Skip to main content

Stringer Gold Nugget
Stringer Gold Nugget (Wikimedia Commons)
Remember how the Obama team's 21st century internet campaign fundraising would immunize it from needing money from the usual special interests? It didn't work out that way. It still doesn't. As recently reported by the New York Times:
A few weeks before announcing his re-election campaign, President Obama convened two dozen Wall Street executives, many of them longtime donors, in the White House’s Blue Room.

The Times reported that the president wanted to assure the Wall Street executives that he meant no hard feelings when he criticized them a year ago, and that he wanted to remind them that they've done quite well under his presidency.

The event, organized by the Democratic National Committee, kicked off an aggressive push by Mr. Obama to win back the allegiance of one of his most vital sources of campaign cash — in part by trying to convince Wall Street that his policies, far from undercutting the investor class, have helped bring banks and financial markets back to health.

They shouldn't need reminding. More than two years ago, the Washington Post had the good news:

The huge profits reported this week by some of the nation's largest banks showed that the government is succeeding in its rescue of the financial industry, but the details of those earnings reports made it clear that the broader economy is not seeing the benefits.

Bank of America and Citigroup yesterday became the latest megabanks to report multibillion-dollar profits in the second quarter, joining J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. The four banks together earned $13.6 billion only half a year after they lost a combined $20.8 billion.

But there were those pesky political ramifications.

Simmering public anger over the pay practices of large financial companies has been fanned by the news that banks rescued so recently are now profiting so massively, particularly because trillions of dollars worth of federal aid has yet to revive lending, a critical step toward economic recovery.

The banks were again doing quite well. Half a year later, bank executives were again enjoying jaw-dropping bonuses. But somehow, all this wonderfulness wasn't trickling down. It still isn't. It was and is about the failure to create enough jobs. As many long ago warned. And labor is getting fed up, while the administration continues to offer incremental stop-gap help and hypocritical Republican demagogues continue to demagogue.

The bankers are doing well but the overall economy isn't. And as Austerity Summer approaches its climax, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is sending out a warning:

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday again dialed back its projections for U.S. economic growth, foreseeing slower growth this year and next than it had forecast previously, and Chairman Ben Bernanke implored Congress to avoid steep spending cuts anytime soon that would further slow recovery.

And the Congressional Budget Office concurs.

Of course, this entire political deficit game is not actually about the deficit. It's just good old, bad old Republican class warfare, now more and more enabled and ceded to by the Democrats. The real issue is jobs. It always was and with this economic system it mostly always will be. But the administration didn't heed previous warnings and there's no indication that it will now.

President Obama wants the Wall Street money. But he's also going to want Labor's votes and Labor's grassroots support. But even as he calls for a revitalization of American manufacturing, the co-chairs of his Advanced Manufacturing Partnership are the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who while provost at Yale was staunchly opposed to the unionization of graduate students and employees, and who also sits on the board of Rupert Murdoch's News Corps; and the CEO of chronic polluter Dow Chemical, a man who supports "free" trade, including expanding it to include Colombia, Panama and South Korea, and supported George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and John McCain. Grassroots America needs the president's help, but these co-chairs are no more champions of American workers than is the chair of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Given the continuing embarrassment that is the slate of Republican challengers, the president might have an easier path to re-election than some expect, but working America not only has no easy path to recovery, it has no clear path at all. The focus needed to be on jobs and it still needs to be on jobs. Not on deficits. Not on austerity. Not on those who don't need any help.

Elections often distill to very simple calculations. As we head into the 2012 election campaign, the most important single factor may be the collective absurdity of the Republican field. But the economy usually is the single most important collection of issues. And on the economy, the Republican field and the entire Republican agenda represent a corporatist plutocracy that works to undermine democratic principles and economic and social justice. But it's easier for the Democratic Party to make that argument by drawing strong contrasts between its agenda and that of the Republicans. It's also good policy. And while the Democrats are taking steps toward regulating corporate abuses they are not doing enough toward that end. Even more importantly, they are not doing enough to address the needs of the working America that the Republicans are doing more than enough to undermine. The banks are mostly doing just fine. Working Americans are not. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. It didn't work in the Reagan and Bush eras and it doesn't work now. The banks were saved. It's time to save the American people. Directly. By ensuring they have economic opportunities. By ensuring they have good jobs. The government can do that. Directly. The Republicans won't. The Democrats must.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Republicans (8+ / 0-)

    will always offer the American Overclass a better deal.

    But they will be perfectly happy to seed your non-Movement Conservative administration or Congressional Majority with ideological double agents in exchange for oversight or staffer appointments and/or a big role in negotiating policy during times where the GOP is up on cinder blocks.

    It's kind of hard to change the argument away from Movement Conservatism as a default when the same people end up having major input no matter who is in power.

    Wall Street fatcats may lavish you with money, but they don't cripple or handicap GOP administrations from within.

    •  but overclass doesn't always take the Repug deal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson, chuckvw, cdreid

      After all, in the past three elections, the corporados have given more than half their money to Democrats, not Republicans.

      Indeed, the 2010 elections are most notable for the fact that they are the first election in decades in which the corporados actually backed the losing side.

      The corporados are already abandoning the Teabaggers in droves.  I think 2012 will be a bloodbath. The Teabaggers are all about ideological warfare, but the corporados don't care about ideological warfare--they only care about their wallets.  The Repugs are no longer the party of corporate interests---we are.

    •  This diary was obviously written by a front page (0+ / 0-)


      But that's okay with me; I'm a firebagger, too!

    •  Sometimes I wonder how bad it has to get (23+ / 0-)

      before the Democratic Party divorces itself from people who give them advice who don' t care if a Democrat is ever elected to high office or if the party holds a majority ever again.

      Michael O'Hanlon on Iraq during the Bush years. Michelle Rhee on education "reform". Tim Geithner on banking.

      You follow their advice, and you are helping the GOP by moving the jumping off point for discussions in the country to the Right.

      These are the types of people who "help" Democrats.

      They could also do pretty much everything they do, without changing a thing, inside a Republican administration.

      Given what has happened in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, it seems like DC is ripe to assume "oh, yeah, they're all mad now". But. Labor isn't really going to take another round of "we suck, but the GOP is worse". I don't believe for a second that Organized Labor thinks of the institutional Democratic Party as a check on GOP overreach or excess. If anything, the Democratic Party is depending on that overreach to substitute for the Democratic Party having to make a pointed and contentious counter-argument to the failed policies of Movement Conservatism to the nation.  

      The Democratic Party is perfectly fine with winning by default, and then going back to chasing the middle and the sacred bipartisanship that must be chased no matter what.

      2010 was a warning.

      You can't berate or scold people into believing in you, and winning by default because the GOP sucks can be undone if you don't deliver. 2006-2011 wasn't spent discrediting the GOP, it was spent waiting for the GOP to fuck up so badly that you look reasonable by comparison, which isn't the same as winning the argument with Movement Conservatism.

      I think the Democratic Party is assuming that Huntsman and Romney will be destroyed in the GOP primary process, but even if they aren't, that Obama really can't lose in 2012.

