More Big Lies: “Obama's Recession” and “60 Votes Don’t Mean (Squat)"

[McCamy Taylor]

Q: How is this OP like the Energizer Bunny?

A: It just keeps going and going.

You want brevity? Try some other thread.

Intro.

Think things could not get any worse in this country? Think we have hit rock bottom? I have some bad news for you. Corporate fascist Americans (and the politicians who represent them and the media puppets who speak for them) have just gotten started. How low do they aim to take us? Here is a hint.

Q: The New Federalists want to unravel the work of what great US president?

A: FDR.

What did FDR do? He brought us out of the Great Depression. He enacted reforms to check the power (and greed) of Banksters. He gave us a little security---Social Security.

If the New Federalists had it to do over again, what would they do? They would scrap the military coup----Americans did not and never will goose step----and instead they would get into their time machines and go back to 1934 to persuade Americans that FDR engineered the Great Depression.

I. Where Blame is Due: The Bush (Engineered) Recession

First things first. Before anyone starts posting “But it is the Obama recession”, here is a little recent history lesson. I am going to take you back in time to 2007, when most Americans thought that we were doing ok.

In early spring 2007, I started a Salon Table Talk thread “A Dog Starved at Its Master’s Gate Predicts the Ruin of the State”. My premise was simple----the Bush administration and its corporate buddies were engineering a recession/depression.

Since I can not direct you to the original, here is a link to my DU Journal about the original. (A double Corsi!)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/366

The whole point of the engineered Reagan recession--which was part of the Federalists attempt to roll the US back to the pre-FDR years---was to subvert democracy. When everyone got richer and better educated and healthier and more secure and more hopeful, this translated into a popular sense of empowerment. We witnessed this in the 1960's, when students decided that they did not have to go fight a war they did not believe in and women decided that institutionalized sex descrimination was not right and minorities fought for and won their rights and later gays did, too. None of these battles could have been won without the empowerment that comes with economic prosperity. Western europe and Japan bask in all their social freedoms because of their economic prosperity, which makes the people immune to fear propaganda and makes them expect their government to serve THEIR wills.

Make people afraid that they will be kicked out on the street before they can collect their next paycheck because someone with a different skin color will take their job or make them worry that illness will eat up their savings or make it impossible for their children to afford college because their kids have all been arrested for minor drug crimes which make them ineligible for federal grants---and they are too scared to question the political system.

McCamy Taylor (me) in 2007

On Jan. 26, 2009, I wrote at DU:

Now all the Republicans have to do is convince Americans that people like Phil Gram and George W. Bush were not to blame, that the modern day Banksters did not rob us blind, that no one could predict what was to come (and certainly that no one engineered the crisis or deliberately made it worse), that the recession and depression actually happened on Obama’s watch and everything will get better if we just elect a new Republican Congress under a new Newt and a new Ronald Reagan. You all remember how much better things were under Ronald Reagan, don't you?

snip

The people who started this mess are still out there, waiting to reap the rewards of our misery. They control the press. They control the jobs. Obama has about three months--that 100 day honeymoon---before they will start calling this his Recession/Depression and talking about how great the Bush years were for business.

Now that we have things clear, let's move on to the Lies.


II. The “Obama Recession” Part 1: The Reich Wing

Hey! Yeah, you! I have some swamp land to sell you. Cheap. What? You’re too smart to buy swamp land? Then how about this beauty. I call it “The Obama Recession”. You know you want it.

Nov. 6, 2008 Obama has only just been elected. He has not even moved into the White House yet, nor has he signed any laws or made any executive decisions.

That does not stop the Reich Wing (from here on out I am going to differentiate the “right wing”----that loose amalgam of Fundies, abortion foes, homophobes, gun rights enthusiasts and business interests---from the Corporate Fascist Coup) from blaming Obama for the recession:

The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen. Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression. He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.

