Matt Taibbi: "Our leaders know we're turning into a giant ghetto"

[polichick]

This morning I read the sample of Matt Taibbi's GRIFTOPIA on my Kindle, and immediately placed a hold on it at the library (wish I could afford to purchase all the books I want to read). The following passage really hit home:


"Voters who throw their emotional weight into elections they know deep down inside won't produce real change in their lives are also indulging in a kind of fantasy. That's why voters still dream of politicians whose primary goal is to effectively govern and maintain a thriving first world society with great international ambitions. What voters don't realize, or don't want to realize, is that that dream was abandoned long ago by this country's leaders, who know the more prosaic reality and are looking beyond the fantasy, into the future, at an America plummeted into third world status.

"These leaders are like the drug lords who ruled American's ghettos in the crack age, men (and some women) interested in just two things: staying in power, and hoovering up enough of what's left of the cash on their blocks to drive around in an Escalade or a 633i for however long they have left. Our leaders know we're turning into a giant ghetto and they are taking every last hubcap they can get their hands on before the rest of us wake up and realize what's happened.

<snip>

"In the ghetto, nobody gets real dreams. What they get are short-term rip-off versions of real dreams. You don't get real wealth, with a home, credit, a yard, money for your kids' college - you get a fake symbol of wealth, a gold chain, a Fendi bag, a tricked-out car you bought with cash. Nobody gets to be really rich for long, but you do get to be pretend rich, for a few days, weeks, maybe even a few months. It makes you feel better to wear that gold, but when real criminals drive by on the overpass, they laugh.

"It's the same in our new ghetto. We don't get real political movements and real change; what we get, instead, are crass show-business manipulations whose followers' aspirations are every bit as laughable and desperate as the wealth dreams of the street hustler with his gold rope. What we get, in other words, are moderates who don't question the corporate consensus dressed up as revolutionary leaders, like Barack Obama, and wonderfully captive opposition diversions like the Tea Party - the latter a fake movement for real peasants that was born that night in St. Paul, when Sarah Palin addressed her We."

http://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Machines-Vampire-Breaking-America/dp/0385529953/


For me this reality begs the question: "What's next for political activists?" And, of course, I'm mostly interested in liberal/progressive activists.

What do you think?

[Mimosa]

1. I agree with Matt Taibbi. n/t

[polichick]

4. Me too - plus, I love his writing. nt

[ashleyforachange]

24. I agree

He really is a great writer.

[ProSense]

2. "like the Tea Party - the latter a fake movement"

A fake movement that now has 40 fake members in Congress.

[polichick]

3. The fake part is that they represent the people - the "peasants." nt

[ProSense]

5. I realize that

but they still succeeded in getting elected.

[polichick]

7. Sure, someone has to get elected. Matt's point is:

"It's the same in our new ghetto. We don't get real political movements and real change"

[ProSense]

9. And my point is

Matt's point is: "It's the same in our new ghetto. We don't get real political movements and real change"


...that's an excuse for hopelessness. Why not build a real movement to counter the fake movement?

[polichick]

10. That's what a lot of people thought they were doing when working for Obama. nt

[ProSense]

13. Well,

that doesn't cut it.

[polichick]

14. Sorry - Obama campaigned one way and governed another...

...in a cynical bait-and-switch ploy. I sure don't blame anyone for being disgusted at this point.

[ProSense]

15. What does that have to do with building a movement?

I get it: It's all Obama's fault that progressives don't want to do shit.

[polichick]

16. Progressives are the ones in the party that actually do all the shit...

We're just not about to be tricked again - and I'm personally tired of all your Obama excuse threads and responses.

[ProSense]

18. Where's the movement?

"We're just not about to be tricked again - and I'm personally tired of all your Obama excuse threads and responses."

More victimhood. Tricked? If everyone is so smart, why do they keep getting tricked?

[polichick]

19. Trust me, when I find the movement, I won't share it with propaganda pushers. nt

[ProSense]

20. At least you acknowledge that there isn't one. n/t

[polichick]

30. Well, duh. The point is, the movement within our corporate party hasn't paid off...

Any more than the tea party movement will work if they stay within their corporate party.

[ProSense]

32. Well, duh. There still isn't a movement

You can rail on about corporate parties until the sun goes down. What good does do, making a point?

[polichick]

33. The point of the op seems to have eluded you - big surprise. nt

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[de novo]

107. Propaganda performs a useful function, too.

[Mimosa]

42. I expected my candidate, Barack Obama, to lead.

And I am still willing to support him if and when he will support the working class.

[Skittles]

52. dream on

[ChiciB1]

83. DITTO!, DITTO, DITTO, AND + A Million!

Love Matt, he's been one of the BEST from Rolling Stone, EVER! I have a PILE of Rolling Stone Mags, going back to 2000!

Had much more but got rid of them because they were PILING UP! Now, again... ten years worth of reading and have gone back to articles he wrote even during 2004! He's so spot on!

[femrap]

92. Matt likes The Truth,

doesn't he?

I believe progressives have to work on a local level and prepare for this 3rd World America. We need to develop local communities that can feed and care for the community....because the government does NOT care about you. State and local budgets have huge deficits. It's comeuppance time.

I've known this for a long time and have downsized immensely. My next step is to move into a more rural setting and hunker down with hopefully like-minded folks.

I believe it's going to get very ugly and we must depend on ourselves to get through this with grace and kindness.

All I really want to do is

:hide: along with some animals and some intelligent and progressive people.

Solari.com has some ideas.

[StarsInHerHair]

251. my reply below was intended for another further up

but I have been planting dwarf fruit trees in my backyard, put in 2 kinds of grapes, a fig tree-it's on a normal sized lot. I'd love to be able to swap fruit, finding a local smokehouse-preferably for buffalo/bison meat would be great. I've looked at what the Native Americans ate & beans are good for protein, cow-peas thrive in the heat, even if they're not native. I'm thinking of planting Jerusalem artichoke/sunchoke too.

[femrap]

264. We could learn much from

the Native Americans.

Sounds like you have some great ideas.

[StarsInHerHair]

249. wow, what doom & gloom

really not the attitude needed to either start or stay in any sort of movement.

[XemaSab]

43. When Obama said "We are the ones we've been looking for"

I thought he was inviting WE THE PEOPLE to the party: progressives, moderates, and conservatives who promised to behave.

Instead he went into the White House and closed the door behind himself.

Among the several things that are very disappointing: I wanted to be part of the change. I wanted to be part of a coalition to reclaim the American dream, but I wasn't invited. :(

[JamesA1102]

45. The President didn't close the door

the left went home on Jan. 21st and let the tea party take over.

[XemaSab]

47. I didn't go home

and I don't think anyone on this website went home.

I've seen a lot of people here say that Obama needs to lead, and I agree with that.

[JamesA1102]

48. I didn't see you or anyone from this website

out on the streets counter protesting the tea party or going to town hall meetings last summer to support healthcare reform.

What I did see is anytime anyone here tried to start such things being meet with disinterest and cynicism.

And the President did provide leadership but those here were too busy nitpicking and making the perfect the enemy of the good to actually get out from behind their computers to really get out there and do something.

[xxqqqzme]

55. You may speak for yourself

but don't start pointing at 'anyone' because you have no idea. I've been on the street - literally across the street from the bagger loonies demonstrating at the local congress critter who is a birther and too afraid to hold town halls. I was in the middle of their hate filled, lash out at Nancy Pelosi. My friend was hit over the head by one of them while we were there. I have been in many street demonstrations and protest over the years but I have never encountered the level of blind hate and nastiness as I did that night.

[JamesA1102]

75. I'm sure many individuals took action

but there was no organized effort. No one was interested.

[laughingliberal]

93. There was organized effort from the left. We raised the money and began running ads targeting...

Blue Dogs who were not supporting the public option during the health care debate. It was running public support for the PO sky high in their districts. The White House CofC called it 'fucking retarded.'

By the end of the HCR debate, despite all the coverage going to the bat shit teabaggers, public support was over 60% nationwide. The lowest support in any state was 50%. It is not that the left has not garnered popular support for issues. Our lawmakers are ignoring what the people want.

And there were many counter protests of the teabaggers but they were not given press. The teabaggers had a huge organization of wealth corporate interests funding their astroturf protests. It was a bit easier for them to 'organize.' At that, the public was on our side but you'd never hear that reported by the corporate media.

[JamesA1102]

111. Collecting money are running ads are good

But there was no grassroots movement on the streets. Most who supported the public option stayed home and didn't get out there to protest.

[JDPriestly]

58. I went to the town hall meetings. I was, however, not

enthusiastic about Obama's D- health insurance reform bill. It was a giveaway to the insurance companies and not nearly the reform that it could have been had Obama allowed single payer advocates to at least take part in the deliberations on it. That slight was incredibly foolish on Obama's part. It was a slap in all our faces. I can understand that some of us did not bother to go out and support that bill.