      I think that what is at stake is that, at the exact moment that the Democratic Party should be putting the GOP on the cross over the Paul Ryan plan, they are courting disaster by negotiating major Medicare cuts and kissing Wall Street ass to get money at a time when millions of people who are screwed without them doing their jobs are noticing they are screwed because Democrats aren't doing their jobs. At least what they say is their jobs when they are running for office and need working class people's time and money.

    •  The Powerless Meme! (15+ / 0-)

      Wow.. that didn't take long.

      Damn those fat cats who made Obama choose JP Morgan as Chief of Staff.

      Damn those fat cats who made Obama create a Cat Food Commission via Executive Order.

      Damn those fat cats who made Obama appoint Alan Simpson as co-chair of Cat Food Commission.

      Damn those ... oh to hell with it.

      Powerlessness You Can Believe In.

      As a hardcore Democrat, Obama has shaken my faith. Imagine what he's done for independents.

      by Johnathan Ivan on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:48:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is that pic meant to be proof (5+ / 0-)

    that you can gold-plate a turd?

    "We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we can't have both."-- Justice Louis Brandeis

    by ubertar on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:08:55 PM PDT

  •  Wall St. Money vs. Working People's Votes? (14+ / 0-)

    Which one will the political parties choose? The tension is killing me.

  •  The GOP already get Wall Street money AND 50% vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Futuristic Dreamer

    So why does the Democrats suck so badly?

  •  My deciding questions: (22+ / 0-)

    1.  Do I prefer a somewhat structured continued decline (Dem) or a hair-raising freefall (GOP)?

    2.  Who do I want nominating for federal judgeships?

    •  structured decline or hair-raising freefall (20+ / 0-)

      Exactly. I refer to this as the "shit sandwich" model of political choice: I know I'm going to get getting a shit sandwich, so I guess I'll choose the six-incher with hot mustard (Dem) over the footlong with extra turdiness (GOP)

      •  Free fall precipitating heightened class (3+ / 0-)

        consciousness and antagonism. That might get interesting.

        The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

        by Wolf10 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:58:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I prefer we get this shit over with and head into (4+ / 0-)

        the more "interesting times" of hitting rock bottom.

        Death by paper cuts suck.

        •  It's not a thought experiment, (6+ / 0-)

          It's human life.  The speed at which a fall is negotiated has a real and appreciable effect on the place of impact.  If you are falling with a parachute and your friend is falling without doesn't mean you will both end up in the same place or condition simply because you are both falling.  

          There is no rational way to argue that the republican philosophy of governance will not lead to heightened and more widespread human suffering.  Watching the bottom fall out might be a fascinating study in human misery but is a morally reprehensible position because this shit is real.

          •  What is needed is someting that will ... (0+ / 0-)

            shake-up the voters, something that will cause them to never again vote for right-of-center politicians of either party.

            Maybe four years of TeaParty rule is what is needed!

            •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I do not understand the calculus that electing totalitarians will either strengthen or help to reform government (in a positive way, at least).  Bringing more tea partiers and their ilk into positions of authority will lead to cuts in a broad range of social services.  Those who are most vulnerable will be the most affected.  It sounds audacious, but I believe that a personal refusal to fight such an outcome, when you have the ability to do so, is evil.  An individual who understands that the reasonable result of empowering these assholes is that more people will die and does nothing to resist (let alone were she to enable such a thing) is complicit in evil.  

              War will not decrease under the republicans, neither will "death by spreadsheet", the pillaging of our resources, nor the suffering of the poor.

              I do not consider myself an apologist for incrementalism, though some may and will label me as such.  I am, however, an apologist for the position that all people are worthy of respect and dignity, and that as a participant in this society I am obligated to protect and defend those natural rights most specially for those who lack the power or means to do so themselves.  I will not sacrifice whatever comfort they may have now for the sake of teaching political lessons of bad decisions and consequence.  

              Am I a participant in a violent, coercive, and immoral political system already, since the democratic regime is guilty of perpetuating the same societal ills that I believe the conservatives practice?  Yes, I am.  Does that make me a hypocrite?  No.  I write in absolutes because I strive towards the telos of an equitable and just society, whilst living in the context that has fallen to me.  I will vote for Obama and other worthies not because I love war, or poverty, or any other vice; but because I believe there is a reasonable expectation that his government will do the least harm.

              My calculus may be cynical, but I believe it to be defensible.

    •  the republicans make it easy (26+ / 0-)

      to vote against them. but the democrats would make it easier to vote for them rather than just against the republicans if they did more for more people rather than mostly for fewer people.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:13:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  amen. If our goal is simply to vote for (8+ / 0-)

        anyone who is not a Republican, then we can elect a horse and be happy.

        •  And this is why voter apathy exists (12+ / 0-)

          The "lesser of two evils" model of modern day politics fuels voter apathy. Over half the population don't vote because they see no difference between the parties. All they see are "dirty" politicians and "nothing will ever change".
          People know they're getting thrown under the bus. I think this is why progressives are "tepid" in their support for Obama, and why we want to see progressive ideas "sold" more aggressively by the administration.
          But no, the whole strategy is all geared to appeal to 5% of the population identified as "independents".
          Yes, they swing elections, but it seems it's not about anything substansive or sometimes, even logical. Personally, I think most self identified independents are republicans anyway.
          Voter apathy is the real problem. Progressive ideas are the answer. Every time the apathetic see a story like this, it just validates their non participation. A truly aggressive, progressive approach to policy could persuade them that voting is worth it.
          Think what a 10% persuasion rate of the apathetic could do.

          Catch St. Louis' progressive talk show, The Murdock Report, every Tuesday @ noon! Stream or download it: I do the twit thing too @Smokin'JoeWGNU

          by Da Rat Bastid on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:41:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Democratic enthusiasm (0+ / 0-)

        or plain old belief in the system will become a denser reality when legislative reform of campaign financing can survive judicial scrutiny.  The current economy of the Supreme Court prevents rational exuberance.

        I think I'm turning Greenspanese.

      •  The Dems don't have to. "Who else you gonna vote (7+ / 0-)

        for?" is the perfect strategy for them.  I suckers people too scared to not vote for them and it keeps them in the good graces of the golden parachutes.  They don't have to do anything except pretend to care and make excuses.

      •  Just this week Obama rec'd 2.5 million from Wall (7+ / 0-)

        Street at a huge dinner in NYC's top eatery.  The menu was of course, Lobster and steak, and (FDL is down right now where I bookmarked this article) it is my understanding that to get into this little private 'affair' the cost was $32,000 per plate.

        No big deal.  It apparently was worth the cost.  We'll see if that is true in 2012, after Medicare and Social Security have been decimated.  

        Again, I say:  THEY are not holding us hostage, they are just making more backroom deals and guess what?  As George Carlin says:

        You ain't in the club.

        Ms. B.

        “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

        by Badabing on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:10:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is it possible for us to replace... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...Wall Street money?