Rush Limbaugh

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125107.guest.html

Yeah, the Big Lie always starts out as laughable. But, the more time you hear it, the more familiar it becomes, until---like the feeder gold fish your pet oscar did not eat---it becomes part of the family.

2009

I think it is time to call it "The Obama Recession." Using Obama's own numbers, we are now worse off than we would have been had Obama's stimulus not gone into effect.

American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/the_obama_recession.html

Presumably, the Big Lie was still in serious trouble this summer, even after 18 months of Reich Wing repetition, because Rush decided that it was time to answer the question “Um…excuse me. Why would an elected president try to wreck the economy?

2010

"This is payback," meaning, "All right, look. We don't care if it's the New Black Panthers or whoever it is. Black people in this country have never, ever had a fair shake. This is payback. O.J. Simpson was payback. How does it feel?" That word "payback" is not mine. It was J. Christian Adams quoting some people in the Department of Justice. It is exactly how I think Obama looks at the country: It's payback time. I think that he's been raised, educated, and believes on his own that this country has been (as you know) immoral and unjust. It has stolen. It's unfairly large; it's an unjustifiable superpower. We have become as large as we are not because of any uniqueness or exceptionalism or greatness but because we've simply discriminated against the real people that made the country work, all the minorities. People around the world, we've stolen their resources, and now it's payback time. That's what we're getting. J. Christian Adams had somebody in Obama's DOJ who said that regarding the dropping of charges against the New Black Panther Party in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. So don't doubt me. There's no question that payback is what this administration is all about, presiding over the decline of the United States of America, and doing so happily.

Rush Limbaugh

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/home/daily/site_070210/content/01125106.guest.html

Oh, I see. So Obama only ever cared about minority issues---to the detriment of all of us who are not members of a racial minority. That explains it.

Yeah, that explains it. Divide and Conquer, the Reich Wing’s favorite political lie.

III. The “Obama Recession” Part 2: Mainstream Media

Big Lies are planted by the Reich Wing, but in order to grow, they need the fertile soil of the Mainstream Media.

Fox (of course) has lead the way with this Big Lie. From Media Matters

Stating that President Obama's policies have "clearly failed," Fox Business stocks editor Elizabeth MacDonald falsely suggested that Obama has been in office for three years. This follows a pattern of Fox hosts and guests blaming President Obama for Bush-era policies such as TARP, the AIG bailout, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts, and the beginning of the recession.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008110036

What? You thought that was George W. Bush who got on national television in the fall of 2008 to demand that we give all our money to the Banksters? Hell no! That was (President) Obama. In white face. You know, like all those Tea Bagger signs.

From The Hill , this year's hot Reich Wing propaganda source, an article (subliminally) entitled “Obama’s recession….”:

As hard-working Americans struggle through one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, one part of the country remains recession-proof: Washington, D.C.

Even though federal tax revenues are down 20 percent and the national debt has ballooned to $12 trillion, President Barack Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill continue to believe that we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity. As part of that plan, they’re using our hard-earned tax dollars to increase the size of government and the salary of bureaucrats.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/81247-obamas-recession-plan-more-bureaucrats-rep-mcmorris-rodgers

How do you sell Americans who remember that the recession started during the Bush years the Big Lie? You tell them that the Bush recession is over---which means our current problems are due to the “Obama Recession”. From USA Today

We had some technical difficulties yesterday, but wanted to show you this clip in which President Obama downplays the possibility that the economy could slide back into a recession.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/08/obama-no-double-dip-recession/1


IV. The “Obama Recession” Part III: The Progressive Media

In keeping with DU rules, I will not quote from DU. Instead, I will serve up a few choice reader comments from other sites that calls themselves progressive:

Here is “It’s Obama’s Recession Because the Mainstream Media Says It’s Obama’s Recession" :

This was never called the Bush Recession, or the Bush Depression, or the Bush Unemployment, or the Bush bailout of the banks--and now we wonder why it's called Obama's socialism. Summers and WH friends are partially responsible for not playing the "blame game." With the euro tumbling and Korea rumbling, this small jobs bill will be like spitting in the ocean.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/25/869782/-Summers-makes-the-case-for-the-jobs-bill

Here is “It’s Obama’s Recession Because He Voted for the Bailout.”