[JamesA1102]

76. So you're admitting that most of the passion was on the other side

because you decided to take your ball and go home because you didn't like how the game was going.

[liberation]

89. Yeah, keep blaming those who voted for your team...

... wow, what a "great" strategy. You guys are luminaries!

[JamesA1102]

112. It's not blame,

it's taking responsibilty. The problem is there are too many who rather sit behind their computer and pound their chests in self-rightous indignation shouting 'We've been betrayed' than get out their and do something.

[Mimosa]

180. DO WHAT when our leaders won't support us?

I'd really know what more we can do.

The administration chose not to support progressive Dems. They don't communicate well, don't explain things to the people at large, including the independent voters who are now wondering what happened. The people who put Obama in office did not expect miracles. Most just hoped President Obama would follow through on what they heard from candidate Obama.

[JamesA1102]

194. Do what the tea party did.

But the left decided to stay home.

[Mimosa]

196. IF you mean the Nov 2010 elections..

It wasn't the left who 'stayed home'. It was the youth, blacks, Latinos and independents who didn't show up.

I was a poll watcher in 2008 for both advance and same day voting. The difference was amazing. 2008: many many voters in the 20-30 year old age bracket, many blacks.

This year: mainly white people from age 40 to 70. The young voters were MIA.

[JamesA1102]

197. I mean in 2009 when the tea party protested against everything

and no groups from the left even attempted to counter-protest them.

[StarsInHerHair]

252. how would you even know when the media refused to show

so many protests when w was in office? Not reporting is part of the Right's propaganda too.

[JamesA1102]

261. Point taken about the media

but in the end it is just an excuse to stay home and do nothing.

[JDPriestly]

122. Why should I have passion for a passionless act.

It isn't that I took my ball and went home. Obama threw my ball into outfield and ignored me as I stood stunned in horror.

No. Unlike Obama, I have principles. If Obama wants my support, he has to stand up for the principles that I most strongly believe in. Support has to be earned.

Obama did absolutely nothing for foreclosed homeowners.

He does not seem to have understood that it was the banks, not the homeowners who caused the banks' problems.

[JamesA1102]

137. You did take your ball and go home and now you're parroting GOP talking points

It seems like the only principles you have is attacking the president.

[JDPriestly]

152. I believe in the long-established principles set forth by Franklin D. Roosevelt

“ It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”<2> People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

So far, Obama has not fully supported these principles. He compromised on healthcare, and has not adequately acted to protect the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; the rightto a decent home for every family, and he is about to compromise away the right to freedom from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemmployment.

Obama's principle is to curry favor with big donors. That's about the extent of it so far.

[JamesA1102]

154. In your opinion, he has not

and in other people's opinions he has. And FDR wasn't perfect either. Many accused him of caving on Social Security by setting the retirement age at 65 rather than 60 and by it not covering all workers when it first started and by it delaying the first benefits paid until 1941. And let's not forget that FDR interned US citizens of Japanese decent. So FDR failed to live up to his own principles.

[JDPriestly]

207. The difference between FDR and Obama is that FDR

at least verbalized his ideals and set goals for the country. Obama just plays the game.

Have you seen the movie, Inside Job? You may feel differently about Obama if you watch it. And it is not Republican propaganda. It just gets to the facts.

[JamesA1102]

210. What game?

You keep making vague charges and comparison but never post anything of substance.

[JDPriestly]

215. See the movie.

The game is claiming you are going to do something to improve the economy and then hiring the same people, Geithner and Summers to name two, who caused the economic problems.

The game is making a behind-the-scenes deal with health insurance companies based on a plan without a public option and then standing in front of the very volunteers who believed in you and trusted you and worked to get you elected and telling them you want a public option.

The game is admitting that torture is illegal, but never having the courage or integrity to prosecute those who authorized the torture.

The game is saying one thing but doing another over and over and over. The game is always coming down the middle, compromising the ideals of your supporters first and then pretending to negotiate with Republicans and corporatists who never negotiate in good faith.

I was an Obama volunteer in 2008. In fact, I traveled to another state to volunteer, to walk precincts and to work on election protection on election day. I am a lifelong Democrat. I feel very disappointed in Obama. I do not think that he has done what he should have done or even what he said he would do.

Obama seems to have no ability whatsoever to get cooperation from Congress. I'm not criticizing him for getting no cooperation from Republicans in Congress. They are just out to end his political career.

But why didn't, why doesn't Obama get cooperation from the Democrats in Congress? Why couldn't he get the Blue Dogs to support him more often? He is not leading. He is just following. We need him to lead, to say where he stands and why, and then stick to it. He did very well in the debates during the campaign. Where did the man of conviction we glimpsed at that time go?

I would not be so critical if, for example with regard to prosecuting the crimes, the violations of human rights, under the Bush administration, he just said that he thinks that Bush did the right thing. I would strongly disagree with him. That would not change. But if he gave good reasons, real evidence supporting his belief that, let's say, the torture, or Guantanamo are all right, then I would at least know who he is and where he stands. But, no. He simply says that he is ending the practices but that we have to move forward.

I fear that Obama will regret having said he would move forward. Now that the Republicans are in power, he will find out that "moving forward" means nothing to them. They never move forward. They always look backward. They will find any pretext to tear Obama apart. They will not return his kindness. (And I do have to say that while I do not like a lot of the decisions he has made, I think that Obama is an exceptionally good, kind human being.) About that I feel certain.

Guantanamo -- while I am ranting (you sort of asked for it) -- is another violation of human rights that Obama seems to lack the courage to do anything about. Guantanamo was created by executive order. Whey doesn't Obama just end it down by executive order. Does he lack the strength to do away with the violations of human rights that Guantanamo represents?

But my biggest beef is the deficit commission that is focusing on Social Security. I will cite again the information I read in Chalmers Johnson's Dismantling the Empire. There are 192 nations in the UN. We have at least 740 bases OVERSEAS. We could close a few bases and have plenty of money to pay down our debt without cutting our quite modest Social Security program. But, no Obama appoints a deficit commission full of folks who never liked Social Security to begin with, folks so rich they know they will never need it. The result was predictable. In fact, many of us here on Du predicted the result as soon as we learned the names of the members of the commission.

Anyway, I have stated my opinions on these and other matters with great clarity so many times on DU that I figure everyone knows what I think. I hope this is specific enough for you.

[JamesA1102]

218. Nice rant but it is mostly BS talking points.

First Geithner and Summers didn't tank the economy. It was ten years of Bush not enforcing regulations and Wall Street greed that did that.

Nor was any deal ever cut with the insurance companies. That is a total lie.

And I was a Obama volunteer too but I'm an adult who realizes that all the problems of the last 30 years can't be solved in 22 months and that a President is not a dictator who can't force things through congress including closing Guantanamo. But also acknowledge that while things haven't been perfect, this President has been more successful in less than two years than most are in eight: http://obamaachievements.org/list You're problem is that you confuse showmanship with leadership. You want a cheerleader who reflects your vitriol, not someone who quitely gets stuff done.

[JDPriestly]

224. Cheerleading is part of leading, and yes, I want Obama to lead.

Geithner was at the New York fed when Bush was in the White House. Bernanke was working under Greenspan at the Fed. Summers worked in the Clinton White House when Glass-Steagall was abandoned. Yes, Geithner, Bernanke and Summers were all key players in the decline of our economy.

You may consider my statements to be BS, but the results of the recent election speak for themselves. They were the result of Obama's ineffective leadership.

The sad thing is that Obama is a remarkable man. He is failing because he has chosen to surround himself with mediocre, but socially acceptable people.

Obama needs to allow himself to listen to voices and opinions not represented in D.C. He promised change but won't be able to deliver it until he changes his staff. Obama has nothing to lose by taking a few chances.

I cannot believe that Obama has not changed his Secretary of the Interior in the aftermath of the BP spill. There is incredible inertia in the Obama administration. Obama seems to be afraid that he will hurt someone's feelings if he lets them go. Summers went back, I presume, to Harvard, and I say good riddance. But a lot more people need to go.

Obama over-reacts to criticism from the right and under-reacts to criticism from the left. I bet that if you got copies of the old voter registration records from Hawaii, you would find that Obama's grandmother was a Republican, a Reagan Republican. Obama seems to have been deeply influenced by Republican thought.

[JamesA1102]

225. So the Dallas Cowboy cheerleader are also running the team?!?

And Geithner, Bernanke and Summers were not key players. They not players at all. That is just a BS talking point. The key players were the wall street executives and bankers who tanked the economy.

Since the results of the election were that conservatives won and liberals lost it tells me that he must be threatening them enough to come out in such force.

And why should the Secretary of the Interior be replaces? You just keep pulling this stuff out of your ass to set the bar higher because you don't want to complain.

[JDPriestly]

250. You should see the movie, Inside Job.

Yes, the key players were the Wall Street executives and bankers. Geithner was in charge of the Fed in New York. The Fed is supposed to audit the banks.

