Obama should do nothing...

[Drunken Irishman]

Case in point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026599956

Had Obama not announced this at all, no one would have ever thought to bitch about it. There wouldn't have been a thread deriding him on not providing more reading opportunities to lower-income children and the issue would have never warranted even the most mildest of disdain.

Had he done absolutely nothing, no one on DU would have cared.

He does something and we care. It's not good enough. He should do this, or that, or this and that.

But what he's doing is not good...even though, ultimately, it's infinitely better than nothing.

It's the same with healthcare. Had Obama never pursued healthcare reform, maybe we would have had some 'what if' gripes, but on the whole, the issue wouldn't have been entirely too divisive. We don't consider Carter a failed president because he couldn't get healthcare reformed - same with JFK or FDR. Sure, there was Medicare, but even that was a monster compromise that, if it happened today (only a limited amount of people qualified, specifically elderly), we'd probably shoot that down, too. But the reality is that if Obama had not gone hard for healthcare reform, and today we're living under the same system where the uninsured is growing, more and more people lack sufficient healthcare due to pre-existing conditions, and states aren't expanding their Medicaid programs to help service the poor, the cries would probably be far less than what we've experienced over the last few years toward Obamacare - namely it's not good enough.

Yet even the harshest of critics would concede it's better than nothing - it's better than what we had.

Isn't that funny how it works? Doing nothing ultimately is the easiest route because it's also the route of least resistance. Had Kennedy never said anything about going to the moon, no one would have second-guessed anything he did. The status quo, in and of itself, is easier, far easier, than even marginal change because that marginal change, no matter how much could have been accomplished, is still never good enough once the ball gets rolling.

Obama should have pushed for universal healthcare - he should have been a bigger advocate for the public option. But because he wasn't, he failed - he failed you, he failed liberalism, he failed any hope of true, meaningful reform.

But he didn't. He got reform. It works. It's not perfect - but it works. Just as Medicare worked, even though it wasn't a universal system for every single citizen. Social Security, too, works, even though it's not a guaranteed wage for everyone.

And we know it works compared to what the alternative of doing nothing would have been.

It's just an interesting paradox. You do something, and the backlash to doing something is probably greater if you hadn't done anything to begin with. In the end, though, what is done helps - even if, in some instances, only marginally.

But on the whole ... it helps significantly, especially compared to nothing.

[merrily]

1. Well, Obama should do nothing if he does it only to get praise.

I think he's over that. I like this a lot and I like his proposal of free community college a lot.

Free trade school would not be too bad either. Neither would free tutors in public schools. I did that for my best friend in high school. We were in the same algebra and geometry class, but somehow what the teacher said was not sinking in with her. Somehow, I was able to say it in a way she understood and she felt comfortable asking me questions she did not feel comfortable asking in class. It could make the difference between falling behind and dropping out or succeeding.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. It's not about getting praise - it's about complaining for the sake of complaining.

Obama does something but because he doesn't go far enough it's not good enough. It's not about praise but realizing that progress is progress regardless of how far you go. All I hear about is how Obama doesn't do enough and when he does something, it's still not enough - and yet, the things he does do, had he not done any of it, wouldn't even be an issue because no one would have mentioned or it thought of it. How many people, last week, even thought about Obama offering free books to low-income students? I doubt anyone. But now that he's done it, instead of admitting it's a step in the right direction, it's now a bad thing.

That constant complaining, finding a wrong in every good thing, is maddening.

[merrily]

3. I knew what you meant. I was going off your "Obama should do nothing."

Of course, he should, whether people complain or not.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Ah. I agree. I was just using hyperbolic language haha

[joshcryer]

6. "That constant complaining, finding a wrong in every good thing, is maddening. "

So damn fucking true.

[merrily]

7. You can't do a thing about the complaining, only about how you react to it.

If you let it madden you, that is on you.

[joshcryer]

10. It gets to you eventually.

Any normal person exposed to constant negativity is going to eventually react that way.

I admit my failings and express regret when it happens. I hate myself for it when it does happen.