From Huffington Post

This is definitely his recession and TARP is as much his as any other politician who voted for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/goodmarina/the-best-political-ads-of_n_672595_56575301.html

And here is the ever popular “Americans need rhetoric, not action!”

Keynes solutions were all about creating jobs at decent wages regardless of what those jobs were in order to create demand. That requires fiscal policy and now that the too small by half fiscal stimulus is done we are soon to be in a world of hurt. Thanks, Rahm, Larry and Barack for not even trying to pass a stimulus bill of the proper size.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/mysteries-of-deflationary-bias/#comments

V. More Big Lies: “60 Votes Don’t Mean ____”

Since Obama is not the one running for re-election this fall, the Reich Wing has crafted another lie, specifically designed to keep the Democratic base from turning out to vote. Believe it or not, this was actually posted here at DU recently. I am not going to say by whom or when or even finish the quote (in keeping with DU rules).

Now, why is there a “60 Votes Don’t Mean____” Big Lie this year? Because history has already proven that 60 votes do mean ____.

First, the Lie:

Here is

“Why 60 Votes Doesn’t Matter”

from 2009, Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-berney/why-60-votes-doesnt-matte_b_224255.html

In 2010, we get:

Victory doesn't rest with 60 unified Democrats, and never did.

http://www.thetakeaway.org/blogs/takeaway/2010/jan/19/massachusetts-and-60-vote-senate-fallacy/

And here is one called

“Good Riddance to 60 Votes!"

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/20/good_riddance_to_60_votes.html

Good grief!

Now, a history lesson. Remember the 1964 elections? I was five, but I do. LBJ and the Democrats got aggressive. They decided that the White House and a simple Congressional majority were not enough. They ran “The Daisy Ad.” They got a supermajority. Here it is, your 89th U.S. Congress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_United_States_Congress

Note its list of accomplishments. Medicare, Medicaid, Voting Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act, HUD, federal vehicle emissions standards….

Altogether now. 60 Votes Don’t Mean ____!

Now, another history less. Remember the 74th U.S. Congress? Probably not, unless you were born before 1930. But that’s ok. Wiki remembers everything. The 74th Congress gave us:

National Labor Relations Board, Social Security, the “Soak the Rich” tax.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/74th_United_States_Congress

How many Senate Democrats did it take to pass Social Security? 55? 60? No, it took 69 Democrats.

Now, take a look at the 75th Congress:

Minimum wage, overtime pay, ended child labor, Food and Drug Administration.

How many Senate Democrats were required to give us a federal minimum wage and stop child labor? 60? 65? No, it took 76 Senate Democrats to make a difference.

When I hear folks whine because 59.5 Senate Democrats have not brought us peace and prosperity, I laugh. Then, I cry. We are so close. How can people give up without a fight? If you want change you can believe in, then make it happen. Get a Democratic supermajority in Congress as this DU poster suggested all the way back in 2003.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x697924

[TomCADem]

1. The DUers Who Are Advocating Inaction and Apathy Are Not Real Democrats and Liberals

I have some serious doubts about folks who repeatedly and proudly declare that they are not going to vote, because it does not fit. Someone will take the time to register and post on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND only to declare that they are not going to vote in 2010 because the Democrats are not democratic enough or liberal enough, thus they will sit by while folks like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul cruise to victory?

However, I can see a right wing operative trying to suppress the vote, which is why they have attacked ACORN.