Bernanke was also working in the Fed under Greenspan.

And Summers was a key player in the Clinton administration when Glass-Steagall was abandoned.

Sorry, but Geithner, Bernanke and Summers are among those responsible for our economic problems.

And if you watch the film, you will wonder why Paulson is still walking around free.

[StarsInHerHair]

253. gee, was Geithner or Summers involved with repeal of Glass

Steagal Act?

Show me examples of how Obama "has been more successful in less than two years than most are in eight"


You also seem to have forgotten that leaders inspire others & get them to change their minds, for whatever reason you call that showmanship.

[JamesA1102]

259. Is that all you got?

You're latching on to Glass Steagall the way the right has dishonestly latched on to fannie and freddie as if it is the smoking gun of the whole financial crisis. It is one of many, many factors but it is not the smoking gun. Plus neither was a member of congress who voted for it.

As far as Obama: http://obamaachievements.org/list
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902516_pf.html
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/whats-the-111th-congress-done/

[JDPriestly]

57. Obama appointed only party and Wall Street hacks to his cabinet.

He left us out. There are no progressives in the Obama cabinet.

He snubbed Howard Dean after Dean so successfully led the DNC.

As soon as the inaugural celebration was over, Obama sent us packing. He thought he didn't need us anymore.

We shall see if he has learned that he does need us.

[JamesA1102]

73. Wall street hacks???

Who might that be?

And what you mean is there is no one in the cabinet that passes your litmus test as progressive which I'm willing to bet is a pretty high bar.

And if you think Dean was so successful, you must think that Michael Steele is a genius.

No one was sent packing, they went home on their own and let the tea party define the debate.

[blackspade]

82. Take your pick...

Sommers, Geithner, Bernecki.
There were a few progressives early on, but they were given the boot to avoid controversy.

As for Dean, does 2006, 2008, the 50 state strategy ring any bells?
You 'moderate' types act like you are on the high road, but you attack the left with the same vitriol that you accuse the left of using.
'Moderates' act like they are the 'adults' working in the middle to sort out the unruly children of the left and right, but in reality they are as inflexible and entrenched in their dogma as they accuse others of being.

And who was this 'they' that you speak of?
The PONTUS and the Senate Democrats have let the Rethugs and the tea-baggers frame the debate, not the left.
Progressives have been continually pointing out the crass hypocrisy that is the tea-bagger 'movement' since it started.

[JamesA1102]

128. Not really much to pick from

Summers is an economist who never worked on wall street. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Geithner also never worked on wall street. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner
Bernanke never worked on wall street either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke
Are all your facts this inaccurate.

As for the 50 state strategy there are many that beleive it cost the Dems seats in 2006. And if Dean is responsible for the win then, he is also responsible for all the blue dogs in congress that sided with the GOP on key issues. Plus, you must think Michael Steele is a genius for leading the GOP to a bigger gain in the House than in 2006 or 2008.

[Bullet1987]

134. WOW! Wikipedia....that's your source??

Obama's cabinet is filled with Goldman Sachs cronies and this is irrefutable.

[JamesA1102]

138. Really? Who?

Please list them with proof they worked at Goldman Sachs.

[Bullet1987]

151. Here

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13208">Obama's Wall Street Cabinet from Global Research.

[JamesA1102]

158. Pretty lame

You said Obama filled his cabinet with former Goldman Sachs employees. Here is his cabinet:

Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden

Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton

Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner

Department of Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates

Department of Justice
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Department of the Interior
Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar

Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack

Department of Commerce
Secretary Gary F. Locke

Department of Labor
Secretary Hilda L. Solis

Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Shaun L.S. Donovan

Department of Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood

Department of Energy
Secretary Steven Chu

Department of Education
Secretary Arne Duncan

Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric K. Shinseki

Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Janet A. Napolitano

None of them were mentioned in the article and the only connection with Goldman Sachs was that Summners once gave a speech to their execs and were paid a fee.

[blackspade]

149. Nice try.

Since we are going to quote Wikipedia...
On Summers from the article you cite:
On July 30, 1998, then-Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Summers testified before congress that "the parties to these kinds of contract are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies." Summers, like Greenspan and Rubin who also opposed the concept release, offered no proof that the contracts would not be misused by financial institutions. Instead, Summers stated that "to date there has been no clear evidence of a need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market, and we would submit that proponents of such regulation must bear the burden of demonstrating that need." <21> This argument suggests that the default position in the disagreement was that Summers, Greenspan, and Rubin were right, and that anyone (i.e., Brooksley Born) who disagreed with them bore the burden of proving their position. In fact, subsequent events have proven that Summers, Rubin, and Greenspan misjudged the dangers posed by derivatives contracts.

On Geithner:
He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001) under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. Summers was his mentor, but other sources call him a Rubin protégé. In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department.<15> He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001–2003) at the International Monetary Fund.<6>
In October 2003 at age 42,<16> he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. His salary in 2007 was $398,200. As President of the New York Fed, he served as Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.<19> In May 2007 he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank.<16> In November he rejected Sanford Weill's offer to take over as Citigroup's chief executive. In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns.; In the same year, he played a supporting role to Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, in the decision to bail out AIG just two days after deciding not to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. Some Wall Street CEOs subsequently expressed the opinion that decisions in which Geithner participated, especially the failure to rescue Lehman, contributed to worsening the global financial crisis.

On Bernanke:
Merrill Lynch merger with Bank of America
In a letter to Congress from New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo dated April 23, 2009, Bernanke was mentioned along with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in allegations of fraud concerning the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. The letter alleged that the extent of the losses at Merrill Lynch were not disclosed to Bank of America by Bernanke and Paulson. When Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis informed Paulson that Bank of America was exiting the merger by invoking the "Materially Adverse Change" clause Paulson immediately called Lewis to a meeting in Washington. At the meeting, which allegedly took place on December 21, 2008, Paulson told Lewis that he and the board would be replaced if they invoked the MAC clause and additionally not to reveal the extent of the losses to shareholders. Paulson stated to Cuomo's office that he was directed by Bernanke to threaten Lewis in this manner. Congressional hearings into these allegations were conducted on June 25, 2009, with Bernanke testifying that he did not bully Ken Lewis. Under intense questioning by members of Congress, Bernanke said, "I never said anything about firing the board and the management ." In further testimony, Bernanke said the Fed did nothing illegal or unethical in its efforts to convince Bank of America not to end the merger. Lewis told the panel that authorities expressed "strong views" but said he would not characterize their stance as improper.

AIG bailout
According to a January 26, 2010, column in The Huffington Post, a whistleblower has disclosed documents providing "'troubling details' of Bernanke's role in the AIG bailout". Republican Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky said on CNBC that he had seen documents which show Bernanke overruled recommendations from his staff in bailing out AIG. The columnist says this raises questions as to whether or not the decision to bail out AIG was necessary. Senators from both parties who support Bernanke say his actions averted worse problems and outweigh whatever responsibility he may have for the financial crisis.


As you can see, these guys are still Wall Street insiders whether you like it or not. Whether they have worked at one of the firms is immaterial because they have worked for Wall Street in their government jobs

[JamesA1102]

157. Having certain opinions doesn't make one a Wall street insider

That is just thought police stuff. None has ever worked for a wall street firm and that is a fact.

[blackspade]

160. No, But policy actions do.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then, well...you get the picture.
These guys are Wall Street insiders as far as their policy views are concerned.

PS. I never said that they were employed by Wall Street, just that They were WS insiders (hacks) so you can move on from that.

[JamesA1102]

163. That's is just spin

And if their policies have been so good for Wall Street, why did Wall Street oppose the financial reform bill?

[blackspade]

170. Talk about spin!

You continue to change the subject.
We are discussing the Administration not Congress.

I think this would be a good time for us to let this go.
There is no convincing you about the legitimacy of progressive criticism of the Administration and there is no convincing me that Wall Street does not control the Administrations economic policy.

[JamesA1102]

187. So in other words you have a closed mind

and no facts are going to change it.

[blackspade]

199. As do you.

Moving on....

[JamesA1102]

202. My mind is open to facts not talking points

I guess for you it is the other way around.

[blackspade]

208. You must be getting dizzy from your own spin.

You can view it any way you want, but your 'facts' are nothing more than talking points to me.
You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine on this.
We can leave it at that.

[JamesA1102]

221. No but getting dizzy from yours nt

[blackspade]

227. No spin here.

I stated my opinion based on the facts. You stated yours. We don't agree. Move on.

[JamesA1102]

228. Could have fooled me. nt

[blackspade]

231. Just can't accept that we don't agree and move on can you?

[JamesA1102]

232. You're the one not moving on dude! nt

[blackspade]

234. Says the guy that keeps responding!

:popcorn:

[JamesA1102]

237. Then why do you keep responding

I'm not the one that keeps saying move on, yet you refuse to follow your own advice. There is a word for that. I can't remember it but I think that it starts with an H.