          I'm looking at fewer union members (especially fewer Public Employee members), marginalized households that 2 years ago would have contributed $200 or so to a campaign but can't fit that in next year's budget, etc. and I grow concerned about the potential for adequate funding.

          We may need some Wall Street money and we should take it only from those donors who won't expect us to "diss" the bottom 98%. That WILL severely reduce the universe of potential donors in that "neighborhood," but those who are left could adequately augment a concerted grassroots effort at small donor fundraising.

          The so-called "rising tide" is lifting only yachts.

          by Egalitare on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:34:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  alas, we live in a real world. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheUnknown285, Badabing

            A world where corporados give money for favors, and both parties eagerly take it.

            •  I get that "strings are attached" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              But what I also know is that "Wall Street" is not a completely uniformed monolith.

              Every group or organization has apostates.

              The so-called "rising tide" is lifting only yachts.

              by Egalitare on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:06:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  sure. Wall Street actually gives money to BOTH (0+ / 0-)

                parties, every year. They have a friend no matter who wins.

                But the bulk of their cash flips from one party to the other according to who they think is going to be in power----and they are remarkably accurate in picking the winners.  The 2010 election was the first one in decades where the corporados actually gave the bulk of their money to the losing side (the Democrats).

          •  As if anyone else HAS any $$$ left (1+ / 0-)

            The middle class is watching its savings disappear, houses get foreclosed on and their 'dream' die.... they don't have any spare change left to spend on politicians who don;t change anything and sure don;t give them any hope

            The real working class is too damn busy working to put food on the table to even care anymore

            And those in the upper middle class - opposed to the top 1/10 of 1% - who might be inclined to show some social consciousness have to a large degree given up on hoping that the Dems might actually do 'the right thing'.   Their funds are dwindling and they're worrying about sending kids to college and surviving retirement.

            IMO the Democratic Party is more than content to be the regular 'opposition' party standing up for the 'working class' (if only symbolically and not in real meaningful ways).  They may on occasion get real power when the Repubs REALLY screw things up but truth is that they don't seem to WANT to be in charge of anything.

            The Dems seem to be content enough to get elected and share in the political pie but are so bought into the existing system that they are NOT in any way going to change it.... look at how Hoyer wanted to convert the Repubs K Street money machine to a Dem one when the Dems took the House in 2008.......

            Without REAL choice - e.g. substantive, long term established additional parties that can put real pressure on the existing duopoly, NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE.

            We SHOULD have had a few parties arise and die off in the last 100 years but the existing structure protects the existing major parties and makes it impossible for a viable third party to arise.  

            AT BEST you can hope for some billionaire to try for the Presidency and shake things up a little but it is now impossible for a third party to come about and get substantial numbers elected to the House and Senate.

            We're stuck with the duopoly - and they make sure we continue to be stuck with them... THAT is why you'll never see campaign limits or real campaign finance reform........

            Parlimentary systems allow a far wider spectrum of political voices to be heard BECAUSE 'minor' parties CAN have a real place in the system and influence the course of the major parties - who NEED the support of others.

            I've given up.  The system is broken and IMO cannot be repaired.  We're doing a crash and burn - economically and ecologically with NEITHER party showing the will needed to halt - or even slow - the pending crashes.

            Hate to say it but we're going to be approaching an 'every man for himself' scenario........ our 'leaders' sure aren't going to save us......  THEIR approach will be to lock up the desperate masses rioting over food prices as the dollar collapses and American Empire implodes... and if you don't think that BOTH parties are planning for such things - with NO difference in their approach or 'respect' for individual rights, you're dreaming....

          •  Small-fry can't give ambitious politicians (0+ / 0-)

            multi-millon dollar jobs on hedge fund boards, drive time at prestigious consulting firms, national exposure as pundits and prestigious sinecures at Ivy League universities.

            There's no competing with that. Sorry.

            Unless you're directly benefiting from the fleecing somehow, all your blind investment in establishment politics has bought you, is a dog-and-pony show.

            by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:22:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  true, all. (0+ / 0-)

              That is why we will have no meaningful change until we remove money entirely from the electoral system.  And since both parties are entirely happy when the money is rolling their way, neither party has the slightest interest in any real campaign finance reform. They LIKE getting money from the corporados. They don't WANT to give it up.

          •  No - we just augment Wall Street money, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Betty Pinson, mightymouse

            particularly the people who are unwilling to criticize the President to produce what we supposedly paid for last time.

            Our money will be taken seriously when we employ an army of lobbyists to press our demands, and the threat of us withholding our money is seen as seriously threatening someone's electoral prospects.

            And we'll never have enough money for either of those to be true.

            We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

            by badger on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:46:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  . (8+ / 0-)

      yep.  I'd prefer a party with a hair raising freefall agenda with moderate democratic federal judgeships instead of pure fascists the gop love so much ... we can get on with the business of rebuilding america with a sound currency ... but I'm not sure either party wants a prosperous nation anymore because the international bankers don't like the 'we the people' thing and will pay big money to any politician who refuses to do what is right for the American people and its manufacturing base.

      "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

      by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:30:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have a good point there. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Growing numbers of the investor classes are coming from places where freedom is defined as the freedom to kill, corrupt and oppress for personal gain. They see little use for foreign concepts like democracy and human rights.

        Unless you're directly benefiting from the fleecing somehow, all your blind investment in establishment politics has bought you, is a dog-and-pony show.

        by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:29:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

      #1 I could give a damn - the end result is just the same and the first choice sounds boring anyway.

      #2 Nominations don't count until they're confirmed anyway.

      #3 I'd rather go down fighting than being slowly strangled by a passel of untouchable rich wimps.


      An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics - Plutarch

      by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:32:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Look up game theory (0+ / 0-)

      Because thats what theyre using on you and its working. That statement you just wrote is literally a game theory setup.

      And.. again.. its' working.

      The only way to defeat game theory traps is to avoid them and choose long term interests instead of being a monkey with his hand in the banana jar forever trapped.

      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

      by cdreid on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:16:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's funny (28+ / 0-)

    When analyzing his choices re. the the banks, people (me included) often forget about the most obvious factor.

    Last night Obama headed to the Upper East Side to wine and dine Wall Street.

    The DNC fundraiser at tony restaurant Daniel cost attendees $35,800 each, and a source told Ben White at Morning Money that the event netted $2.4 million [...], people (me included) tend this overlook his desire to raise vast sums from Wall Street.

    2.4 million in one night.

    Good piece, LL.

  •  you gotta be a real Casanova (4+ / 0-)

    to seduce Wall St and Main St at the same time these days.

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upwardly mobile." Hunter S. Thompson

    by Keith930 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:17:52 PM PDT

  •  Fed predicts 8% official unemployment come 2012 (5+ / 0-)

    Technically, between 7.8 and 8.2 - so split the difference.

    That's the official rate. Real underemployment will be well in double digits.

    Even Michelle Bachmann will have a chance against him with numbers like that.

    •  Who believes the Fed? (9+ / 0-)

      They haven't been doing well in the economic prediction/recovery game lately.

