Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

A certain absence of cognitive dissonance

Michael Moore:

[#1]We have to have Obama's back. As he is blocked and attacked by the Right, we need to be there with him. We are the majority. Let's act like it.

[#2]And please Mr. President, [a]make the banks and Wall Street pay. You're the boss, not them. [b] Lead the fight to get money out of politics – the spending on this election is shameful and dangerous. [c] Don't wait til 2014 to bring the troops home – bring 'em home now. [d] Stop the drone strikes on civilians. [e] End the senseless war on drugs. [f] Act like a pit bull when it comes to climate change – ignore the nuts, and fix this now. [g] Take the profit motive out of things that any civilized country would say, "this is for the common good." [h] Make higher educational affordable for everyone and don't send 22-year-olds out into the world already in massive debt. [i] Order a moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions. [j] Enact economic policy that will create good-paying jobs and spend the money that's needed to do that. Make your second term one for the history books.

Yes, paragraph #2 really does immediately follow paragraph #1.

But nothing in #2 will happen, why #1?

Mean Republicans did not stop Obama from doing [a], [b], [c], [d], [e], [f], and [i]. These can all be done at the President's discretion or by Executive Order.

Mean Republicans only stopped Obama from doing [j] because the Democrats didn't abolish the filibuster in 2009 (which Reid is only now talking about, in 2013). Ditto [h].

And [g] is so vague nobody can know what it means. But what cannot be done at the President's discretion or by Executive Order could be done by abolishing the filibuster.

So why do we have the President's back when he doens't have ours?

0
No votes yet

Comments

albrt's picture
Submitted by albrt on

Oh wait, that's the Republican slogan.

Or, um, I mean, it's the sarcastic Democratic parody of the Republican slogan.

And why isn't there a "(k) and please don't kill me with a Predator Drone for daring to question your awesomeness"? I think that would be prudent.

reslez's picture
Submitted by reslez on

This is my new question for the catfood brigade:

Cut Social Security? Why do you hate Americans?

NWLuna's picture
Submitted by NWLuna on

But if Obama's "the boss, not them," why do we need to have his back?

We'll see how much of a spine he has this 2nd term. I'm not holding my breath.

par4's picture
Submitted by par4 on

a new term should be used to describe all of these Obama supporters as the "Liberal Right". It's already used for the Libertarian divide.

athena1's picture
Submitted by athena1 on

When I saw that blog post of his, my first thought (before reading this) was:

Q: Why did Obama...?
A: Cognitive dissonance

I'm starting to think of O supporters as "Predator Drone Liberals." Or maybe, Ayn Rand Progressives?

Submitted by hipparchia on

from wikipedia:

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist (and sometimes the antagonist) is willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to pursue, often with little or no narrative explanation as to why it is considered so desirable. A MacGuffin, therefore, functions merely as "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction".[

ie, another roach motel for progressive energies.

[g] Take the profit motive out of things that any civilized country would say, "this is for the common good."

yes, it's vague, but can be generally interpreted as "the govt is going to have to spend money on this." spending for the public purpose, if you're an mmt-er. as randy wray describes it:

What is the public purpose? It is not easy to define or to identify the public purpose. One of the basic functions of any social organization is to provide the necessary food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, legal framework, and socialization for survival of the society.

so that would be stuff like: increase social security payments, lower the retirement age, medicare for all, free school lunches, free child care, more generous food stamps, free college education, some kind of wpa/ccc 2.0 (jobs guarantee), some kind of tva 2.0 (clean energy), etc...

the nice thing about spending money is that it can be made filibuster-proof, via the process of budget reconciliation:

What is a reconciliation bill? A reconciliation bill is a single piece of legislation that typically includes multiple provisions (generally developed by several committees) all of which affect the federal budget — whether on the mandatory spending side, the tax side, or both. A reconciliation bill, like the budget resolution, cannot be filibustered on the Senate floor, so it only requires a majority vote to pass.

and if there's a tie vote, the vice president of the united states, who is also the president of the senate, casts the deciding vote:

As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College.

if you're an mmt-er, what you really want to abolish are budget reconciliation and paygo altogether, but until then, the senate has all the tools it needs to bypass the filibuster and spend money.

Turlock