Corrente

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

Of course, if Obama had bailed out the states in 2009, with billions, instead of bailing out the banksters, with trillions....

... the states wouldn't be in the "fiscal crisis" they're in today in 2011, and the unions wouldn't be under assault by the Rs. Obama, 2009, C-SPAN:

SCULLY: States like California in desperate financial situation, will you be forced to bail out the states?

alpoOBAMA: No. I think that what you’re seeing in states is that anytime you got a severe recession like this, as I said before, their demands on services are higher. So, they are sending more money out. At the same time, they’re bringing less tax revenue in. And that’s a painful adjustment, [photo at left] what we’re going end up seeing is lot of states making very difficult choices [photo at left] there…

You mean… we have to choose whether to raise taxes or cut services? We all know which way that is going to go.

Ya know, it's almost like the Ds are creating the conditions for crisis, and then the Rs are taking advantage of it. Like they're working together, or something.

Nah, that can't be. I mean, look at what all the "progressive" and access bloggers are telling me!

NOTE Booman Tribune takes the stupid to a whole new level:

Now that the battle is joined [in WI], the big questions are what the outcome will be, and whether Democrats will take the opportunity to tell American workers unequivocally whose side they are on.

Obama already did that. As Corrente readers who followed danps's tweets know, when he took the bus to Columbus to protest against the assault on unions there, he saw Obama's motorcade leaving town, going the other direction. Did Obama walk the line with the unions? Of course not. Obama' rump D's at Booman already have their answer, but they don't know it. Or they do know it, and they're lying about it. I really don't care.

UPDATE I forgot to apologize for being prematurely correct.

0
No votes yet

Comments

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

about enough of a stimulous to avoid a complete meltdown? They wanted a disaster, but not such a big one as to be politically radicalizing.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

Obama and his boys (mostly) and girls are much more clever than Scott Walker. Walker's frontal attack may have triggered a movement that can begin to turn things around. Obama's boys and girls protest the goodness of their Dem intentions while taking care to structure the political background of issues in such a way that they can always paint the outcome of a dispute as an unavoidable net positive, if less than "perfect," compromise that we must live with because it was the best they could get in a bad situation.

Just one example, last December they could have bargained hard on the Bush tax cuts. They were going to expire, and the new Republican House coming in couldn't have done a thing about that. But those tax cuts gave a considerable amount of money both to their campaign contributors and themselves. So the least Obama should have gotten in return for them, was all he did get, plus a 2011 budget, plus the extension of the debt ceiling, plus a six month extension for the 99ers, plus a full payroll tax cut, plus a State revenue sharing plan.

They wouldn't have liked that, but they wanted those tax cuts for their contributors so badly they could taste them. They would have settled, because if they hadn't the cuts would have expired, and they wouldn't have been able to pass them in the new Congress while at the same time bleating about austerity.

The Dems also set up that whole end of year situation by not doing the work necessary to allow reconciliation in 2011. That mistake was clearly deliberate since it was such an obvious thing to do.

Submitted by Hugh on

It is so important to realize not just what Obama and the Democrats do. That is bad enough, but what they could do, but don't. That image of Obama heading out of town is a classic. Look we know that Obama is closer in his viewpoints to Republicans in Washington than he is to rank and file Democrats, or God forbid, progressives. So it really isn't much of a stretch to see that he is closer to Scott Walker than he is to them.

In the big events that have blown up recently, like Egypt and Wisconsin, silence is the big tell of this Administration. Obama recognizes that there is a ground swell of popular support for both. But he is really on the side of Mubarak and Walker. However if he came out openly in support of Mubarak and Walker, then even the usually docile, paid for media would slam him. What to do? He remains silent.

Sort of preaching to the choir here but Obama is a kleptocrat and not to put to fine a point on it, kleptocrats are evil. Barak Obama, George Bush, Mitch McConnell, Scott Walker, Lloyd Blankfein, these are thoroughly evil men. They steal from all of us. They have ruined the lives of tens of millions. They are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands. You can not be a good man and do the things they have done and continue to do. The media point to Gaddafi. They say how out of touch he is, how crazy, how evil. But they could just as easily point out Obama or any of the thousands who make up our kleptocratic elites and say much the same because they are equally thieving, murderous, and brutal. Kleptocracy is worldwide phenomenon. There are not good kleptocrats and bad kleptocrats. There are only kleptocrats.

What we need to get past and get out to the wider public is that Obama is not a politician, he is not a man who has made mistakes, he is a criminal acting criminally. And what we can say about him we can say about the rest of our Establishment. They need to be de-legitimized because they are not legitimate. Legitimacy for them is only a screen to paralyze opposition and allow for continued looting.

/rant

Eureka Springs's picture
Submitted by Eureka Springs on

rant on Hugh, rant on!

Submitted by jawbone on

instead of bailing out the banksters, with trillions...."

And had at least tried (really tried) to get Medicare for All, Democrats and independents would have been voting Dems into Congress and state houses to show the Repubs they really want actions that benefit the little people.

But, nooooo...the Big O just had to pamper the Wall Streeters, fluff the banksters, and roll over for the Republicans, instead if doing what needed to be done.

He is to blame for Scott Walker's victory and Russ Feingold's defeat. I have no doubt of this. In other states I can't swear to what happened. Here in NJ the Dems were dealt a serious blow by...Chris Christie and stupid corrupt Dems. I think Scott Brown won bcz Obama and the DC Dems did nothing for people who desperately needed --and still need-- help.

Submitted by lambert on

All the Ds need to do to win is stop sucking. But to stay in the game, they just need to collect from the oligarchs. So, which do they do?

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

to collect and to suck less than the Rs.

To get things back on track we have to remove their need to collect. They have to begin to believe that they can win without contributions from any of the corps.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

I've written about this I don't know how many times. The Dems performance led to their rejection in 2010. And the Republicans claim they have a mandate to do the things they're trying to do, when really, the polls show that they won because people were disgusted with the Ds.

2012 will be the Rs turn to lose again. We must see to it that the Ds don't interpret that loss as evidence that the public is "center-right."