      Given the lack of any stimulus, ongoing bankruptcies and foreclosures and jobs still being shipped overseas, it will likely still be in the 9% range or higher.  If we're lucky.

      "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:32:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Low information voters (4+ / 0-)

        We call them independents

        Catch St. Louis' progressive talk show, The Murdock Report, every Tuesday @ noon! Stream or download it: I do the twit thing too @Smokin'JoeWGNU

        by Da Rat Bastid on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:44:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dont' forget that China is ready (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        banjolele, mightymouse

        to implode and Europe's bosses are riding the Austerity Train straight to Hell. I predict strong growth in the Molotov cocktail, bandana and Maalox industries.

        Unless you're directly benefiting from the fleecing somehow, all your blind investment in establishment politics has bought you, is a dog-and-pony show.

        by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:37:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think China is actually adapting pretty well. (0+ / 0-)

          As their wage levels go up, they are abandoning the low-wage low-value industries (those are moving now to Vietnam and Cambodia), and concentrating on higher-value industries like transportation, agribusiness and infrastructure. Those industries also give the Chinese the advantage of relocating their own economic activity overseas, instead of just having all the low-wage factories move to China. That increases their political influence as well as their economic reach.

          And we have yet to hear from India, which is rapidly approaching the takeoff point in its own economic development.

          The 19th century was Europe's. The 20th century was America's. The 21st century will be Asia's.

          •  Well that's long term. (0+ / 0-)

            Short term is that China has, almost by necessity, an overheated, resource-stretched, economy that is far too large and fast-moving to avoid an approaching bubble. The shift you're describing will take at least a couple of decades.

            India is experiencing a growing and increasingly violent rift between wealthy and poor that will either stymie further development or spark a social break-down. Long term the outlook is positive for the BRIC, but short term promises to derail global economic and toss Western governments into a financial tailspin.

            Unless you're directly benefiting from the fleecing somehow, all your blind investment in establishment politics has bought you, is a dog-and-pony show.

            by James Kresnik on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:18:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  REAL Unemployment is over 20% (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      banjolele, icebergslim

      and is unlikely to dip much below that for years as more new grads enter the workforce - where no jobs are available, as older Americans WITH jobs continue working because they can't afford to retire and as more jobs get shipped overseas (BOTH parties are complicit in this).  NO NEW jobs are being created.  Small buisnesses that WANT to expand and create jobs CAN'T borrow - none of the $$$ created by the Treasury and Fed are being lent out by the banks - they're gaming the markets.  BIG companies are sitting on cash squeezing existing staff harder and harder.

      Newsflash - we're as bad as 1932 - but with foodstamps and a couple years of unemployment, strategic defaults on mortgages and a year of more for foreclosures, you aren't seeing the desperation you had then...

      FDR borrowed money form Americans to put other Americans back to work so they could buy goods made by other AMericasn and put more Americans back to work (A world war helped as well).

      Now, we borrow money form foreigners to pay Americans NOT to work for a year or two allowing them to buy goods made by foreigners..... raising the national debt even further and indebting EVERYONE even more.....

      Not even a world war will help this time - we don't have any industrial base LEFT to convert over to arms production......    the never-ending 'war on terror' helps only the existing military-industrial powerhouses - and employs those desperate enough to 'volunteer'  - even most of the mercenaries employed by Xe and others are FOREIGNERS - ex-Special forces from South America and elsewhere

      •  actually the US still owns the largest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        manufacturing sector in the world---it just happens to mostly be located overseas.

        And actually it's not really the US that owns them---nearly all multinational corporations own big chunks of each other. They're no longer American or British or Chinese or Japanese or German.

        This is no longer the 1980's.

  •  A solution suggests itself (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, blueoasis

    get Wall Street's money to earn working America's vote.  Then you don't even have to finance a campaign.

    I know.  Naive.

    Ordinary political process is dead. The Supreme Court killed it. In Chambers. With a gavel.

    by Publius2008 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:18:59 PM PDT

    •  A few bosses back in the day understood that, (0+ / 0-)

      but the ones we have now aren't going to put in that kind of effort when a bribe from Mister Charlie is theirs for the taking.

      Unless you're directly benefiting from the fleecing somehow, all your blind investment in establishment politics has bought you, is a dog-and-pony show.

      by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:39:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He sure doesn't have my vote. (6+ / 0-)

    I contributed and rode around the "OC" with his bumper sticker in '08. Now I know I was punked. It won't happen again.
    I will contribute - but only for candidates or organizations that will explicitly support the issues that are important to me.
    Obama and the national Democrats have been a huge disappointment.
    I don't see Obama as a leader but rather as a ball and chain we have to drag around. And he himself has admitted as much when he says the voters should pressure him to move away from the Republican positions.
    Those of us on the left need to put some skin in the game and refuse to "settle" for half-assed politicians. We have to be willing to lose an election or two.

  •  Bob Dole outspent Bill Clinton in '96 (11+ / 0-)

    Yet in spite of Travelgate, Monicagate, Whitewater, and all the other GoP created non-scandals, Clinton won re-election handily.

    Why?  Because Clinton took over from Bush I and enacted a bold plan for economic recovery.  Unemployment dropped, poverty decreased, wars were avoided, schools were built, block grants went to fix up inner cities and the budget was being balanced.

    Despite being outspent, Clinton won because he knew that the secret to being re-elected was to do a good job and produce tangible improvements in people's lives.

    Obama could have made the same choice.  Instead, he opted for running a corporate agenda and gambling that spending $1 billion on his re-election campaign would be enough to get himself re-elected.  

    Its a big gamble to go with an unproven strategy over one that was proven successful by the last Dem president.

    Hopefully he'll see the error of his ways, but it's getting late in the game.

    "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

    by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:23:04 PM PDT

  •  If there is a Republican who strikes a chord (12+ / 0-)

    with the public and talk about JOBS in this country and stopping the jobs from going overseas, if this Republican survive the GOP primary, Barack Obama will be in a lot of trouble.  This myth that everyone is happy with him is that, a myth.  I live in a swing district in IL and many are Independents, they don't like the rhetoric of the GOP, but they are not happy with Barack Obama either.

    For a GOP candidate to win, it must be on this economy and jobs and they must survive the crazy GOP primary season.  That is the problem.  A Michele Bachmann or even Rick Perry won't win, but a Jon Huntsman could.

    Remember that.

    •  With the current level of fustration (0+ / 0-)

      any third-party candidate with traction can pull massive spoilers. I just don't think the corporate controlled media will allow any such candidate to gain sufficient traction.

      Nevertheless, Obama's political future will not be the real story of 2012. The fact is that both parties will hardly resemble their current state after this election. The Republican Party will become a radicalized Culture War party. Conservative Dems and moderate Republicans will become extinct. The Democratic Party in the South will utterly cease to exist outside of inner cities. The Republican Party in the Rust Belt will utterly fall apart. Finally, various factions and interest groups will fill the resulting power vacuums, effectively federalizing and localizing national bipartisan politics.

      Unless you're directly benefiting from the fleecing somehow, all your blind investment in establishment politics has bought you, is a dog-and-pony show.

      by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:11:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Remember what happened to (0+ / 0-)

    Sen. Feingold? Remember who really suffered when he lost.