[blackspade]

241. So you are having to reley on insults now.

It amuses me to see how desparate you are to get in the last word.

:popcorn:

[JamesA1102]

242. LOL a classic case of projection!!!

[blackspade]

244. Says captain irony....

Keep it coming!

:popcorn:

[JamesA1102]

245. Whatever you say Major Hypocrite!

[blackspade]

246. You should really stop talking about yourself like that.

:popcorn:

[JamesA1102]

247. Wow now you're getting childish

What's your next response, I'm rubber and you're glue?

[blackspade]

248. Yawn.

Now your getting boring.
Good night sweet prince, I hope you have a good turkey day!

[JamesA1102]

258. Night and have a good thanksgiving. NT

[Dr.Phool]

176. Spin? You're suffering from terminal vertigo.

Wall street is opposed to anything that doesn't give them carte blanche to steal anything they can get their hands on. If you closed the bar early, they'd oppose it.

You forget, or rather ignore Summers and Rubin's role in repealing Glass Steagal. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, Making sure that derivatives and CDS's went unregulated.

They may not hold a "Cabinet" position. But in many ways they're more powerful than a Cabinet Secretary. The Treasury Dept. is loaded up with GS alumni. It's called regulatory capture. When people from inside the industry are tasked with "regulating" it.

[JamesA1102]

195. Glass Steagal??? How about talking about something that happened this century nt

[54anickel]

201. Yes, because 1999 was sooooo long ago, and the repeal of Glass Steagal is so immaterial to your

version of reality.

[JamesA1102]

203. Yes it is a long time ago

over 10 years in fact. That was two administrations ago.

[54anickel]

206. And the repeal of Glass-Steagal?....Go on, please....

[ChiciB1]

84. BS, I'm STILL Here... He Left! Told Us To Make Him Do It! He Just

NOT LISTENING, or if he is... he's IGNORING us!

Sorry, I wanted him to SHOW the world that we here in America had what it took to elect the FIRST BLACK President, to lead and make real a DIFFERENCE! To me, he's "business as usual" even IF he took office with the LOAD OF CRAP he was given.

He doesn't seem to understand "something" or is just missing the point all together!

:crazy: :cry:

JMHO!

[JamesA1102]

118. You may still be here

But most have been absent for almost two years and were absent on election day.

[RainDog]

95. bullshit

the left was ignored by congress when they won in 2006 - they refused to look into the abuses of power of the Bush administration. when Obama won in 2008, he gave speeches (I was at one of them) in which he promised to honor the Constitution - a "dog whistle" to the left that he was not going to continue the policies of the Bush administration regarding things like FISA and other abuses of power...

then he immediately started pandering to the right wing - with McClurkin...

and when people on this site have said something about these things - they've been told they're trying to undermine the democrats.

so, wtf - when the freaking teaparty or the republicans get elected THEY DO THINGS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THEM WANT.

When Democrats get elected - they do things the corporatocracy and the right wing democrats want.

And when people complain about this to their pols, they are ignored. Or told their ideas of f-ing retarted, etc.

So why in hell should ANYONE think it matters if they vote for someone expecting REAL change - change that is, btw, NECESSARY to survive into the next century - even if it pisses off the oil cos or the insurance cos or some bastard in Texas?

People on the left gave democrats some space to work, we thought - but you say that was going home. Yet, when people do things - it's also wrong because it doesn't support democrats.

The problem is that there is NO boldness in the Democrats. They're so afraid of some asshole like Beck or Rush calling them a socialist that they govern to the right of Eisenhower.

After the 2008 election, the Democrats could have accomplished things by treating the Republicans the way Democrats were treated during the 8 years of Bush - because this is the reality of our nation now - we do not and will not have bipartisanship.

If you want to get anything done, you have to steamroll over the right wing fuckers - that's what they did before and will do now.

And that's why so many people don't think govt. will respond to their vote, or why they don't want to spend time or money on politics at the level of the party - because it seems like a con game.

But people ARE doing things - just not necessarily as part of the Democratic party because people don't believe they represent their interests anymore.

[laughingliberal]

98. Spot on!

It's like a bad joke. If we start protesting, it's 'you have to give him time.' More and more right wing crap gets passed and there's an outcry to which they then respond, 'well, why haven't YOU formed a movement?'

:rofl:

[BetsysGhost]

124. 130

Obama has learned he doesn't have to take any real stand on issues.

He has learned he can climb upward in politics without a real commitment to ideals.

One Hundred Thirty times he voted 'present'.

[polichick]

108. That's crap - we expected a place at the table...

Instead, Obama filled the places with industry lobbyists and Republicans.

[JamesA1102]

120. That's just a lie. Sorry. nt

[polichick]

123. Were there any single payer advocates at the healthcare table? NO...

...and that's just one example. You're deluding yourself.

[JamesA1102]

133. Was Single payer even mentioned in the 2008 campaign? NO

not by anyone, not even Edwards or Kucinich. So you're just setting the bar to a level that has no basis in reality in order to attack. That's no delusion.

[polichick]

135. Wow, you have consumed a boatload of kool aid! nt

[JamesA1102]

141. What have I said that is factually incorrect?

Please tell me.

[polichick]

142. I already have - and so has Taibbi. You're deaf to truth. Good luck! nt

[JamesA1102]

145. No you haven't

Was single payer ever presented as a plan by any candidate in the 2008 election or in any election in the last 20 years?

[polichick]

147. It's odd that you would think a candidate had to mention it in order for liberals...

...to present it at the table - that's some top-down Democracy you crave!

[JamesA1102]

156. OK then where were the masses of people protesting for it.

I haven't seen any.

[polichick]

164. Hundreds of thousands of voters emailed and called the WH and their reps...

But keep shoveling out those talking points.

[JamesA1102]

165. Can you prove that? nt

[polichick]

167. Can you prove they didn't? Go worship your top-down corporate leader...

I've wasted enough time with you.

[paulk]

169. +1

[JamesA1102]

189. You want me to prove a negative???

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

[mbperrin]

175. Well, here's a link to 17 different polls by all sorts of organizations

that show the general public overwhelmingly supports single payer.

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

That must be some bubble there in NYC, eh?

[JamesA1102]

190. Not exactly true

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/michael-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/

[mbperrin]

222. Hmm? What does what you posted have to do with the 17 different

polls I posted?

How old are you? About a junior level high school debater?

Hint:
Make a claim.
Show need for claim.
Show evidence for that need.
Propose a plan to implement claim.
Show advantages to plan.
Then, take counter-claims, and show their reasoning is faulty and/or not supported by evidence, USING ANALYSIS.

Since you are obviously just here to make a problem, have a nice day, and I sure hope you get everything you deserve in life.

Bye.

[JamesA1102]

229. Wow! You cut right to the namecalling when you can't

dispute what I posted.

[mbperrin]

173. You must have overlooked this bill by Kucinich and Conyers for the

111th Congress.

http://healthcare.kucinich.us/petition/nhi_bill_final1.pdf

It's a bill, not just an outline or an idea.

No, don't thank me for pointing it out; I'm a born teacher, and that's just my job.

[JamesA1102]

191. And just how far did that bill go in Congress? nt

[mbperrin]

223. Your requirement was to find anybody in politics who supported single payer. Here it is.

The mere fact that Congress did nothing shows that they are bought and paid for by the insurance lobbies.

You did notice that the one thing that did pass is the requirement that you yourself get health insurance by 2014 or face fines, right?

Now, since you obviously are not interested in having a conversation, as evidenced by your rejection of all evidence and facts, and ignoring when people answer your own requirements, then please take yours and have a nice forever.

Here's sincerely hoping that you get absolutely everything you deserve, and quickly!

[JamesA1102]

230. No that wasn't what I said

But nice try putting words in my mouth. How intellectually dishonest is that?

[StarsInHerHair]

255. thank you for saying it better than I did

nt:crazy: :wtf:

[mbperrin]

262. Thank YOU for the work you're doing here, StarsInHerHair.

And you were absolutely right, repeal of Glass-Steagall was the key to the whole economic mess.

[Dr.Phool]

179. Kucinich campaigned on Single Payer.

He helped write HR 676.

Factually incorrect enough for you?

[JamesA1102]

192. He may have supported it but

he didn't campaign on it. Plus Kucinich wasn't a major candidate in the primaries.

[Dr.Phool]

235. Listen R2D2

I know Kucinich personally. And I was with him several times on the campaign trail.

Take my word for it. He campaigned on it. He didn't just support it. He and John Conyers wrote it.

And what do you consider a major candidate? Only the ones the media pays attention to. The ones that raise the most cash from Wall Street?

Was Chris Dodd a "Major Candidate? I never met a dumber box of rocks in my life. Joe Biden? World Class Bullshit Artist. Obama? He was the Annointed One, and had the attitude to show it. John Edwards? Believed his own bullshit.

