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

What John Amato said

vastleft's picture

There's been much excitement in the leftysphere about Obama's brushback pitch to the GOP: "I won."

As it happens, it was (reportedly) uttered "over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts."

Yet, Obama's current proposal is deeply appeasing of (or is it agreeing with?) Republican disaster-capitalism economics:

I find it appalling that an economy which was based on tax cuts that led us to the abyss is now being considered as a major component of your plan while infrastructure spending is less than twenty percent of your plan.

We know who won in November. The question is, which agenda won?

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

Hey, surprise! Obama actually believed that post-partisan bullshit. Nobody could have predicted...

Here is, I think, the heart of the matter. Amato writes:

I understand that you've promised bipartisanship and you've kept that promise. However, implementing the massive corporate tax cuts in your plan to appease the Boehners of the right is counterproductive.

Look at those two sentences. You can't have the "promise" in #1 without the the "appeasement" in #2. That's the problem. Always has been.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I remember being called a cynic, a racist, an "insider" corporate whore for pointing out the absurdity of "post-partisanship" back in early-mid 2007, when it was super uncool to say that Obama was on the bottom of my list as a presidential candidate. Funny how being an "insider" means on the outside looking in.

When you have multiple corporations flashing Obama's campaign theme, one should worry at least a little. Instead we get all hopey changey that the new administration may open up the Statue of Liberty.

BTW, is this real?