If you aren't "maddened" by anything, ever, you are likely an emotionless sociopath.

[merrily]

13. Only if you let it. The complaining is on the complainers. The reaction to the complaining is on you

No one can control your reaction but you.

Anger is only one emotion, so it's not correct to say that never being maddened means you are emotionless.That said, Saint Teresa probably got very mad on occasion. Still, it's good, and empowering, to remember that you control your reaction.

[joshcryer]

15. Re-read post #10.

Sociopaths are real. They gloss over what other people say, they say the complete opposite, and dismiss anything that they deem inadequate. Particularly where they claim that people can control their emotions. Feelings by definition cannot be controlled.

[merrily]

21. Don't need to. I understood it the first time. I don't think you understood my post.

I never said sociopaths were not real or anything close to that. I said anger was not the only emotion.

I never said people don't get angry. To the contrary, the point of my reference to St. Teresa was to say everyone gets angry.

Maybe you cannot control the first knee jerk "flooding over you" of an emotion. But, you most certainly can manage your emotions.

You can choose not to stew over something by moving on to another, more productive activity. You can choose to get yourself into another emotional mood. For example, counting my blessings and focusing on how grateful I am for them will almost always get rid of my sadness. But, sure, I have to feel the sadness initially, or I would not start deliberately counting and focusing my blessings to get rid of the sadness. People forgive and love the killers of the loved ones, though I am sure the knee jerk is often vengefulness.

I've done it and seen it too often to say it cannot be done. But, hey, if you'd rather hang on to anger, I won't try to stop you. I just assumed you might not want to.

[joshcryer]

5. Something is always better than nothing.

It's all about what that "something" is. In this case people want to see trees cut down, as far as I can tell.

[TM99]

8. Does it really help?

I responded in that thread that I have mixed feelings.

I am consistent in my criticisms of Obama. And this is what they center around. He presented himself as a populist, a liberal, and a supporter of the people. No I was not starry eyed about his marketing campaign. Hell I did not even vote for him in 2008 (neither did I vote for McCain!)

But he has consistently governed as a Reagan Democrat. His entire cabinet is full of bankers and corporate CEO's. The ACA is not health care, it is health insurance. How long now will it take us to actually get a true European style single payer universal health care in this country after that?

Arne Duncan, his education Secretary, seems more interested in courting the private sector and pleasing them than the actual teachers in the American system of education.

The TPP is a smack in the face towards labor and American workers but an absolute boon for corporations.

So yeah, I am critical of a plan that involves Apple, one of the worst American corporations for tax evasion. They get another tax write off while still holding all of their profits overseas. How many of the publishers are getting these same kinds of potential write offs.

In my case, and speaking for myself only personally, there have been plenty of times that I wish Obama had simply done nothing. There are others, sadly fewer, where I am glad he did. After evolving on 'gay rights', I was pleased to finally see him step up and challenge marriage inequality in this country. A few social issues not withstanding, that has not been enough for me.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. Yes.

Do you think the ACA helps? You can compare it to universal healthcare and find all the faults in the world with it - but that isn't a valid comparison because there is no evidence universal healthcare was ever a viable option. It's like comparing a job that pays $50,000 to one that pays $500,000 - sure, a $500,000 job would be great ... but that doesn't make having a $50,000 job bad does it?

It certainly would beat not having a job at all.

The problem is that it does help. The ACA is helping millions of Americans. It might not be the most ideal situation but compared to what we've had, yeah, it is - and it's the first major step in insuring Americans, even if it's through a for-profit system. Moreover, it also provides many Americans with insurance that IS government-run - specifically through state expansion of medicaid.

My point stands: To some, it's all or nothing. But politics has never been all or nothing. FDR had to scale back huge chunks of his New Deal program because A) it wasn't viable and B) it wasn't constitutional. He had to limit what Social Security could cover, failing to offer a true living wage, and he certainly didn't reform healthcare. That doesn't make him a bad president. The fact Social Security didn't cover EVERY American back when it was established doesn't make it bad policy - especially when it's compared to what we had before.