How do I know. I spent days alone with all of them, one-on-one, away from the media.

Kucinich was the only one who was genuine and cared about the citizens.

[JamesA1102]

239. Hey Darth!

Dennis is sitting with me right now and he says that you're full of it. Conyers wrote the bill and Dennis was just one of 65 co-sponsers.

And I consider someone a major candidate who comes in first or second in a primary.

Dennis told me to tell you buh-bye.

[Dr.Phool]

178. Yeah, just look at all the single payer advocates he invited to meet with him.

But, I won't say you're lying. I will say you are willfully blind.

Have you ever been a guest at the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater?

[polichick]

181. LOL - I know that hotel reference. :)

[Dr.Phool]

188. I knew someone would get it!

[JamesA1102]

193. Why does he have to meet with single payer advocates.

You're begining to sound like the republicans crying that he didn't meet with them enough.

[Dr.Phool]

236. You're beginning to sound like Rain Man.

Time for Wapner! Must watch Wapner.

[JamesA1102]

238. Love how you resort to namecalling.

Usually those who have no facts do so.

[StarsInHerHair]

254. what will it take to tear off your filter?

answer the question about Glass Steagal.

[JamesA1102]

260. No filter and see above. nt

[flamingdem]

50. +100100

[Enthusiast]

63. Why work for someone that

appoints a Deficit Commission made up of anti-New Deal millionaire zealots.

[femrap]

94. Just wait until around the holidays....

when no one is paying attention, and Congress will pass some horrid laws decreasing SS and Medicare, etc.

We must stay alert...and look beyond TSA distractions. (Not that what the TSA is doing is OK...fucking sheeple...I'm not flying).

This Cat Food Commission scares the hell out of me...but maybe their actions will get people out in the street. I don't know. Alan Simpson is a sadistic, evil man.

[roguevalley]

129. actually, they are the activists who do stuff but being told we

can go suck it all the time by him and his surrogates makes you think twice. progressives DO DO shit and they are the wheels on the truck. its time for O and co. to fucking get it. Its like having your
old man tell you you're shit and expecting you to still come around.

[Bullet1987]

131. Building a real movement is easier said than done...

It probably would've been much easier 50+ years ago when you didn't have the MSM telling people what to think. Thank God the Civil Rights Movement happened when it did or we may have never got Civil Rights legislation with the way this country operates now. People also weren't so hypnotized by fashion trends and celebrity culture...people actually cared about the kind of country they lived in back then (that includes both citizens and politicians). Then you have these weird FBI raids on activists' homes. It's a mess and there has been a federal structure put into place to limit the effect of real movements not funded by right-wing billionaires.

[Mimosa]

41. That's what I thought.

And I was proved a sucker.

[JamesA1102]

49. So how do you know that you're not being a sucker now? nt

[hulka38]

226. People like yourself are arguing the other side. n/t

[JamesA1102]

233. Lame! nt

[hulka38]

240. When you suggest that the act of repealing of Glass-Steagall

became irrelevant or its catastrophic consequences diminished because it happened eleven years ago then you have a gigantic hole in your understanding of the near meltdown. You also seem to want to minimize the role played by Summers who with his mentor Rubin, enabled the massive fraud by the Wall Street banks that led to the crisis we're still in. Your defense of the Summers appointment by Obama as his most senior advisor on the economy is that the foundation for the collapse was laid out in 1999? Now that's lame.

[JamesA1102]

243. I never suggested anything.

That's dishonestly putting words in my mouth. Just has demonizing Summers at a Wall street insider is dishonest and unfair. Did Summer make a bad judgement call in 1999? Yes. But he is not the font of evil that people are protraying him to be.

I find it interesting that after years of complaining about Bush's you're either with us or against us mentality that so many here are acting the same way if you don't demonize someone like Summers and tow the ideological line parroting dishonest talking points about Healthcare, Financial reform, etc.

[Enthusiast]

62. Exactly

But it was one sided.

[AnneD]

143. SO true...

I voted for change and all I got was....change.

[Big Blue Marble]

29. Could you please scope out how we do this?

How do we actually build a real movement? That is what we thought we were doing a few years ago, as I remember.
We have learned that we were only supporting the entrenched status quo. Where exactly do we go in this environment?
Is that not the point of this book, that we are trapped and perceived movement only is illusion?

[nashville_brook]

40. still waiting for the last "real change" movement to take hold.

[molly77]

69. Matt Taiibi is THE journalist in America today.

He is so way out front of everybody else.

The Tea Party is party backed. Notice MSM gives them more coverage than their numbers deserve? Supposed to be grass roots fascism but got out of hand. Splitting the republican party. HAHAHAHA

[Raster]

21. Correction: A fake movement that now has 40 fake members in FAKE Congress.

There may be two political parties in Congress, but they feed from the same trough and by the same hand.

[ProSense]

22. Tell that to Taibbi, he's the one who called them fake. n/t

[Raster]

23. And he is right. There is no substance, no validity. The purposes and master they serve is clouded.

And this is just as true for the Congress also. I don't need to tell Matt Taibbi anything. He seems to have a very good handle on things.

[ProSense]

26. Claiming to be right without a plan doesn't do much good.

People have been claiming that they're right for years. They did so for the last two years and through the elections, and are still claiming they're right. It's almost like mass denial. What good does it do to claim that you're right if the people you claim to oppose are winning?

[displacedvermoter]

36. Well you are right all the time

and where has that got us?

[ProSense]

39. You think I'm right all the time?

I'm not right all the time. I have opinions. And what does whether I'm right or wrong have to do with a plan to advance the progressive movement?

[jtuck004]

56. Just because they are "winning" doesn't make them right.

And just because Taibbi doesn't have a plan doesn't mean his descriptive writing is incorrect.

Someone pointing at a tsunami may not have the solution, but the wave is still going to do damage, and Goldman Sachs is an evil squid, even if he can't tell us how to master it.

[Speck Tater]

6. Supporting your favorite politician is like supporting your favorite football team.

It makes for an exciting pastime, but ultimately it's utterly meaningless no matter what the outcome.

We are all peons. We have no voice. We have no power. Just sit down, shut up and get over it.

[polichick]

8. I get the feeling that a lot of us who have worked many years and many campaigns...

...are looking for another way to bring real change.

[Raster]

44. Ladies and Gentlemen: Start Your Guillotines!

Truely, the Tree of Liberty must be frequently watered with the blood of tyrants.

[HughBeaumont]

65. Well, until someone "fires up" those guillotines, corporate suppression is never going to end.

Movements take money and time and security. The wealthy have it all, and they're mostly arch-Republican. We have nothing but a voice that will not be publicized on their channels. The rich have absolutely no reason whatsoever to fear us because no one will ever harm them in any way, physically or financially. Part of the reason for that is because just under half of this country actually believes in the whole "punishing success" bullshit (including many politicians from both sides of the fence) and thinks they're going to "be that guy" someday.

[StarsInHerHair]

256. we may have more than we realize & money is just paper that

gets exchanged for physical goods and services. We have cell phones, texting. It must have been very difficult to start the Underground Railroad, same for the foundation of this country. The Right has their ways of doing things, the Left has options.

The very biggest hurdle is getting everyone to pull in the same direction.

[grasswire]

11. what's next? Common Security Clubs

It's a movement.

What to do?

First, we talk about collapse honestly no matter what the reaction is from others.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/a-resilient-community/in-the-face-of-this-truth

Next, we join a Common Security Club. No, it's not an armed militia.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/common-security-clubs/common-security-clubs

[polichick]

12. Thanks for those links - very interesting! nt

[ProSense]

17. So the only way to build a movement is

preparing for the collapse?

[mikehiggins]

61. alternatives?

cutting free from denial seems a pretty sensible thing to do in this situation.

the only problem is that it is very lonely without the comfort of our illusions.

do YOU think things are going to get better or are you just hoping for a pony?

[Javaman]

72. You said it best....

"the only problem is that it is very lonely without the comfort of our illusions."

Everyone is dancing around the issue but few are at pains to actually say what needs to be said. And that is: the Democratic party has been artfully dismantled. And done in such a way that many people, who have been Dems their who life, still maintain this childish notion that it's the same party of FDR.

We the progressives have all suddenly become iconoclasts, not because we have risen above a corrupt system, not because we feel we know better, but because we stubbornly stick to the primary goals of liberalism, and as such, find ourselves in a position where, we haven't left the party, the party left us long ago.

There are many here in DU that still naively believe that there is still a snow balls chance in hell that everything will be just fine and dandy if we just "get out the vote" and vote straight Democratic ticket. That somehow supporting a party that pays us lip service will magically make the them pay attention to us.

The average Dem is currently having a very hard time decoupling their own long held beliefs as to what the Democratic party stands for and from what the Democratic party has become.