[caledesi]

3. So true T! nt

[LoZoccolo]

7. I don't think it's necessarily Republican, but it is a game.

I think that people who engage in it are just trying to have the most influence they can get while doing the least work. They can get on here and issue ultimatums to the Democrats all day at little cost to themselves and little effort. Meanwhile, it's supposed make the Democrats real scared of losing their jobs so they do what you want. And you don't even have to get up from your seat! Of course an easy way for a Republican to spread apathy would be to come in here and do the same thing, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

[walldude]

23. I don't see a whole lot of "I'm not voting" in spite of all the hand wringing

I see around here about it. Sure there are a few and like you said they aren't true liberals. But what I do see a lot of is "yeah I'll hold my nose and vote but no more donations, no more phone banking, and no more door to door. And who can blame them.

The truth is, at this point it doesn't matter who's fault it is. What matters is many of the moves made to fix the problems are going in the wrong direction, continuing policies that got us into this mess in the first place. How long did we allow Bush to use the "It's Clinton's fault" excuse?

[laughingliberal]

26. +1 nt

[DevonRex]

36. Oh, it's not that they're not voting. It's that they're voting 3rd party.

I've seen a lot of it. To each their own. A little political science might have done them some good, along with a little understanding of game theory, but hey. :shrug:

[walldude]

42. Well I would never look down on someone for voting their conscience

I have voted third party before as well. And probably will again. Maybe in this election. It's not that I don't understand politics or "game theory" it's just that the whole point of voting is to vote in your own best interests. If the third party represents my interests better than the Democrats then that is where my vote will go. You can say then that it will be my fault if say Palin wins, just like I have been told a million times it was my fault that Bush won because I voted for Nader. But the truth is, the party cannot blame me for not voting for them if they abandon my principles.

[Dhalgren]

47. Dead-on, Walldude!

:applause:

[jpak]

32. +1000

:thumbsup:

[Overseas]

2. K&R for the sad truth. The Rabid Right is foaming at the mouth.

It is all out there.

I'm heartbroken because I was proved right, we should have gone all FDR on their asses, but there you have it-- my Democrats gave them time to regroup and my Democrats allowed them to buy up all the media, so their hundreds of right wing PR firms are working overtime and things could get even worse.

So I do hope we all fight back and help our fellow citizens break through the disgusting Republican lies.

But it sure would have been easier after a deep, serious Truth & Reconciliation Commission on the Bush Gang's torture policies and practices. Nuremberg Nuremberg Nuremberg -- has echoed through my mind a lot.

The Truth & Rec would have shaken up the country. We went that far off course. And readied them for more serious changes toward long term sustainability.

But here we are after not getting that. And good on you to have pointed out that it took many more than 60 to pass great policies in prior eras. I'm hoping we will all keep fighting to expose the filthy Republican plans and get the millions who crossed over to vote for the Party of FDR to stay with us and fight to rebuild Good Government. To defy Grover Norquist and his many many pals.

[G_j]

5. Nuremberg -- has echoed through my mind a lot.

good to hear another say this

[pnorman]

4. K & R!

(For later detailed reading)

[LoZoccolo]

6. K&R

:kick:

[Murray_R]

8. Which part is the lie?

"This is definitely his recession and TARP is as much his as any other politician who voted for it."

Didn't he vote for the bailouts and TARP? Didn't he sign bailouts as president?

The efforts to prop up asset prices founded on a pyramid of debt is farcical, and are prolonging the adjustment from unsustainable patterns of saving (or more specifically, the lack thereof) and consumption.

The Obama administration is failing to come to grips with the economy's woes because they do not understand that the ability of the Federal Reserve to print money isn't a substitute for the ability of the economy to generate wealth.

[Herr Garbitsch]

19. Ooops. Excuse me. . .

I thought I was at Democratic Underground. Must have taken a wrong turn.

[newblewtoo]

9. K&R

:kick:

[sendero]

10. Of course Obama..

.. inherited this mess. That is not even a debate.

But he's going to own it soon, if not already, for two reasons.

One, in his misguided zeal to make nice with the assholes that wrecked the country, he as failed to drive the point of how this all happened home at every opportunity. Had he been doing that all along, he could have minimized the political damage. But starting on it now just sounds like sour grapes.