    Just win.

  •  The Democrats are also part of the plutocracy (11+ / 0-)

    They're just the SANE political wing of the plutocracy.  

    And I got a news flash for ya:  Sanity does not put them on our side.  Not by half.

  •  This is incomplete information. Is it intentional? (5+ / 0-)

    According to the LA Times, the campaign is attracting small donors at a very fast pace.

    He needs money to win, and lots of it. Obviously he can't count on some people so he has to go get it from other sources.

    If we don't like candidates getting money from corporations then we have to provide the $$$ necessary to win until such time we have public financing of campaigns at that level.

    That's political reality, I thought we were all about reality, all of it, not just part of it?

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:30:10 PM PDT

    •  alas, your version is incomplete too . . . (6+ / 0-)

      Obama got over half his money in 2008 from large donors and corporations. Indeed, Obama got more money from the corporados than McCain did.

      As for small donors, Obama had in 2008 about 26% of his donations from individuals of $200 or less. That is about the same percentage that George Bush had in 2004, and only 5% more than McCain did in 2008.

      The idea many of us want to believe---that the big corporados and Wall Street all donate to the Repugs while we poor Dems fight valiantly with our army of small donors---is simply not true.

      •  Reality=needs lots of $$ to win (0+ / 0-)

        Accept the challenge and work to change financing. Until that time, no unilateral disarmament.

        "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

        by sebastianguy99 on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:40:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf10, m00finsan, TheUnknown285

    meme is 'he whom speaks most convincingly with forked tongue will win'

    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

    by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:34:40 PM PDT

  •  POTUS: "No Appetite for Jobs!" (9+ / 0-)

    "No Appetite" for jobs for middle and working classes.  But a good appetite at hedge fund dinners and a voracious appetite for Cat Food Commission solutions involving cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  That is the guy I voted for!  That is the guy I worked to elect!  That is the guy I donated hard earned cash to!
    Somebody upset about the front page here?

    •  Ugh, the GOP will nail him with that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A $1 billion campaign won't help overcome his disdain for working on the economy and jobs.  

      "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:40:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think left needs to realize (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that global economic order has changed and we are not going back to 1960s. Denial isn't good whether it is conservatives who are obsessed with 1950s social order that has gone away for good or liberals with the 1950s economic order. Worker protections, trade policies and economic regulation has to take into account 21st century global economy. Anything else will simply never get off the ground. A President has to work with Wall Street and with big corporations. There is no way around that so why not take their money?

    •  BwaaaHaHa!!! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Wolf10, jimreyn, TheUnknown285

      Now THAT'S funny.

      •  Why do you think (0+ / 0-)

        left has lost ground on economic issues? Please don't blame the media because it is the same thing right does when trying to explain why they've lost ground on social issues.

        •  Because politics runs on money (0+ / 0-)

          more than in the past, because money has been able to (and continues) to destroy labor organizations,

          because Democrats refuse to take a stand on serious issues or to use party discipline (certainly less likely than the GOP on the latter),

          because both parties have enabled shipping good-paying jobs off-shore and people like Volcker and Greenspan have manipulated the economy to keep unemployment relatively high and pressure to increase wages low out of fear,

          because the right has funded think-tanks and opinion leaders at the same time the (always fragile) liberal coalition between labor and academia has declined and virtually disappeared,

          because a lot of other reasons (including the media - just because you don't like the reason doesn't make it irrelevant, but it isn't the only or even the main reason; objectively and statistically, the left's case for media bias against the left is much stronger than the right's case - just list this weeks "experts" on NPR, or the guests on Sunday talk shows).

          We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

          by badger on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:07:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Global Economy is another MBA fad (8+ / 0-)

      It's just another transitory scheme to make a few folks rich at the expense of millions. As in the past, it will fade when reality sets in.

      Most developed nations with significant GDP and stable governments are already losing their appetites for linking their economic futures to third world dictatorships.

      "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:44:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is it a fad when (0+ / 0-)

        GM is losing billions in US while making billions in China and other countries? US and European markets are getting saturated, economic downturn or not, so most corporations are expanding. People in third world have started to consume goods at a healthier rate. This is the reality not a fad.

        •  Unfair trade practices (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wolf10, TheUnknown285, badger

          Enforce the laws already on the books.  Geithner has been pussyfooting around, but hasn't done anything about China devaluing its currency.

          Another great idea is the Currency Reform and Fair Trade Act, which allows Congress to do what Geithner won't.

          "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

          by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:08:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the currency issue will soon be irrelevant. (0+ / 0-)

            One of the proposals under the Dohan Process is that the WTO be given authority over international finance, which would include currency valuations. Once that happens, China's currency manipulation will come to a crashing halt, and anything the US government does in the matter will be not only irrelevant, but illegal.

            •  No thanks (0+ / 0-)

              The US doesn't give authority to declare and wage war and command our military troops to a foreign entity.  

              Why should we hand over economic control to the same?  Why should we allow some foreign governing body, not democratically elected, to control our trade, currency, banks and financial institutions, especially when they have no vested interest in our own economic well being?

              I don't think so. An incredibly bad idea, we've had ample proof it doesn't work.

              "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

              by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:35:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

        The global economy is an inevitable result of the last 100 years of economic concentration.

        Far from trying to dismantle it, the wealthy nations tried to expand it under the Dohan Process--and were stymied when the Third World nations flexed their own muscls and made their own demands.

        •  Inevitable? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The way global peace and democracy are inevitable?

          No, the dream of a global economy is being pushed by special interests, obviously in a way that is detrimental.

          Make up your mind.  A few comments ago, you were criticizing Bill Clinton for promoting free trade, now you're promoting it's bastard child, the Global Economy?

          Worldwide, unfettered and unregulated capitalism with no oversight or protection is not a good idea. We've already seen enough examples of how it goes wrong.  Back to the drawing board, please while we regroup and set up some firewalls.

          "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

          by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:22:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How is regrouping supposed (0+ / 0-)

            to work? Will Chinese shut down their factories, stop buying cars and computers while you regroup? Global economic system is there and the world isn't going to stop just because you are feeling dizzy. Most third world countries are moving towards capitalism because all of them have tried different things and nothing else has worked. With capitalism, if they educate themselves and/or learn some trade they get a shot at being a participant. The key is to work with the system and put in regulations that are practical. Denial won't achieve anything.

            •  They can do as they wish (4+ / 0-)

              They're in charge of their economy, we're in charge of ours. They're not dependent on us for anything and we need to stop being so dependent on them.

              How third world countries manage their own economies is their choice.  Shipping our jobs overseas and ruining our own economy is no way to help them.

              The global economy, as it exists today is unsustainable.  Its reliant on cheap energy prices and cheap transportation.  The idea of making a product on one side of the globe and shipping it to a country who is capable of producing it in their own back yard is ridiculous.

              We have to restore some sanity to international trade.