Social Security STILL doesn't cover everyone and it's still limited in its scope. My mom is on Social Security and she can't live on it - but that's not FDR's fault and we don't consider it a failure because it doesn't provide everyone the income needed to survive completely. We could - but again, do we fault FDR for not establishing something from the onslaught that helps everyone? Do we fault LBJ for not expanding Medicare for all? Of course not...

[joshcryer]

14. My mom is literally in the bottom 1% with Social Security.

As are hundreds of thousands if not millions of widowed women who never worked, raised kids, and their husbands died before reaching 65. She would not even be able survive were it not for help from her sons.

[TM99]

19. I just don't agree.

You are basically saying that if someone asks for dark chocolate they should be happy that they got white chocolate because hey at least it is chocolate. And everyone knows that they are not even close.

Yay, more are covered under insurance, AND there are still huge gaps, income issues for many, and Medicaid is not a guarantee in all states. That is a major failure of the ACA and allowed by Obama who pushed it through. That states can opt out means it is not universal nor a help to all.

I don't accept half measures. Sometimes it really is ok to say, no if I can't have what is really good for me or for us, then no I don't want a watered down substitute that may or may not be as beneficial. You disagree. So be it.

[Adrahil]

23. That is a strategy for complete failure.

"I want everything or nothing" is a child's tactic and is simply not a viable tactic in government as closely divided as ours.

And frankly, what do you say to the tens of thousands, even millions, who can afford to see a doctor for the first time in a long time... Maybe ever? "Sorry, you shouldn't be able to do that because it's not good enough"?

Absolutely preposterous and irresponsible.

Politics is the art of the possible, not a game of "let's pretend."

[TM99]

25. Actually, quite the opposite.

Mature adults should have boundaries, know themselves and their needs, and be able to state confidently that something is or is not acceptable for them.

Politics is the art of the possible, not a game of "let's pretend."

Ah that tired Bismarkian canard.

How about a pointed rebuttal of its fallacious claims and actual reality?

http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=938

[Adrahil]

31. Well you keep trying that...

But i noticed you didnt mention the very real people who have benefited from the ACA. There are peoples' lives who have been saved by the ACA.

But I guess that's "not good enough."

I think your strategy is a fantasy. A harmful fantasy.

[TM99]

39. That's your prerogative.

[KittyWampus]

46. As it is your prerogative to be an ideologue. Politics involves an opposition.

In the USA, the Left faces an overwhelmingly well funded opposition that also controls mass media.

So while an ideal path from point A to point B is a straight line… the Left has to tack into the wind and make progress in increments.

And occasionally the wind does shift in our favor.

[TM99]

51. I am fascinated always by the projection.

I am find with agreeing to disagree with many in this thread. But the true ideologues just keep pushing and pushing that they are the right ones.

Even if that is the reality, one can and often will find a way to follow that straight line. Men like Johnson had very little problem doing it. Reagan as well. Hell even Bill Clinton stood up to the Gingrinch revolution and said fine, let's shut this shit down.

Is it possible that you and others may be confusing weakness and extreme compromise with incremental change? History has and will always favor the bold.

[Hoyt]

35. I think the Supreme Court blocked countrywide Medicaid expansion, but let's blame Obama.

[TM99]

40. An astute politician

and perhaps one with much more legislative experience would have attempted to foresee some very obvious challenges to the ACA given it is his a major part of his political legacy.

For an nth dimensional chess player, his forward thinking strategic moves have been rather weak.

[Hoyt]

64. Never good enough for some folks.

[TM99]

66. You are emotionally defending

a politician.

[Hoyt]

67. No. I'm saying Obama will never be good enough for some people.

No matter what he did, it would never be good enough.

[TM99]

68. That is still about emotional defense.

In my case, I own it.

I did not vote for him in 2008. I did so in 2012. I have been disappointed in his politics, his policies, his cabinet positions, and yes, for me, I find much more negative than positive in how he has governed.

You feel otherwise therefore you are emotionally defending him in order to not face the uncomfortable truth that not all feel is you do.