Secondly, his policies, as envisioned and acted on by the likes of the criminal Geithner, have done more harm than good. In particular, bailing out AIG in the manner in which it was done is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE - if you don't believe me do some research, Elizabeth Warren would be a good start.

The party in power gets punished when there is pain. Obama has really not done much to bring jobs to the US, not near as much as he has done to bail out the bad actors, and people know it.

[Herr Garbitsch]

13. 60 votes

You don't seem to want to understand the simple reality of that simple point. You seem to want to blame Obama more than you want to blame Republicans.

Why?

[JoseGaspar]

38. What 60 votes?

Most of the policies of the last two years didn't go to any kind of vote. They were mostly unilateral executive actions, including both sins of omission and commission: Afghanistan, Not closing GITMO, the Patriot Act, Domestic Surveillance, Executive Power, the decision not to prosecute War Criminals, the Privatization of Public Education, the expansion of Predator strikes and covert operations, the policies of TARP, the expansion of mercenaries, the non-repeal of DADT, Federal Reserve policy, and a hundred others were enacted unilaterally - or not enacted - without a single vote.

Votes? What votes?

The handful of times in which "votes" actually occurred (Health Insurance and Financial "reform"), near total Republican opposition was assured whatever their content... so who "owns" the content?

This is true with only a few exceptions. There were the two SOTUS confirmations which weren't even close (so why were they "moderates"?), there were the original TARPII and Stim votes, when universal panic still assured that any Bill would pass (just as with Bush - who owns that "policy"?), and the recent extension of unemployment insurance benefits in which the vote was held over and over again for no other reason than to establish political advantage in the coming elections (begging the question of why there was no "political advantage" earlier).

Your simple realty is just simple. There ain't no VOTES...

The Republicans talk all the time and say the most rancid shit, but actual policy has come from the White House and largely without Legislative action.

That is the "simple reality".

[blindpig]

45. Indeed

That's a bunch of executive fiat going on there.

And yet BP, who will probably amass a body count higher than 9/11 in the long run, has not been expropriated.

Hard to deny who owns what.

[laughingliberal]

29. In whose world did a message of 'Republicans got us into this mess but we want to give them endless

...opportunity to continue to infect our legislation with their failed ideas," ever going to work?

[sendero]

46. You apparently...

.. have not been paying much attention. Wait and see.

[pgodbold]

11. Thank you for posting this. IMHO it is a must read. Thank you. nt

[LWolf]

12. Actually, I've been told ad nauseum here at DU that

"60 votes don't mean squat."

The ubiquitous "We don't have the votes" defense for why we can't get a liberal agenda through Congress.

[Herr Garbitsch]

14. If it's true then it bears repetition.

Neither the fact that you think you have "been told ad nauseum" nor that you use the word "ubiquitous" are impressive.

[LWolf]

18. If it's not true, then the more often you repeat it,

the more people are likely to believe it. That's called "propaganda," and whether or not you are "impressed" by my vocabulary is beside the point. I don't choose words to impress you.

My point? The OP contradicts what I've been told on DU. So...what's the truth? That 60 votes DO count for squat, or that 60 votes are not enough?

The OP suggests that it's the "Reich Wing" that tells us 60 votes don't count for squat. If so, then the "Reich Wing" is active on DU.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. One of those 60 votes is Ben Nelson....

Another one is Blanche Lincoln.

We have 60 Democratic Votes, which is not even remotely close to having 60 Liberal Votes.

[LWolf]

25. So is the OP talking about 60 liberal votes, or 60 Democratic votes?

I believe the OP is saying that 60 votes, period, count for something. I don't see him specifying "liberal" votes.

Which is it? They count for something, or they aren't enough to count?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Beats the hell out of me....

I don't have the time to read the whole damned thing!

My only point is that there is both a qualitative and quantitative element to having 60 votes in the Senate because of the current filibuster rules. Rules that should be changed.