              "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

              by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:39:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, if you think whole (0+ / 0-)

                concept of import and export is ridiculous then there is no way I can get to you. BTW, United States is one of the biggest exporters in the world and there are millions of US jobs that are dependent on US exports. What will happen to those jobs? At the end of the day, there are only so many cars, computers , food products and clothes an American family will buy so what is your solution for the millions of American jobs that will disappear overnight because US withdraws out of global economy?

                •  Wrong again (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  That's not what I said, at all. Please don't put words in my mouth.

                  Sensible, fair and sustainable trade policies work best.  Shipping crap around the globe that you can make in your back yard just so you can take advantage of slave labor is not sensible or sustainable.

                  "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

                  by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:59:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  alas, they are not. Legally, by treaty, they are (0+ / 0-)

                not.  Whether we like it or not.

          •  the world has seen global economies before (2+ / 0-)

            And they eventually fail. Roman Empire? Anyone?

            Catch St. Louis' progressive talk show, The Murdock Report, every Tuesday @ noon! Stream or download it: I do the twit thing too @Smokin'JoeWGNU

            by Da Rat Bastid on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:39:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  no, the way a planet coalescing from space dirt (0+ / 0-)

            is inevitable.

            The laws of gravity don't care what we think.

            Neither do the laws of economic concentration.

            •  The "inevitability" argument (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              doesn't work.  No one is buying it.   We're a sovereign nation, we're responsible for our own economy and have the power to do as we see fit to protect our own interests and engage in fair trade.

              "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

              by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:02:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Re WTO you say resistance is futile (3+ / 0-)

          so far as the U.S. is concerned in a previous comment but claim here that 3rd world nations engaged in effective muscle flexing regarding globalization. What am I missing?

          The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

          by Wolf10 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:29:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Its ok if 3rd world countries (3+ / 0-)

            lobby and flex muscles for their own economic interest, but not so for the US.

            Another major problem with the Global Economy fantasy is that the US is not supposed to protect its own economy as other nations do.  Ridiculous.

            "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:41:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree but Lenny, who I believe is knowledgable (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Betty Pinson

              mentioned WTO impediments but did not further elaborate or specify. It would be nice if he did so. I'm going to check out some of his extensive diaries on the subject .

              The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

              by Wolf10 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:54:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  with respect, you don't know what you're talking (0+ / 0-)


              You have no idea at all how the WTO works, or why everyone surrenders to it.

              •  What are the best brief descriptions or (0+ / 0-)

                examples of your point.

                If material conditions were to become onerous enough it seems completely within the realm of possibility that nation-states, with their ultimate monopolies of the means of violence, might nullify paper and ink compacts, whether in the form of currencies or treaties.

                Historically, such things are not unheard of.

                The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                by Wolf10 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:31:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  they can try. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Several factors will stop them, though.

                  First, the global economy is completely interlocked, and no country stands alone--or even can.  Everything we have in the US that weighs more than ten pounds, came from somewhere else. The constant flood of things we get from overseas makes our entire 21st century life possible--without it, our current economic lifestyle would be completely impossible. We'd live like North Korea.

                  Second, nations are now so tightly connected into a global whole that having a single country withdraw from it can no more easily be done than California or New York can withdraw from the United States. The economic and political ties are now so close that it's virtually impossible to break them.

                  And third, any effort by any country to withdraw from the global economic structure would provoke the instant and venomous opposition of all its global industries and multinational companies. If the US were to try to withdraw from WTO, for instance, every Fortune 500 company located here would instantly use every available weapon to stop it. And I don't think I need to remind everyone who dominates our governmental processes.  So it simply will not ever happen. Indeed, when Obama innocently (and naively) tried to insert a "buy American" provision into the stimulus bill, it brought instant opposition from virtually every American corporation--they didn't WANT a "buy American" policy, and they ultimately were successful in defeating it.

                  The very idea of "national economies" is an outdated outmoded relic of 20th century thinking.  There are no more national economies. The world economy is no longer made up of nation-states---it's made up of huge multinational corporations that are larger, richer and more powerful than any national government, and who belong to no nation, owe loyalty to no country, and are controlled by no state.

                  The 20th century world of independent national economies is gone. We can no more return to it than we can return to an agrarian pastoral economy or a hunter/gatherer society.

                  Please note that I am merely describing reality--I'm not agreeing with it.  Reality is what it is, though--whether I like it or not.

                  •  Are the UK and Germany not members? (0+ / 0-)

                    Because both of those nations inserted language in their stimulus bills requiring domestic suppliers and production.

                    I suppose the WTO punished them severely?  No, Obama never tried to insert Buy American provisions in the US stimulus bill.  Had he been wise enough to do so, he would not have been punished by the WTO.

                    And if US corporations don't like buy American, they should go elsewhere.  They bitched and complained during WWII about having to switch to defense production.  FDR told them to STFU and they survived.

                    Its not a bright President who allows US corporations to bully him or believes their threats.

                    "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

                    by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 09:39:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  (sigh) (0+ / 0-)
                      No, Obama never tried to insert Buy American provisions in the US stimulus bill.  

                      Please come back when you know what you're talking about:


                      (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.

                      (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or category of cases in which the head of the federal department or agency involved finds that—

                      (1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the public interest;

                      (2) iron, steel and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or

                      (3) inclusion of iron, steel and manufactured goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25%.

                      (c) If the head of a federal department or agency determines that it is necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding under subsection (b), the head of the department or agency shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the provision is being waived.

                      (d) This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.”

                      That last section was introduced at the behest of the American corporations, who objected to anything that would undermine the WTO agreements.

          •  numbers. And it's also referring to two different (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            things.  First of all, WTO is (unlike the World Bank or IMF) run on a one-nation one-vote standard.  For most of its history, the wealthy nations were able to meet by themselves (called "green room negotiations") and write what they liked, then bring it out for everyone else to vote on. Alone, the third world nations were unable to resist.  But then a group of small nations unified in a voting bloc known as the G20+. And now the G20+ has enough votes to block anything they don't like.

            But we're talking about two different things here. The G20+ bloc can stall any policy proposal they don't like.  What they CAN'T do is stall any trade ruling they don't like--the rulings are all made in secret tribunals. That means any nation that has a trade ruling against it and is slapped with sanctions, can't fight back with votes.

            The European Union made the most stubborn effort to defy a WTO ruling.  They passed a policy mandating that no beef could be imported into the EU that had been treated with growth hormones.  The US filed charges with WTO and won (nearly everyone who files charges, wins.) The EU, in turn, flatly declared that they weren't going to follow the ruling, so there.  WTO promptly slapped them with trade penalties. A couple years later, they slapped more trade penalties--and as they were considering a third round, the EU cried uncle and surrendered.

            In every other case, including a few in which the US was the target, the surrender happened just before the trasde penalties were put into place.

            The advantage WTO has is that it represents the interests of the multinational corporations, not the interests of countries----and when the WTO imposes trade sanctions on a country, the corporations aren't hurt; they have the entire planet to play with. The country, on the other hand, is utterly dependent on its international trade. It's an entirely unequal contest. That's why everyone surrenders quickly.