It's the equivalent of telling a child that Santa doesn't exist. And telling that child at such a young age where that belief is still very strong. Their mind will have a very hard time wrapping itself around the notion that old saint nick is just a fabrication foisted upon he or she by people whom that child trusted. Why would adults lie to them?

This same mind game is continually reinforced. Right wing Dems and some moderates still push the various talking points that sold well years ago, but sadly, have no relevance to their actual actions today. Many a congress person love to speak on and on about supporting unions, or raising the minimum wage, etc, but have they actually voted for such a thing? Have they actually stood up and be counted? We know the answers to those two basic questions. Sadly the very few that did stand up, just got voted out. What does that tell you?

Many life long Dems continue to believe the unreal. That the Democratic Party, at least on paper, still fights for the working man. But if one were to take the actual temperature of the Democratic Party as a whole, one would clearly see that it has moved clearly to the right and has forsaken, for the most part, workers and their rights. Yet, like many on the right who maintain that the republicans are fiscally responsible, the Dems still maintain that the Democratic party still helps the little guy.

Many enjoy living in denial. Many find it advantageous to support this new Democratic Party. Many are completely appalled, such as myself.

Yet we progressives are looked upon by many in our own party as being too extreme. Isn't it a very sad day that we progressives who stick closest to the original core principles of the Democratic party are now considered the fringe?

The nation is plunging head long into right wing extremism and while we sound the warning bell, the rest of the Dems yell us to shut up.

It's funny in that, I'd rather laugh than cry, sort of way.

[disillusioned73]

87. You should post this as an op.. FANTASTIC.

I've thought about this myself, and have realized that my ability to look at things with a somewhat different perspective than some "lifelong" Dems has been attributed to the fact that I am a late comer to this politics following "game".

I have little ties and/or time invested in comparison to some, and the sports analogy I've seen posted speaks to the entrenched mentality in regards to protecting the party... I have only a window into a past party/platform that I wish would resurface, and it's post like yours that give me some HOPE @ this point.

[laughingliberal]

106. +1,000,000 nt

[niceypoo]

125. "The nation is plunging head long into right wing extremism and while we sound the warning bell.."

... the rest of the Dems yell us to shut up"

Ya think?

[polichick]

127. Good post - some sad truths there! nt

[laughingliberal]

99. Yes, that's one element. Those who don't survive the collapse won't be around to form any...

movements.

[StarsInHerHair]

257. the Human body is an amazing organic machine

look at Somalia-will that be the U.S.? What about Iraq-will that be U.S.? Both nations had their infrastructure destroyed outright, that's not happening here.

I'm hoping we'll fall not much further than when the sun finally "set" on the British Empire.

forgot to say-you'd be VERY surprised how long the body can survive, starving, eating boiled weeds, drinking gutter water.............

[laughingliberal]

96. Great links. There are several of us starting to explore options for banding together for survival

in groups that can both support each other economically and begin to organize more people into movements from the left.

[golfguru]

25. Barack Obama

"What we get, in other words, are moderates who don't question the corporate consensus dressed up as revolutionary leaders"

Yes, his HCR bill is a huge gift to private for profit health insurers.

[Lorien]

38. Those "moderates" (hardcore corporate right wingers) insist that WE don't question our

faux revolutionary leaders. It's past time that we stand up to them, the DLC, and every corporate foot soldier on the Right. If we can't reform the Democratic party (and it doesn't look like we can) then it's time for third parties.

[JohnnyBoots]

27. What's next you ask? Hopefully Torches and pitchforks. It is way

passed time to storm the Bastille.

[polichick]

28. Yep, at least metaphorically speaking. What's clear is that it's not going...

...to come through either party - or, I should say, the one giant corporate party.

[JohnnyBoots]

31. I am sure, however long down the road it is, that Blackwater will be

defending the coporate elite from enraged Americans. A modern day Praetorian Guard. Let's this modern version also turns on Caeser

[polichick]

34. Scary that I don't find that beyond the imagination. nt

[AspenRose]

35. "The world is a ghetto"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKKMdmPBWRk

[polichick]

37. Thanks for that blast from the past! Some things never change. nt

[JamesA1102]

46. Taibbi is a verbal bomb thrower

who plays fast and loose with the facts. He has very little credibility.

[awoke_in_2003]

51. except for a few years ago...

when he went after Bush- then he was dead on (just like Stewart and Olberman USED to be).

[midnight armadillo]

66. Prove it

By all means, take apart one of his Rolling Stone articles fact-by-fact and show where he's lying so much to have "very little credibility."

You think Taibbi is harsh? Try reading Chris Floyd.

[JamesA1102]

78. Here you go!

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?base_name=oh_matt_taibbi&month=12&year=2009

[blackspade]

77. Citations please.

Specific ones.
Otherwise you are just being a bomb thrower yourself.

[JamesA1102]

79. No problem

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?base_name=oh_matt_taibbi&month=12&year=2009

[blackspade]

85. Sadly...

While his criticism of some of the finer details of Taibbi's piece from 2009 are accurate he does little to actually undermine the central premise of the article.

Unfortunately Fernholz's rosier predictions of the financial reform act have not played out that way. It is business as usual on Wall Street, ripping off Main Street for the benefit of the 1 percenters.

[JamesA1102]

116. Finer details???

No. Taibbi got stuff factually wrong, either through incompetence or on purpose because they didn't fit with the narrative he was constructing. Either way it puts his credibility into question.

[blackspade]

150. Everyone gets facts wrong on occasion.

Matt is no exception.
But, the 'errors' in his article do not undermine the central premise of it.

[JamesA1102]

155. A good reporter doesn't. nt

[blackspade]

161. All reporters do

Good or bad. That is true of all authors in fact.

To say otherwise is simply not true.

[JamesA1102]

162. So your excuse is that everyone does it.

So if all the other reporters jumped off a bridge should Taibbi jump off one too?

[blackspade]

172. Of course not.

That is not what I said anyway.
My statement was that every author makes mistakes.
In this case though, you are using a critique of a Taibbi piece from a year ago to pillory him for a piece this year.
The article from last year, while some of the detail may be wrong, it does not impact the overall validity of the piece.
In any case we are talking about the OP not the old article.
Lets stay on topic, shall we?

[JamesA1102]

186. It speaks to his credibility

if he has been shown to distort facts to feed into a narrative he is selling, why should I trust him to be truthful this time.

[Dr.Phool]

182. You got something besides links?

I'm tired of going on a goose chase for you and ProSense following links that usually disprove your point anyway.

Post it, or fuck it.

[JamesA1102]

205. Sorry

If you don't like clicking on our links, then move along.

[liberation]

90. Yeah, because there is nothing more credible than ad hominem arguments...

... funny how you so-called "moderates" project with the best of republicans. Heck, your sense of entitlement is similar too.

[laughingliberal]

101. Also funny is how many of the moderates who are defending this move to the right will be going down.

with us. Only difference will be they aren't expecting it.

Many think they're OK and have provided for relative comfort for their future. They have no idea how far up the scale this screwing is moving. It's all over but the crying for the middle class and the nearly rich are next.

[JamesA1102]

130. I'll leave ad hominem attacks to you

I'll stick with facts.

[polichick]

110. LOL - keep telling yourself that! nt

[JamesA1102]

132. I always tell myself the truth

Too bad Taibbi doesn't.

[polichick]

139. I'll stick with Taibbi on this one! nt

[JamesA1102]

144. And you accuse me of drinking kool-aid

when it has been proven that Taibbi gets facts wrong: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?base_name=oh_matt_taibbi&month=12&year=2009

[Dr.Phool]

185. Fort Harrison Hotel truth?

[grasswire]

126. That's EXACTLY the verbiage used against Michael Moore

EXACTLY what was exposed on MSNBC last night.

"Fast and loose with the truth."

"Very little credibility."

Someone paying you to do this?

[JamesA1102]

146. And sometimes it is true of Michael Moore

he does play fast and loose with the truth at times.

[grasswire]

148. ducking the question?

I suggest you watch the replay of Olbermann of Monday night. The one where the insurance executive tells of the conspiracy to ruin Michael Moore.

[JamesA1102]

159. I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy to ruin Moore

but that doesn't change that he plays fast and loose with the facts at times.

[grasswire]

171. okay, you stated it twice. Now you can substantiate your claim.

Begin.

[polichick]

174. Here's a timely little tidbit...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=528272&mesg_id=528272

[JamesA1102]

183. Easy

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/01/michael-moore-movie-factcheck/

[grasswire]

200. seriously, can you do better than this?

You have chosen as your *evidence* a page that begins with this:

Michael Moore is . . . is a movie mogul who claims he doesn’t own a share of stock and a propagandist whose movies comfort the afflicted — and afflict the comfortable. His new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, blames unbridled greed for many of the nation’s problems.

Moore's previous movies often leave audiences wondering what's true and what's not. So we'll be checking claims from Moore and his movie over the next week or two.