If it makes you feel any better, I have felt this way about all but one President that I voted for in my lifetime. Only President Carter for me came out in the positives outweighed the negative.

[joshcryer]

12. Did you watch or read Obama's 2012 nomination speech?

I know we have agreed in another forum and I fear you may malign me for saying this, but Obama has been pretty consistent with the things within his power. I think because he had Congress for less than a few months (filibuster override) he was really limited in what he could do. But what he could do, he did.

He put his focus on the ACA, and I don't fault him for that. I fault the Democrats who killed the public option, and I fault those who think he didn't try. The votes just weren't there, and it freaking sucks.

Future presidential candidates need to make it super clear that they need congress to enact anything they're discussing beyond a federal level action. It's just dishonest to run a campaign calling for random crap if they don't acknowledge they must have congress behind them.

[TM99]

16. I did.

I won't malign you.

When he did have Congress, he didn't use it to his advantage. When faced with opposition by a GOP Congress, he compromises. Now when faced by Democratic opposition to a policy (the TPP), he comes out swinging. He is consistent. I just don't think that consistency has been what we needed after Bush.

He was also a part of the killing of the public option. There is plenty of blame to go all around there.

I agree with your last statement, but Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 got a lot of what they wanted without constantly 'needing' Congress. I honestly believe Obama simply does not want to govern and has not governed as an FDR style Democrat. He is a neo-liberal which is far more like an old school moderate Republican. He likes corporations, privitization, the war on terror, and the surveillance state. I don't think he fought or pushed for things with Congress cause he did not want those things himself, despite what he said during his two campaigns.

History will tell for sure even if we are both too close living in it to know for sure.

[joshcryer]

18. I've always said he should've dropped a "legislative bomb."

And, yes, controversially, disbanded Congress (if neither the Senate or House can agree on something the President has the sole power to dismiss Congress, yes, that is real, and it's never happened).

But I didn't see Obama as someone who would do that and I don't fault him for failing to do it. Hell, if he did, he probably would've been impeached.

[TM99]

20. I would have had a great deal more respect

for the man if he had been impeached for such a bold and decisive act.

I knew from the start that he is not that type of man.

I do fault him to a point when he has said such things as 'hold my feet to the fire' and 'I will put on my soft shoes and march with them' and in reality, he doesn't like his own party challenging him on the policy and he has truly abandoned the working class with such monstrosities as the TPP.

[BumRushDaShow]

22. "Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 got a lot of what they wanted"

because of their white faces.

There has been a big problem in the U.S. since its founding and until it is dealt with, the comparisons cannot apply.

And as a FYI - "FDR" made sure that black soldiers would be be "put in their place" separate from white soldiers in WWII, "separate but equal" would remain the law of the land, and innocent Japanese families would be interned in concentration camps. THAT is who FDR (a wealthy white 1%er) was, and not some fantasy version that DU has concocted.

[TM99]

24. I am bi-racial so you can let up

on the lecturing about 'whiteness'.

Wanting to have an FDR economic reality with modern civil rights is the best of both worlds. Why can't people see that. The past is not always all bad. Neither is the present and history will show future Americans that truth about today.

The only ones living in a fantasy world are those that obsess endless about the injustices of the past to the point that they spite themselves in the here and now.

Terrific, I got to see a black president in my life time. On the one hand, that was quite wonderful given my family history of slavery. On the other hand, he wasn't the right man for the job, with the right policies, or the right vision for our future in my personal opinion.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. What you "are" is a non sequitur

and it doesn't negate the facts about these so-called "Democratic" Presidents who negatively impacted a number of demographic groups in this country for generations. And it is odd that DUers continue to worship them like some demigods while marginalizing and dismissing their dark sides. Yet with the current President, the reverse is true. I.e., when you have a Kennedy who failed to halt the Hoover surveillance machine, why is this ignored when invoking his name?

The "injustices of the past" continue today and it's ironic, given what you see happening around this nation today, that the problem is being summarily dismissed. What many fail to see is that the "best of both worlds" will not happen until everyone is treated the same. And right now, that is not the case, whether the person is the poorest of the poor living under a bridge or is the current President of the U.S.

