have long since accepted the way things are and are likely to be.  But that Sachs piece really got to me and this whole fiasco with Woodward and now the OFA team is out attacking Woodward and trying to perpetrate the lies further.  

    When the O Team panics, they really f things up beyond recognition.  This was a long term f up, of course, but this last minute spin is too much. They knew that they sold their souls to get reelected.  They knew they held certain things back until after the reelection.  And on one thing, I disagree with Sachs.  He did not have to do these things in order to get elected.  In 2008 the Republican party was in shambles, ashes really.  The Democrat was always going to win.  In 2012, he had a stooge of an opponent and a billion and a half dollars, and all the advantages of the incumbent.  He did not have to do these things to get elected.  I think that part of Sachs' article is a BS excuse.

    He could use his powers of persuasion, his popularity and his skills to tell the people the truth. FDR stood up to the 1%.  Obama is owned by them and he chose to be.


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:12:47 AM PST

    •  Obama may not have (16+ / 0-)

      Needed to agree to the Faustian bargain to get re-elected, but I think Obama and his team fully believed he did.

      Yes, I too found this piece too important and thought that it needed more discussion. Just as things seemed a bit brighter for working people, I'm afraid things are about to get a whole lot darker again. Dammit.

      Thanks, Joanne. I appreciate your thoughts.

      “Corruption isn’t just people profiting from betraying the public interest. It’s also people being punished for upholding the public interest.”  ― MS

      by cosmic debris on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:20:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Republican Party is in disarray. (5+ / 0-)

      Was a solid, irrefutable meme even within the MSM in late 2008- through Obama's honeymoon.

      And it has been constantly rumored again since the middle of last year.

      Supply-side economics was and still is ready for the caging. It could have been and still can be locked up in a Mixed Economy. It's not the moribund Republicans who are preventing it. It's the Middle which has no interest in even pursuing it, much less fighting for it in a serious way. Best they will do is give it some lip service during commercial breaks.

      When 1% take 121% of the gains from "recovery", people actually recovering from lost employment are trading down on wages and benefits. Current strategies by moderates don't even consider winning the Class War.

      by Words In Action on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:49:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  disarray? they are poised to win austerity (12+ / 0-)

        they got the dems to enact their agenda

        they should be happy as hell

        •  Yeah, but only because the Democrats (5+ / 0-)

          basically support supply-side economics.

          When 1% take 121% of the gains from "recovery", people actually recovering from lost employment are trading down on wages and benefits. Current strategies by moderates don't even consider winning the Class War.

          by Words In Action on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:48:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The "GOP in disarray" is the real joke (5+ / 0-)

            The GOP controls one House of the federal government.  They also control a lot of state legislatures and governorships.  With that alone, they have basically won on every single economic issue since 2008, except Obamacare,...and they won that too by defeating the public option, and creating a boon for insurance companies.

            If this is disarray, then I'd really love to see what the opposite is?  And, if you think that token revenue increase (I'm not calling it a tax increase, because technically, it was just a slightly smaller tax cut than what had expired a few days earlier) in January was a win, you've been too long in the sun.  That was a HUGE GOP win.  They basically got 88% of the Bush Tax Cuts codified into permanent law (i.e. no sunset, which they'd had to deal with for 12 years), when they had almost zero tangible leverage and were supposedly realing from the election defeat.

            The reality is that there are no election defeats for conservative economic ideology in this century.  There is only smaller/slower (Dems in power) and larger/faster (GOP in power) victories.

            I also agree almost 100% with Sachs.  Obama is on the GOP team. I suspected it from a few things I learned during the 2008 campaign (that he wouldn't be a Dem Ronald Reagan), and I was right.  You wanted a president that would legalize gay marriage and appoint pro-choice justices, you got it.  But, that was at the expense of looking the other way on economic issues.  Not that the Dems offered any more economically liberal option, though.  Hillary would most certainly have been worse for the 99%.  The Clintons have spent their entire lives social-climbing to try to get to the 1%.

            And, the grand bargain WILL happen.  It's just a matter of BHO/GOP deciding it's the right time.  

            Finally, I don't work for the government, but a lot of my clients are public school districts.  If they get sequestration-related cuts, and reduce or suspend building projects, then I will also be one of the losers from sequestration.

      •  Failed conservative policies, GOP Sabotage to (0+ / 0-)

        "Starve the Beast, and corporate sponsored public policy is a cut and dry case at this point in time.

        It's a shame that nobody will talk about that.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:50:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, he could (5+ / 0-)

      have easily used his skills to support what the rest of the country already supports and move the policies in that direction.

      But he didn't.  

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:53:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you sure you wanna bring FDR into this? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook, mmacdDE

      because the mythos of FDR told today doesn't actually measure up to the actual facts of the time

      In the time that I have been given,
      I am what I am

      by duhban on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:30:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you going to go for the FDR was a racist angle? (4+ / 0-)

        I love that one.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:52:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  a racist? I'm not sure I would go that far (0+ / 0-)

          but he did place the Japanese in interment camps, he did willingly exclude over 25% of Americans workers from SS intitially, he did meet with white atheletes in the 1936 Berlin games and not the black ones (including snubbing Jesse Owens) and resisted any effort to actively interfer with the jim crow south.

          At the same time FDR also did a lot though the New Deal to bring about equal treatment and employement.

          I generally find that it's not as simple to label people as most want it to be but then again that's my point. Bringing in FDR's name like he was some sort of savior is simplistic and overly simplifies a complicated man that had his good points and his flaws.

          And yet despite those flaws, despite actually being challenged in a primary by the left side of his party in 1936 we generally look up to FDR. Personally I find the irony of that and the parallels so far with Obama hilarious.

          Just goes to show you that 'history' is incredibly subjective.

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:07:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think he blew it, joanneleon. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, Jarrayy, joanneleon

      He spoke pretty clearly about his moderate conservative nature if you listened. I heard it in 2006, and it kept on coming.

      The only reason I voted for him in '08 is because I knew Clinton was a DLC candidate. I was only pretty sure that he was.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:42:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How in the hell could he lose the (5+ / 0-)

      rhetorical and political advantage in '09-'10? Never once did I hear him blame 'failed conservative policies' for our ills.

      He just offered up milquetoast Republican frames over and over. His wholehearted embracing of conservative frames combined with his inability to assign blame for a stunning failure of conservative policy is how.

      People can blame the Tea Party, or the naysaing of the Progressives, but the fault lies squarely at the Orator in Chief who didn't want to use the bully pulpit.

      Writing this and thinking about this makes me so friggin' angry!

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:49:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site