The site then proceeds to "examine" Moore's alleged claims in the movie. They come up with two they consider false:

• Growing youth support for socialism? In the film, Moore suggests that the Joe the Plumber episode, which led to criticism that Barack Obama would pursue socialism, actually increased support for socialism among young people by Election Day. We rated that False.

Here's the level of nitpickery Politifact uses to call this claim false:


In his just-released documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story , Moore recites an episode from the 2008 campaign that prompted critics to say Obama was a socialist. But Moore then cites poll statistics to show that socialism is surprisingly popular with American young people.

"By Election Day, the Rasmussen poll reported that only 37 percent of young adults now favor capitalism over socialism," Moore says in the film.

He added in footnotes to the movie on MichaelMoore.com that "despite fear-mongering about the word, particularly around the time of the 2008 presidential election, young people are increasingly interested in socialism."

The footnotes say the Rasmussen Reports poll found that "adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37 percent prefer capitalism, 33 percent socialism, and 30 percent are undecided."

We located the poll in question. It was taken in April 2009 using automated telephone calls. It had 1,000 adult respondents and a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

But the Rasmussen poll was taken five months after the election. So in the movie, Moore incorrectly describes the timing. At the point the poll was taken, Obama had been in office for nearly three months and the nation was in the depths of a recession.

We should point out that over the years, critics have faulted Rasmussen for using machines rather than human interviewers, although it and other "robo-call" pollsters have won some acceptance. But more importantly, Rasmussen made no effort to make sure the people taking part in the survey understood the difference between capitalism and socialism. Rasmussen asked, "Which is a better system, capitalism or socialism?" The survey did not define either term.

Among survey participants of all ages, 53 percent preferred capitalism, 20 percent preferred socialism and 27 percent said they were unsure. But for adults under 30, the group Moore was talking about, the results broke down as 37 percent for capitalism, 33 percent for socialism and 30 percent undecided.

So Moore reported those results accurately. Let's look closely, though, at how Moore phrased his assertion. He said on his Web site that young people "are increasingly interested in socialism." That means their attitudes had to have changed to some degree over time. And we can't find evidence of that. And in the movie, he incorrectly pegged it to the November 2008 election.

The polling firm's president, Scott Rasmussen, told PolitiFact that he has only asked that question once. So there's no way to compare his April poll question against other Rasmussen questions taken at different times.

As for data by other pollsters, we contacted Karlyn Bowman, a veteran polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. She said that as soon as the Rasmussen question about socialism came out in April and began attracting media attention, she asked an intern to trawl through her polling databases to locate similar questions over the years. The intern found about a dozen items that addressed the question of socialism or free markets, but most of them aren't especially comparable to Rasmussen's question.

For starters, the questions' wording is all over the map — a problem because pollsters warn that questions asked with different wordings can elicit different answers. One asked whether respondents agreed with the statement, "The United States would be better off if it moved toward socialism," while another asked whether they agreed with the statement, "Most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor."

More importantly, though, Bowman could find only a few polls for which the response data was broken down by age. She said that age breakdowns are not typically included in the public versions of polls.

Still, we'll report the two other polls with age breakdowns that we or Bowman were able to locate.

One was a January 2009 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. It asked, "Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing for the United States to move away from capitalism and more toward socialism?" Among respondents of all ages, 23 percent said it was a good thing, 65 percent said it was a bad thing and 12 percent didn't know. But among the under-30 crowd, 31 percent said it was a good thing, 54 percent said it was a bad thing and 15 percent didn't know.

That's more favorable to socialism than the all-age sample as a whole, but the poll doesn't exactly show that under-30s are "evenly divided," as they were in the Rasmussen poll. So this result undercuts Moore's claim that socialism is running strong among America's young people.

Not convinced by a poll sponsored by Fox News, which liberals accuse of having a conservative bias? Then try one from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which has a reputation for being nonideological.

The Pew center took a poll in March 2009 that asked, "Generally, do you think people are better off in a free-market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time, or don't you think so?" Among all respondents, 70 percent agreed that people were better off in a free-market economy, while 20 percent disagreed and 10 percent said they didn't know.

Among respondents under 30, the numbers weren't much different: 69 percent agreed that people were better off in a free-market economy and 26 percent disagreed, with 6 percent saying they didn't know. So, these responses also undercut Moore's notion that younger Americans are looking fondly at socialism.

Scott Rasmussen has a theory. He suggested that support for capitalism as it is currently practiced is weakening, even as support for the theory of free markets remains strong.

He cites an April Rasmussen survey that asked whether respondents favored a free-market economy or a government-managed economy. Overall, 77 percent of respondents favored a free-market economy, while just 11 percent favored a government-managed economy. For those under 30, free markets led, 79 percent to 8 percent.

These results simultaneously bolster and undercut the claim in Capitalism: A Love Story . On the plus side for Moore, Rasmussen suggested in an interview that "the word 'capitalism' had taken on a lot of baggage partly because it was seen through the lens of taxpayer bailouts" and other scandals and collapses on Wall Street. These developments are a primary target of Moore's movie.

“It’s hard for people to embrace a system that lets big business keep profits in good times and then asks for taxpayer bailouts when times are tough," Rasmussen wrote in a news release announcing the poll results.

On the other hand, the fact that Rasmussen found Americans under 30 supporting a free-market economy over a government-managed economy by nearly 10-to-1 undermines Moore's notion that young people are warm to socialism.

After we inquired about it, Moore's camp acknowledged to PolitiFact that the "increasingly" reference on the Web site was wrong.

"It looks like the problem here is with the fact-check section of the our Web site," said Jonathan Schwarz, a spokesman for Moore. "Now, I’m completely sure that the attitudes of young adults toward economic matters ARE different than those of young adults during (say) the Reagan administration or the late '90s, but the movie doesn’t make that specific claim." He said that the Web reference will be changed.

But while that item may be corrected on the Web site, the statement in the movie still says that "by Election Day," socialism was more popular with young people than it used to be. There does not appear to be much, if any, poll data to support that. So Moore has not convincingly shown that young people are reacting to the U.S. economic system by moving toward socialism. We rate Moore's statement False.


Public support for a single-payer system . In recent interviews, Moore has repeatedly cited public opinion polls to show support for policies he supports. We checked a claim he made at a Washington news conference that majority of Americans support single payer and rated it False.

Here's a link to the nitpickery for that: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/michael-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/

So.........do you have better examples? Clear cut? Put up.

[JamesA1102]

204. I'm a big Jack Nicholson fan

And one of my favorite Jack Nicholson films is 'A Few Good Men'. In that film he has a really memorable line. I can't remember it right now but I think it applies here.

[pansypoo53219]

53. you also need to check out kevin philips-american theocracy

2006, part 1 + 3 NEEED TO BE READ. greenspan big part of the problem.

[jtuck004]

59. "What's next for political activists?" The only thing you can do is

try to put people in a position where they can educate themselves, and hope the result is what you want.

That is what the tbaggers are doing - but as Taibbi says, they are railing against 1950's problems - race, etc, not building toward a future. And their work is based on a lot of false knowledge, without understanding that their goals are futile because they really don't understand the world around them.

Our banks are insolvent - they only have their doors open because the FASB said to keep assets at a mythical value. Many states and cities are virtually bankrupt, only operating because of federal loans. Pension funds are slowly but surely going under with no source of funding for their liabilities. We are, at a minimum, 15 years away from seeing 5% unemployment again, and if the growth in home health care aide, retail, and other low-wage jobs continues to be the predominant jobs created, this country is going to fold like an accordian.

I think we are going to see a massive collapse, and what is on the other side is unknowable right now. But I don't think it is going to be a pleasant educational experience. We are in too deep a hole, and the sacrifices that would be required are simply too heavy a burden for people who have lived through the past 40 years or so to bear. They are just way too soft.

It is possible that some new energy breakthrough, or bio-science breakthrough will occur to save us, but I think we have let greed-based capitalism have its head, and infiltrate too many brains, for us to overcome its appetite for destruction.

[carincross]

60. Read Chris Hedges

Chris Hedges - former head of the New York Times Middle East Bureau - has been writing about this very topic for months. He is even more pessimistic than Matt. His current column at truthdig.org says that with the death of "liberalism" it is impossible to effect any real change. It's entitled "Power and Tiny Acts of Rebellion".

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/power_and_the_tiny_acts_of_rebellion_20101122/

His latest book is "Death of the Liberal Class".

[polichick]

114. Great article - thanks! Wish I could argue, but I agree...

Also ordered the sample of "Death of the Liberal Class" for my Kindle - thanks again!

[kaffy4x4]

64. have we learned nothing

from "Sicko" and the industry attacks on MM movie? Why are we concentrating on the politician, when we are all well aware of the real influence in Washington are the corporate and their lobbyist?