"Seeing" a black President "in your lifetime" is irrelevant. It is how that President is "seen" by those he must work with, notably in terms of getting liberal policies enacted. And to ignore and blame their skewed vision of someone who they consider "other", on the vicitim, is ludicrous.

[TM99]

37. If my racial identity is now irrelevant

then your entire argument falls on its face, you get that right?

I do not 'worship' anyone. I recognize the good and the bad realistically.

Please continue ignoring that which was good about the Democratic party and its past Presidents in this century and see where the party ends up tomorrow.

The irony for me is that my family was not Democratic but rather Republican. And long before the Southern Strategy and the switcheroo that occurred, the Democratic party was solidly on the wrong side of history with regards to racial equality. I know FDR's flaws as well as many others when it comes to race. I also know their strengths when they placed in motion such things as the New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, etc. etc.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. Nope

It's like saying "I have black friends" so I "get it". To dismiss reality is not "getting" anything.

And the argument you just presented exactly proves my point about looking at the "good" of past Democratic Presidents (all of whom were white). Yet when it comes to the current President, it seems many DUers find no "good" at all! The man is the devil incarnate. It's that scotoma showing, no matter what race/ethnicity/cultural group you define yourself as. Playing up the "good" of the past while dismissing the "bad", yet playing up the "bad" of the current, and dismissing the "good", is quite a remarkable hypocritical turn of an argument.

[TM99]

48. Yup!

This man who is President may be a smart man, a kind man, even a good man. But that does not mean that from my political viewpoint that he has been or is the best possible President that America needed or needs right now.

I have had eight years to judge him wanting when it comes to us the people. He has sided time and time again with corporations, the military, and wealthy special interest groups. He had to 'evolve' on the 'gay issue'. He only now towards the end of his tenure in office is attempting to address something like gender equity in the workplace while at the same time pushing through the TPP which will destroy even further our economic and employment base. Sure, it will be terrific for Apple and Daimler Chrysler but not the workers.

I find very little that is good about his economic policies, his surveillance state policies, his neo-con foreign policy, his global trade policies, his education policies, etc. He has been milquetoast on social policies even. Sorry that hurts so many people's feelings. He is the President. He isn't my friend.

And when I do agree with him on some things, ironically people inform me here that he is wrong, like when he called rioters thugs!

Such games!

[BumRushDaShow]

54. "a smart man, a kind man, even a good man"

Like the Biden quote -

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Exactly proves my point. We certainly have a long way to go in this country. Rest my case.

[TM99]

57. Your case is faulty from the start.

Obama has a JD from Harvard Law. He is a very smart man.

He does not revel in the deaths of others like both HRC and Bush II did with regards to 'terrorists'. I would say that makes him a decent and kind man.

I trust that he believes in what he is doing even if I strongly disagree with his policies, again that makes him even a good man. He obviously loves his family. Again the hallmarks of a good man.

But if you are calling me a racist because I don't like his political philosophy and his governance then you are way the fuck out of line.

[BumRushDaShow]

61. I have no problem with people disagreeing with this policies

I disagree with what is happening with TPP, and Congress' (not "the President's&quot policies about surveillance and the NSA - since its existence came about by a law enacted by - surprise surprise Harry Truman (who manages to get a "break" here... wonder why), and other things. But to dismiss his embrace of "social issue" changes that have begun to correct the things that continue to negatively impact whole swaths of the Democratic electorate, is disingenuous at best.

Where is the criticism of Harry Truman given that the oft-cited NSA came into being under his administration?

[Bluenorthwest]

62. You put quote marks around gay rights, Obama advanced 'gay rights' you said, dismissing the worth

of such advances. The thing is, people who see the rights of others as lacking merit are not progressive people. To make effort to snark at civil rights still in process of being won by the most organized and effective branch of progressive politics in our times is to snark at progressive politics, not just the 'gay rights'.

[TM99]

69. You so misunderstand my posts,

but I am not surprised given what I observe.