            •  Obviously, I need to learn more about this, (0+ / 0-)

              but I'm still with Mao as to where power ultimately comes from and in that regard nation-states with their monopolies on the means of coercive force trump all.

              Trade agreements, like currency are just paper and ink after all and history is littered with examples of their nullification by force and popular consent.

              The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

              by Wolf10 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:43:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  in that case (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, TheUnknown285

      why bother?

      The has to work for more social justice or it has nothing.

      fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

      by mollyd on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:48:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I did an entire book on that very subject, and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      posted the whole thing here as I was working on the manuscript, as a diary series:

    •  Guess there is no point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in working or donating this time around then.

  •  Grad student unions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    I wouldn't read too much into the allergy the president of Yale had to graduate student unions.

    I was involved in trying to get one going, too. We were face to face with a system that is topsy turvy, and no one wants to can reorganize their entire faculty structure to make their pay reflect reality, especially in research universities.

    Graduate students are charged much, provided little married housing or none, and as teaching assistants are paid less than adjuncts and without any hope of health insurance. Meanwhile, they age out of parental health coverage, if they're young, or lose their COBRA plan, if not, at the very time that they're starting families. To fix this, a school president would need to get the trustees to agree to a very large increase in unrestricted faculty pay (never going to happen), which would then be put into "temporary, part time faculty" (what T.A.'s are, in accountant speak). That would then make the U. show a high labor cost.

    Believe it or not, T.A.'s are crapped on because the people above them have to deal with people above them who only see numbers and titles and haven't a clue what a college is or does.

    Love bears all, but lust bares it all.

    by The Geogre on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:37:06 PM PDT

  •  Remember all those small donors? (6+ / 0-)

    Yeah.. I do too.  

    Apparently they didn't donate enough or clap loud enough to keep Obama from giving JP Morgan the Chief of Staff spot in the White House.

    Maybe if we cheer louder.

    As a hardcore Democrat, Obama has shaken my faith. Imagine what he's done for independents.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:46:04 PM PDT

  •  Obama Message to Workers (14+ / 0-)

    Has two parts:

    1) You must re-elect me because Michele Bachmann is crazy.

    2) There is nothing I can do to help you.

    Find me fast on Daily Kos by following me.

    by bink on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:05:50 PM PDT

  •  Throw a Banker in Prison for Votes (3+ / 0-)

    in order to Give People a Reason to Vote and Volunteer.

    People who are Jobless and Homeless or in Foreclosure or Bankruptcy have NO HOPE and NO Reason to vote!

    I Want them to Vote -- but they are Stressed and Feeling Hopeless - and the hate of Republicans is not enough right now - during these Difficult Economic Times.

    Inspire Us with some Bankster Wall Street Indictments and Prison for those Greedy Criminals!

    President Obama - will you ever send some Corrupt Wall Street Banksters to PRISON where they belong?

    by PAbluestater on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:11:30 PM PDT

    •  Get rid of tax breaks for corporations who export (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Badabing, TheUnknown285, PAbluestater


      You can do it if you try.  Make the GOP run on opposing it.

      "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:25:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  then you'll have the WTO stepping in. They have no (0+ / 0-)

        sense of humor, and they are far more powerful than the US government is.

        •  So, the answer is what, exactly? (0+ / 0-)

          If the WTO is all-powerful, we are well and truly screwed. Can we withdraw from the WTO? We might have the natural resources in this country to "go it alone", I would think. We owe a ton of money, sure, but countries have gone through total default before without being destroyed. Granted, that way is horrendously dangerous, but what we're doing is just a slow version of it, isn't it?
          Or can we instead fight to reorient the WTO to more equitable solutions? Heck, we're already seen as massive hypocrites by most of the world, I imagine, so why not go whole hog?
          The world can do without the US markets, but they might not want to . . .

  •  Is the image (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, Da Rat Bastid, mrsgoo

    meant to be of a gold plated turd? Seems somehow appropriate if it is and that isn't a comment about this diary which is spot on.

  •  Is That a Gold Nugget- or Brown Pile (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson

    of horse crap?

    at any rate, that's what the O administration has more or less morphed into.

    problem with O's strategery; Wall St. bankster money can't get out the youth and independent voters in OH, MI, and FL.

    fugget about it...

    "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

    by Superpole on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:16:46 PM PDT

  •  It still comes down to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheUnknown285, mrsgoo, PAbluestater

    "The lesser of two evils is stills evil"
    Very few actually demand perfection.  What we all want is "good enough".  We're willing to compromise some, so that the other side gets some of what it wants- so long as we get what we NEED.  JOBS.  Good jobs, that pay enough to live in America.  What we don't want is to re-elect a president who is willing to give up our "needs" for their " wants"
    A president who tells us that the problem is that we don't have enough education for the job market is just flat WRONG.  IF that were true, there would be no new college graduates looking for jobs and not finding them.

  •  I said that. Got 37 HR's. Beware the Obama fans. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They do not take lightly to having their emperor's nakedness revealed to them.

    Kind of like Obama putting Mannin in jail for showing American's the video of US helicopters targeting CNN news crew in Iraq.  Rest of the world knew it but Obama hoped he could suppress US public finding out and when that failed, jail the truth teller in hopes of discouraging other truth tellers.

  •  Focus on Congress (0+ / 0-)

    It's clear from Obama's first term that nothing will be done for progressives unless we can move it through Congress. I think we should put all our resources into electing more and better progressives to Congress and let the Obama team get their support from the people they've helped out in their first term.

  •  Money (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's totally depressing reading these comments.  I completely agree with the premise that Obama's a doing nothing for us but everything for a corrupt system.  What  I don't see is a solution.  Do we not vote and let Republicans take the Presidency?  

    I think that Obama is the only choice but humiliating him and calling him out when he starts his Book Tour is going to be his payback.  

    As for now it's to identify true dems and support them.  It's a grass roots effort that start now.  

    Check out the Ad Campaign in Wa DC to Primary PO

  •  lets just cut to the chase, it is us vs them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, mrsgoo, PAbluestater

    rich vs poor.  Even consider that the bush tax cuts where not repealed because all of Congress are millionaires and it would raise their taxes?  Congress is rich and they are making decisions for themselves, not their representatives including the White House and obama.

  •  The foxes guarding the hen house........ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I understand that our political system is a mess. Pols are for sale. Wall Street and Corp America run the country, etc, etc.....  I get it.  

    So I can cut Obama a lot of slack for all sorts of things because of what he must run into when trying to carry out his duties with that sort of shit to contend with.

    I understand not being able to carry out a beautiful liberal agenda with the asshole Blue Dogs in Congress and Wall Street, MIC breathing down his neck constantly.

    What I don't understand is Geithner, Summers, Bernake, Daly, Immhelt, and now this new gang of thugs he's bring on board to "save the nation". THAT is inexcusable. THAT is where he loses me.

    Any good justifications for bringing in the fox to guard the hen house????