[blackspade]

86. We concentrate on the Politician

because they are the ones supposedly elected by us.
We have no control over the lobbyist or their corporate masters but our politicians do if they care to exert that control.
That is why concentrating on them is just as important as broadcasting the truth of that is actually happening to our system of government.

[pattmarty]

67. I think we are fucked. We blew it. At this point I believe we are in...........

.....the first stage of fascism. We still have somewhat "free" elections, albeit from ONLY two candidates forced upon us by two almost identical parties. I think that the majority of people in the country from now on will become worse and worse off. My wife and I are "toying" with becoming expats. When do you decide to leave before it's too late?

[proReality]

68. You must decide before...

you're too old to leave the roots you've put down.

[pattmarty]

70. It was a rhetorical question. I am now 64 and my wife is 59. I have.......

........taken EARLY SS and have a modest Teamster pension and my wife is on SS disability w/Medicare. As far as the "roots", the only roots I have with this country at this point are my and my wifes kids. Most of the rest of the crap I can easily leave behind. I grew up during probably the best time for working class people in the US and am quite fucking disgusted at what we have become. We went from being respected and for the most part a "good" country, to the fascist pariah of the globe in what, 60 yrs?

[donco6]

220. We're looking at it, too.

I'll be able to retire in two years. Hope things hold together that long. We don't have much holding us here.

[valerief]

74. Free elections? With electronic voting? Not anymore. nt

[polichick]

136. Where do you go? I don't know of a country that is accepting Americans...

...without birthright circumstances. My parents have talked about it.

[pattmarty]

153. We haven't seriously started looking YET, but we were thinking if........

.........the political situation gets worse here we may get outta Dodge. We were thinking someplace "reasonable" in price and with a stable political system, Spain, Portugal maybe Ireland. Read my above post to see our financial status and ages.

[polichick]

166. I heard someone on Sirius Left say he's planning a move to Thailand...

Because of a treaty with the U.S., American citizens can own businesses without 60% ownership by a Thai citizen - supposedly, that's unusual.

Still don't know how one goes about it though - I keep reading that other countries have such strict immigration rules.

[pattmarty]

177. If we decide, if, I would like to move to a EU country as I think most.......

.........are politically stable. I have also heard if you are a citizen of a EU country you can travel freely through the zone. We're older and don't at the moment speak a second language either. Like I said we are just "toying" with it at this time, but if the politics changes for the worse here, who knows. We would live on our savings (not a lot), both SS, and my modest pension. Wasn't thinking of starting any business so that wouldn't make a difference to me. At this point with our ages we'll probably stay here, but with a lot of crazies out there that possibly could get power, that is what scares me. Think Germany 1933, Chile, Argentina etc.

[grasswire]

212. Ireland? Have you read what's going on in Ireland?

And isn't Portugal in terrible economic trouble too?

[pattmarty]

213. In my particular situation, I don't think their economic diffuculties.........

........would affect us. It may even help me as housing and other "goods" may become cheaper. Like I said, I'm "toying" with it if things here got decidedly worse politically.

[grasswire]

214. I would worry about internal unrest.

I get it about the cheaper goods, etc.

[pattmarty]

217. Well, in Spain, Greece, France, UK etc you have "unrest" now with.........

.............the "austerity" measures. We should be so lucky. My idea of "internal unrest" or instability in the government would be Dominican Republic, SOME SA countries, the (whole) Middle East etc. Some "unrest" is good for democracy. I do get your point though, especially at my age I wouldn't want to step into the middle of a revolution.

[pleah]

71. K&R

[Goldstein1984]

80. Taibbi is correct, and he's been correct and condemned for it

anytime he criticized President Obama.

Nobody was counter-protesting the Tea Party because protesting stupid is stupid.

The system is beyond the point where it can be fixed by using the system. And I'm not entirely sure that America is not collectively too stupid and too pacified with fear and false hope to be fixed.

I have to laugh at the idea of a meaningful resistance movement coming from progressives or liberals. Every time I mention any meaningful action that would actually make an impact, all I get is hand-wringing about how many people would get hurt. People don't get that the system has been rigged so that our perceived self-interest prevents us from aggressively pursuing our true self interest, which is a revolt against the status quo by any means necessary.

Talk of violence is forbidden. Talk of general boycotts and general strikes is met with concern about how it would hurt the little people too. War hurts, and this is class war, but the workers seem to prefer playing the victim to meaningfully confronting the enemy.

Enjoy peasantification.

The rich aren't Americans, they're locusts, and they'll be moving along once they've taken the last "hubcap."

[laughingliberal]

102. +1000 nt

[54anickel]

219. Love your last line! ...n/t

[myrna minx]

81. K&R n/t

[alturn]

91. We limit our possibilites and our leaders then reflect that view back to us

Now is like the polar opposite of the sixties. Instead of questioning authority, investigating alternatives and engaging in open debate of ideas, we look to find hide behind slogans and comfortable isms. In front of infinity we cower in whatever small place we can make ourselves believe we are comfortable. And because we expect less, we constantly get less.

So the greatest progressive force for change in the world today - the World Teacher Maitreya, head of this world's Spiritual Hierarchy and the representative of Love - stays by Law hidden in London since 1977. Someday when our timidity pushes us to the edge of the abyss maybe we will demand that such a great light as Maitreya be allowed to speak for the poor and the disenfranchised. Yet it could instead be today if enough with open eyes would simply look.

[cottonseed]

97. Taibbi is pretty cool, but "we"? It's not like this guy's Ghandi or something.

He's bringing in enough cash to put him well into the top 1% range....

[laughingliberal]

103. "He's bringing in enough cash to put him well into the top 1% range...."

Beats the hell out of the ones at the top who prefer we don't know the truth. We have always needed some who made it into the upper income levels to stand with us-the ones with a conscience.

After all, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were not working class but they did a fair job of saving us from the vultures.

[polichick]

121. Not all wealthy people are the enemy - remember the Kennedys and others...

...who really did/do care about the country as a whole.

[JVS]

211. $250,000/ year is top 1.5%

You really think he's making well above that?

[ecstatic]

100. Nice one. Is it turning ghetto because of the black president?

:shrug: Keep it up guys!

[laughingliberal]

104. Oh, BS. We've been heading towards ghetto status since Reagan. nt

[ecstatic]

105. Right. But it's funny that in the past 30 years, we're only now

hearing this type of language used--repeatedly.

[laughingliberal]

109. Some of us have been saying it for many years. Funny how some are just now hearing it.

Yes, the closer we get to collapse, the more people who are hit, the more you will hear about it.

Or is your position that we need to STFU and starve in silent desperation because the rhetoric is offensive to those still living in relative comfort?

[Mimosa]

113. I used to say -even 25 years ago- that we're headed towards serfdom

The 'elected representatives' are but vassals working for the corporate interests.

[polichick]

117. That's just silly. nt

[bread_and_roses]

209. no, it's spot on

you can believe what they say or believe what they do. I believe what they do - and what they do is serve the rich and corporations.

[pattmarty]

216. Nice try. Look up the word "ghetto" in the fucking dictionary, ace.........

........Trying to paint people you disagree with racist, much? I'm "ecstatic" that you ain't too bright.

[bvar22]

115. What next?

Eventually, the Working Class & The Poor will realize that we have more in common with each other than we have in common with the leadership of BOTH major political Parties.
When THAT happens, real "CHANGE" will follow.

Look South for the Blueprint for REAL "change".
The Populist Reforms sweeping across South/Central America are nothing short of near Bloodless Revolutions.
They have shown us the way.

Viva Democracy!!!
I pray we get some here.

[polichick]

119. Crazy as it sounds, liberals and teabaggers have some things in common...

It's just that teabaggers are so easily manipulated by Bible thumping and flag waving.

Interesting point to look South!

[laughingliberal]

140. Yes. Look south. That is where people were decimated by the policies we now see here...

and woke up to what was needed. I would hope we don't have to endure the years of misery those people have before we wake up but it's not looking good at this point.

[Autumn]

168. What do I think? I think I adore Matt Taibbi,

he always lays it out. K/R

[polichick]

184. I'm really glad he's out there! Just read the sample of his "Great Derangement" too...

Looking forward to reading the whole thing.

[jefferson_dem]

198. Taibbi wields a wicked pen...

While his perspective is overly naiive and too "tribalist" for my taste...I love his scribesmanship.

[quaker bill]

263. +1 for fine craftsmanship

-1 for poor designs.

He attributes far too much intent to all of this. No intent is needed anymore, this all happened 30 years ago. Once Reagan opened the floodgates with free trade, tax cuts for the wealthy, and union bashing, the glide slope to oblivion was set and it has been only a matter of time since. Clinton shallowed the slope a bit for a time, but the downward direction was unchanged.

Barack is doing what he can within the current arrangement, but all he can do without an abrupt course change is soften the landing a bit. The public has bought into the Willie Loman dream sufficiently that an abrupt change of course is not politically tenable.

Take the time to learn to grow your own food.