I did not have to evolve on gay rights. Sanders has not had to evolve on gay rights. You rightly criticize Elizabeth Warren because we do not know, as she has never stated, if she evolved on gay rights as a Republican.

I put it in quotes because for some politicians, it has been a way to garner votes and they have had to 'evolve'. We both know that it was a huge smack in the face to LGBT people and their supporters to have Rick Warren give Obama's prayer during his first inauguration. Hilary came out for gay rights as well years after the fact.

I don't dismiss advances. I dismiss politicians that say one thing and do another or have done another. Am I glad he finally came around? Hell yes, it was about time he caught up with the rest of us.

I never had to evolve. I grew up with a lesbian aunt, a gay godfather, and my mother's best friend at their campus was gay. I fought other Republicans during the Reagan years to deal with the reality of AIDS for all of us on my small college campus working with other gay and straight people in agreement. My sister came out to me first as a teen because she knew that I simply loved her and couldn't give two shits who someone loves or has sex with.

My parents were involved deeply in the civil rights movements of the 1960's. I was raised with that awareness of differences in religion, creed, color, sex, orientation, whatever as being irrelevant to who we are as human beings. Everyone deserves civil rights and justice. Everyone!

You are so used to looking for enemies, and yet, Blue, I am not your enemy. Please stop pretending that I am somehow am. I am not.

[Cha]

49. Exactly BRDS.

[woo me with science]

29. Excellent post. "He has consistently governed as a Reagan Democrat."

Yes, he has. And in this particular case, it's important to point out that his overall education policies are predatory toward public schools. Giving out some ebooks to poor children does not change that.

The duty of politicians is to represent the interests of Americans, and the duty of citizens is to hold them accountable for doing that in a systematic, meaningful way. To suggest that a minor PR gesture like this should give a politician cover for an overarching predatory, corporate education agenda is an insult to voters and a deliberate perversion of the purpose of political discourse, of the vitally important role citizens play in holding politicians accountable.

[Cha]

34. I call bullshit on your "reagun democrat" label.. it's just a nasty cheap ignorant pot shot. It

shows you are consistently complaining but you have no clue what about.

[TM99]

38. Call away but you are wrong.

I actually have his own damned words besides his policies to back up my 'cheap ignorant pot shot'.

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

2008 interview

Here is another excellent summation of Obama's political philosophy. He is far more of a Reaganite than a New Dealer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-samuels/is-obama-a-reagan-democra_b_644763.html

[Cha]

45. No, you're wrong.. all you have is a clueless label. You haven't been paying attention.

[TM99]

53. I backed up my 'clueless label' with facts

and quotes.

Seems like I am paying attention quite well.

It sure doesn't seem like you don't have anything to back up yours?

[Cha]

55. No, you didn't.. keep digging.

[TM99]

58. I see you have nothing then.

So you take care now.

[BumRushDaShow]

63. Here, have a lookie

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/21/bill-clinton/obama-not-a-reagan-democrat/

Steve Falcone, opinion editor for the Reno Gazette-Journal, who led the interview, said he didn't give the comment much thought until it blew up with Bill Clinton's retort.

"I was surprised by the way it got spun," Falcone said.

"To me, it was in the context of the need for change and leadership," he said. "It was an example that a lot of people can appreciate, that Reagan created a coalition because he had ideas. I didn't think at the time that he was aligning himself with any Republican ideas. It never occurred to me listening to it that he (Obama) was agreeing with the politics of Ronald Reagan."

[Octafish]

59. Where are your facts?

Obama has sided with Wall Street to the point where not even the banksters who tossed millions out of their homes illegally are walking free, including one sitting in his Cabinet.

An Interview with Tim Anderson on Obama's Commerce Nominee, Penny Pritzker, the Sub-Prime Queen

The Privilege of the Pritzkers

by DENNIS BERNSTEIN
CounterPunch, May 3-5, 2013

EXCERPT...