    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

    by Lucy2009 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:17:07 PM PDT

  •  What party does the Governors in Wisconsin, (0+ / 0-)

    Michigan, Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, and the other 32 states that are trying to kill unions to benefit corporations? Well hell, they are all republicans. How many Democratic Governors were/are trying to kill unions so corporations benefit? NONE! What party is against the NLRB changing rules to make it easier for employees to form unions? Oh hell, it's republicans. What party is fighting to make it possible for the NLRB to regulate and make it easier for employees to form unions. Oh hell, it's the Democrats. Wouldn't think that was the case reading dairies like this one huh?

    Don't fall for the bullshit. Actions speak louder then words and made up stats. Even if the some Democrats including president Obama, they must be disappointed. Nothing wrong with saying hey, i'll take your money, i need it.

  •  Just imagine ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... how tough a time the Democrats would have if most voters based their opinions of politicians on influence-tracking sites instead of taking corporate news, talk radio, and political ads at face value. Even Obama would get tongue-tied trying to convince us that he's on our side. It would be the Mendacity Of Hype on steroids!

    But for me, if we end up with Obama facing off against any of the Republicans we've seen so far, it boils down to one issue: Who is the least likely to nominate more radical right-wing Federalist Society ideologues to poison the Supreme Court for x number of additional decades? And of course, it's Obama. I've already written him off (along with most Democratic congresscritters) for anything significant beyond that.

  •  Let me list those state where republican governors (0+ / 0-)

    are trying to kill unions again. Uh, All 37 state where republicans are governors. Now, what are those states where Democrats are trying to kill union. Oh shit, there aren't any. I don't know about the rest of you, but that doesn't sound like they are the same to me.

    How about this, what states where republicans are Governors are trying to end pro-choice? Uh all of them. What states where Democrats are trying to kill pro-choice? Uh none! I don't know about the rest of you, but that doesn't sound like they are the same to me!

    Here's another dammit, what states controlled by republicans are against HCR? Oh shit again, they are all republican. What state where the governors are Democrats are against HCR? NONE, ZIP, FREAKING ZERO! That doesn't sound like they are the same to me!

    What party is trying to kill medicare? UH, THE REPUBLICANS DAMMIT! What party is trying to save it. Dang, it's the DEMOCRATS AGAIN! DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY ARE THE SAME TO ME MAAAAAN!

    What party fought against ending tax cuts for the top 2% and held benefits for the unemployed hostage to get their way? Got dang republicans again.Who wanted to end the tax cuts and would have if they could have kept benefits for 4 million unemployed and not negatively effected the recovery? Dems fool! Doesn't sound like they are the same to me, MAAAAAN!

    What party does the Governors in the states where gay marriage has been legalized belong to? Uh i think they are all Democrats! What party does the governors in the states who doesn't have gay marriage belong too? Uh, i think they are all republican. That doesn't sound like they are the same to me!

    Etc, etc etc etc etc......That doesn't sound like they are the same to me. People who push this shit, piss me off.

  •  What party was against bailing out or lending GM (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    money to stay in business? REPUBLICANS. What party actually loan them the money and put GM back on it's feet and now they are hiring 1000s. You're are right, DEMOCRATS! That doesn't sound like they are the same to me!

    If there is anyone here interested in stating examples where the Democrats aren't like the republicans, go at it.

  •  Oh waita minute. Shoot, the REPUBLICANS were (0+ / 0-)

    against ALL the bills the house DEMOCRATS passed and sent to the senate. I know this is a fact dangit, because they filibustered all of them. Them being HA, REPUBLICANS. That doesn't sound like they are the same to me!

  •  What party has limited President appointed (0+ / 0-)

    nominees to 86, where bush and president Bill Clinton had 146 at this time in their administration? Republicans again. That doesn't sound like they are the same to me!

  •  Glad you only got 6 recs for this dairy! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Two questions: (0+ / 0-)

    Does he want non-working America's votes?
    What are the odds that they'll be allowed to vote anyway?

    An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics - Plutarch

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:17:51 PM PDT

  •  He may get Wall Street's money, but he won't (0+ / 0-)

    get my vote.

  •  Will Obama's Money Vacuum Doom "Down Ticket" Dems? (0+ / 0-)

    Barry will lose in 2012.  This is not a fact I relish, in fact it is one I loathe.

    Barry & co. have set their fund raising goal at (or over more likely) $1BB.  That's monies to be used solely for the POTUS race.  Non-POTUS Dems will be elbowing each other to pick up the scraps of the remainder of funds from "traditional" and new Democratic Party supporting sources.

    In the aggregate, I suspect that the galaxy of funding engines supporting the GOP will supply that party's POTUS candidate with well north of $1BB, potentially $1.5BB or more.  In a post-CU world, the RNC (& DNC frankly) are quaint artifacts of a past reality.  GOP funders will go further and deeper into their own stashes to ensure a GOP POTUS win.  Rove, Gillespie and the like will be both conduits and beacons for right-wing, corporate and international monies to flow fast and furious to candidates sans middle-men except when absolutely necessary.  The US CC, Crossroads et al have already demonstrated an eagerness and ability to launder all manner of "donation" en route GOP candidates' coffers.

    Another glass ceiling capping the Obama/Dem candidate fund raising project will be the piss-poor economy itself.  Most Americans below the 90th percentile in earnings will not be able to afford the same level, proportionally, of giving that they did in the past.

    And Wall St will "rebalance" its donations giving Barry less than half of the sum is bequeathed him in '08 (remember, Wall St hated, truly despised McCain).  Of course, the multitude of Wall St'ers enjoying income in the 99.5 percentile will give - as urged by their peerage - directly and lavishly to candidates directly.

    Other things do factor in, such as states' voting rights restrictions, eligibility changes, even more egregious (and criminal) ballot-box obstructionism and more.  As disgusting as these assaults on core if not defining characteristics of Democracy itself are and will be, they pale in comparison to the vast wealth accumulated by the top 2% of earners and their new-found freedom to give as much as they want, directly and anonymously.

    In closing, the best offense the POTUS and the Party can pursue immediately is to begin the process of impeaching "Justice" Thomas.  The stakes will be enormous, but the fury of the PR and politics of such an effort will put Thomas's (both of them actually) barely concealed fire-sale of his vote onto every news program every night for months on end.  It will force the GOP into a position of defense while also crippling its ability to force dog-shit bills through the House.  If done properly, and without reservation, such an effort would necessarily (by fact and suggestion) out all of the d-bags who have been shoveling money to the GOP through intermediary shells thereby threatening their own paranoid fears regarding privacy, privilege and the legal teflon expected of self-convinced aristocrats.  Rats, and rat-fuckers, despise the glare of lights and attention.

    If successful, Barry can name a new SCOTUS member before the NOV-2012 show down.  American's love to see the "mighty" fall, especially as a result of their own hubris.  Besides, if Barry pushes the charge, he instantly neuters any repeat of "hi tech lynching" bullshit from Lakoff and the like.

    And "down ticket" Dems will have a powerful suite of tools to use against their local GOP opponents - and maybe some unexpected money too!

    Failing this or similar aggressive, preemptive politicking, Barry's done.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site