But right now you need 60 Senators will to work together in order to defeat the Republicans, and right now, you have at least two (and sometimes more) who simply are not committed to progressive reforms.

[LWolf]

35. I understand your point.

I'm just trying to connect it to the point made in the OP. I see a contradiction.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

39. Out of respect for the OP

I did go back and read the whole thing (haven't followed the links).

But anytime someone goes to that much effort, it's only polite to read the whole thing.

I think the OP's point is that it took more than sixty votes in the Senate to get the major parts of the Progressive Agenda (Social Security, the Voting Rights Act) through Congress. So those people who are saying "Don't worry about having 60+ votes -- it doesn't matter" are trying to discourage Democrats from getting out and supporting candidates in states where we could be stealing Senate seats from the Republicans (i.e., Ohio).

[LWolf]

44. Well, that's going to send me back to reread, lol,

because I came away with the exact opposite interpretation.

:hi:

[Herr Garbitsch]

30. And another is Lieberman, so. . .

it ain't easy.

[Herr Garbitsch]

21. I don't know, but oddly it seems their message resonates here. n/t

[LWolf]

27. How would you judge that? nt

[Herr Garbitsch]

31. I speak English. n/t

[LWolf]

34. You speak English, so you judge a message to "resonate" with others.

That's certainly, er...sensible.

Which message do you think "resonates," and to whom is it resonating?

[Herr Garbitsch]

37. I'm not interested in playing this game with you.

I have stated my opinion. Is your approval or disapproval some kind of prerequisite?

No?

I didn't think so.

[LWolf]

43. Actually, I don't think you've stated your opinion.

That's why I'm asking. The only real opinion I've seen you state is about my vocabulary; a frivolous and irrelevant opinion that is about me, not my point.

You also said that "their message" "seems" to resonate here. I have to assume you meant the "we don't have the votes" contingent. You didn't state who that message "seems" to resonate with, or how you determine that it "seems" to resonate.

It's usual to expect someone to clarify their opinion, and to give some sort of evidence or rationalization for it. Everybody's got opinions. Opinions not backed by anything have no value in themselves, and add no value to a discussion.

Expect to be asked to back up your opinions while you are here.

Or take your ball and go, since you "seem" to equate making a point in a discussion as "game playing."

[maryf]

48. +1

"“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Goebbels

[quiet.american]

15. Really enjoyed reading this. K&R nt

[DevonRex]

16. K&R. There is a nefarious movement afoot to suppress Democratic turnout.

Some people have fallen for the Nader meme that things must get worse in order for them to get better, that the Democratic Party must fail and that somehow, magically, some "other" party will take its place.

I suppose they really believe there will be some sort of popular uprising and the people will all take to the streets or go on strike or something. By some stroke of good luck, nobody will die because of Republican rule and true corporatocracy will not prevail in the meantime. Somehow "the people" will be able to snatch power back from those evil forces peacefully and all will be well in the world for ever and ever.

[sandnsea]

17. Great post

Change Minds, Change Votes.

We've got an excellent chance at getting more Democrats in the senate. NH, OH, FL, to name a few.

It's not time to quit, it's time to double down and fight harder.

[Herr Garbitsch]

28. Man oh man, I wish more posters here understood how important this is

The Republicans will finish the job they started and they will kill us. How anyone outside of the top 1% can miss that obvious point is beyond me.

[grantcart]

22. excellent research, valuable links, going to earmark this one.

[JNelson6563]

24. K&R

Good post. :toast:

[Scurrilous]

40. K & R

:thumbsup:

[JustAnotherGen]

41. Here's the thing

WE all get this! :pals: We aren't low information voters that get our thinking-ma-jig stuffy from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

We the average reader at DU get it.

But the people who could be hammering this home on a National Level - never do. I wish you had posted this item this morning. I would have sent the link to Congressman Grayson to reference in his meeting with the President this evening.