TA: $38 billion. One publication listed eight casinos, another listed 13, with each license worth a half a million dollars. There is another $5-7 billion in casinos. When you own 13 casinos for 5-7 billion, you are a player in the casino business. That’s just the hotels and casinos. There are many other companies they own such as the second largest chewing tobacco company, which they sold for 3.5 billion dollars. They actually owned the second and third largest chewing tobacco company, but have since off-loaded those for billions of dollars. Many of their assets are not what society considers clean assets, but hey don’t care. As far as money goes, they want it. When it comes to casinos or chewing tobacco companies, they don’t care. Their wealth is almost incalculable, because according to Forbes magazine, they are the only family in America to have off shore tax-free trusts because they were grandfathered in. Their off shore trust can ship money back to their family tax-free. It was grandfathered in because their grandfather got it through Congress – he was smart to see the future and got it done. Congress closed the loophole and grandfathered him in. Forbesmagazine wrote about the Pritzker’s off shore trust, they emphasized that there are over 1000 separate trusts. Many families have two or three different savings accounts to keep track of what money belongs to who, but when you have over 1000 different trusts to handle the family estate it’s very hard to comprehend how much wealth there is and how many businesses they control. A few years ago, Penny sold TransUnion, the largest credit reporting agency in America, but there’s a question about whether she sold it to herself by selling it to various hedge funds which her family has a large interest in. Until she sold it, you could say that Penny Pritzker had more files on every citizen in America than the CIA and FBI combined, because everybody has a credit score and credit report. Penny Pritzker had the credit scores and report on every single citizen in America.

SNIP...

TA: She had TransUnion while she had Superior Bank, so she controlled the credit scores of everybody who was getting a subprime loan. You pay a higher interest on your subprime loan based on your credit score. Whether or not it was ever brokered between the credit bureau and the bank, we don’t know, but we know the same people control both entities.

SNIP...

TA: Superior Bank was acquired back in 1989 as part of the original savings and loan giveaway by M, D and E Wall. As I wrote a in a paper for an economic conference in Denver, Superior Bank was sold to the Pritzkers for 42.5 million dollars. They changed the name from Lion Savings and Loan to Superior Bank after they acquired it. Lion Savings and Loan was sold to the Pritzkers just to put up money for the capital. But as government reports show, they only put up a million dollars cash and pledged their assets as the difference, the capital. That’s not supposed to be done, but they are privileged people so they get privileged deals. After they acquired this for $1 million they also got $640 million in tax credits.

SNIP...

TA: The tax credits were designed so they could use it in any entity they wanted. They didn’t have to use it on what they bought. It could be sold on the open market for value, the credits could be used to file back taxes or warehouse them for future taxes. So for a million dollars, they got 640 million dollars for agreeing to take over Superior Bank, which they then looted for years then gave it back to the government with an enormous loss to the uninsured depositors and the whole subprime industry.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/03/the-privilege-of-the-pritzkers/

PS: I don't have anything against rich people, per se. I'd just like to see the offices and powers of the government go toward helping somebody other than the rich. For a change.

[BumRushDaShow]

52. Where in this oft-cited interview quote

does Obama claim to be a "Reagan Democrat"?

He says - "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America" - meaning that what occurred with Reagan was in essence, "revolutionary" ("revolutionary" = "fast change" versus "evolutionary" = "slow change&quot in terms of upending a particular status quo. His goal was to use the same strategy - but to upend what Reagan put in place, and swing things back towards the left. With the difference being the attempt to engage the populace to make their own "change" and stop relying on the one at the top to do it for them... versus the Republican way of speaking "dictatorially" to their supporters and their supporters blindly obeying.

It's ironic that many DUers only hear "Reagan" but miss all the "anti-Reagan" exhortations.

[TM99]

56. Read the linked to article.

Your interpretation is just that. It is confirmation bias.

[BumRushDaShow]

60. The article has been around along time

Is an opinion piece, and has been discussed at length. And the bias is yours I'm afraid. If you look at the President's legislative record as a state Senator in IL, it paints a different picture. I'm sure Reagan was a great "community organizer" worthy of ridicule.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

[woo me with science]

11. More manipulative Third Way talking points.

Last edited Fri May 1, 2015, 07:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Again, this Third Way tactic of trying to reframe the rules of political debate to encourage indignation at legitimate political criticism, as though politicians were sensitive guests at a social gathering rather than political representatives charged with defending the interests of millions of people.

It's all part of the deliberate corporate dumbing down of our democracy, this subtle retraining of Americans to see politics as social event rather than civic exercise. To train them not to expect very much in the way of actual RESULTS from elections that have been perverted from important civic events into corporate entertainment divorced from policy. So what if Obama's education policies overall are predatory toward our public schools? You should withhold criticism and be nice, because he is giving some ebooks to poor people! This lowering of expectations is necessary in an oligarchy, where politicians have no real intention of working on behalf of the people in any substantive, meaningful way.

Instead, we are lectured to treat politicians as guests at a social gathering, where, if you can't say anything nice, you shouldn't say anything at all. And we are given the constant, insulting, cynical message, like a drumbeat, that politicians have the right to be offended if we make the critically important observation that small PR gestures like this cannot serve as cover for a larger, predatory corporate policy agenda...like Obama's and Arne Duncan's corporate education policies that hollow out our public schools and turn them into profit farms for oligarchs.

[randome]

41. While you attempt to reframe every topic on which you disagree as 'Third Way'.

It's disingenuous and unbecoming of a forum that should be bringing people together, not seeking to divide us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

Are you bored?

[liberal N proud]

17. How long has Congress done nothing and how do we feel about that?

Doing nothing is still doing something - like letting the situation deteriorate.

[freshwest]

26. Welcome to DU3!

How To Make Homemade Popcorn


No, not a skillet. Work with me, okay?

In a Heavy-bottom pot, heat 1/4" oil, 2 kernels of popcorn and cover. Heat on medium until the 2 kernels pop.

Add popcorn - about 1/3". Cover and shake occasionally until the lid starts to rise.

Turn off heat and enjoy great popcorn every time!

Or just use the microware version. We don't time to waste, we're outraged at Obama! I mean how dare he? How DARE he? Why is he still in the White House?

[BumRushDaShow]

30. "In a Heavy-bottom pot"

Even with the availability of the "new-fangled" Jiffy Pop foil pan, the "heavy-bottom (dutch oven in our case with Crisco) pot", was how we always made popcorn. In fact, the pot sits in my kitchen cabinet today.

[Cha]

33. Adorable pic, fresh.. me I use my awesome air popper..

Perfect every time!

[djean111]

27. Obama applied for the job. The job is very difficult. A lot of money was spent, a lot of effort -

just so he could get the job. Some people are acting as if just getting the job was the important part.
All presidents get criticized. If they, or their supporters, cannot accept that, maybe not the right job.

[Cha]

32. Yeah, the anonymous internet wouldn't have been jumping on to complain about what the

President wasn't doing on that thread. But, the inner city kids who will benefit from the educational opportunities that APPLE and the Gov are providing will have missed out.

So who really cares what they think when it comes to those who are in a position to help kids and are doing just that very thing?

There's millions of words whining about the President over the last 7 years.. some legitimate critique but mostly such cheap ignorant pot shots regurgitated from the profiteer blogs. Obama has been a one man economy booster.

[fadedrose]

36. And once something gets don

even if it's not perfect, people get the courage to reform and make it better, especially when it comes to health care and education.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. But if he does nothing and DU doesn't complain

You'll have to find a new schtick.

[Cha]

47. I'm sure DIrish would love not to have to read the constant whining about nothing.

I know I would.

[morningfog]

43. I don't think he should, or does, make any decision based on what

is posted on DU.

[Homer Wells]

50. K&R a whole bunch!!!!!

[KMOD]

65. I hope my thoughts didn't come across as complaining.

I'm for anything to help children read, and have access to reading.

I just have a preference for real books. I used to love bedtime with the kids. Snuggling up with a book, looking at the pictures and turning the pages.

I also prefer real books myself. It's a new generation though, and if kids today are reading from electronic devices, and that's the new preference, I think it's great.