Who's gonna pay? ...

Such a question:

Here's what this all comes down to, dogma or no dogma: who is going to pay for a) the Bush tax cuts b) the bank bailouts and c) the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? If you want to get there by making janitors and pipe-fitters wait until they're 69 to retire, raise your hand. If you want to get there by making Jamie Dimon rent out his 900-foot rooftop terrace in Chicago two nights a year, raise your hand. [via The Left Coaster]

Guess, as if it's not absolutely clear, who Obama wants to carry the load. The 'good' Christian that he is he even calls it a sacrifice. Yours, not his, of course.

Class warfare? Who says ...

From health care to education to mass transit to Social Security, if a government program helps those in need, Republicans oppose it. They will support tax cuts targeted for the wealthy, while opposing tax cuts targeted for those that aren't wealthy. The Republicans clearly have an overall ideology, and it is reflected throughout their agenda. Which isn't class warfare. But calling them on it is.

[Turkana at The Left Coaster]

Barack Obama and the very bizarre Alan Simpson ...

Of course the real question is why on earth did the administration pull this cadaverous joker out of his own cushy, federally funded retirement to head up the ill-conceived deficit commission in the first place? The only generous reason I can think of is that someone thought that he would sabotage it, but there's no evidence they want to do that. And in this era of batshit insane politics, counting on some right wing kook to discredit anything is a very risky thing to do --- even they must know that.

So you have to assume that Simpson's fulfilling his designated role. He will make a deal. All he asks is that the geezer parasites, current and future get it out of their heads once and for all that this society should provide some basic security for everyone.

Why did Obama appoint Simpson? Why does he forgive his stupidities and his prejudices?

Because Simpson is doing what Obama wants? Attempting, once again, to destroy Social Security. If you catch their drift they want to shush those who are already on SS up by convincing them that they will be left unscathed in the bloodletting. ---Just believe us. We aren't after you right now so keep quiet and you might be safe til you die, though we don't guarantee we won't help that along later.--- It's the way dictators divide the peons in order to keep different factions from joining forces.

Communism, fascism and democracy ...

Communism and fascism seem to me to have the same ultimate result: making sure workers are completely under the control of management. It seems to make little difference whether management is the government, the party or private industry. Effective slavery is the result.

The US has always had it's proponents for the complete control of workers. But with the T-Bags it's coming to the fore with draconian, or Dicksonian, ferver.

NY Tea Party Platform: Relocate Welfare Recipients to Prison Dorms

____________
ADDED:
The parallels between the T-Bags increasing attacks on all things muslim is too close to Hitler's sadistically incremental attacks on Jews in Germany for comfort.

The "mosque" debate is not a "distraction"

____________
ADDED II:
emptywheel writes:

Treasury’s attitude about HAMP is not just evidence they’ve lost all track of who they work for and where the benefits of the economy are supposed to be delivered, but it also suggests that these Treasury folks have lost the most basic notion of capitalism, that if businessmen never pay for bad decisions, they’ll continue to make bad decisions.

I beg to differ. Treasury, as does Obama himself, believe they work for the banksters and other powerful industries.

Elected officials still have to play the election game but money and the corporate controlled media are able to effect sufficient numbers of election campaigns. And when they fail, there's always the Supreme Court who can choose to appoint an embarrassment like Bush to reside in the WH.

Obama, it appears, gave acceptable assurances to the banksters (and others) before he was elected. To get the votes Obama aimed his promises at the fair minded, the liberals, the progressives, the unions, those interested in a responsive and fair government, those who were against these unending wars.

What did Obama do once he was elected? He appointed people who failed to recognize, or actually contributed to, the financial problems of the country. He continued most of Bush's disastrous war and torture policies. He took care to insult most of those who voted for him. His actions and policies appear taken in response to the desires the Robber Barons and the actions of the Crazies.

Today's quote is, uh, "Money is not real." ...

... Money is not real. It is a conscious agreement on measuring abstract value. Unhealthy societies often become mesmerized by money and treat it as if it were something concrete. The effect is to destroy the currency’s practical value.

-- from The Doubter's Companion via digby.

It's been apparent for awhile that our society is not healthy and that money is the only value that is valued by the self-defined valuable-people. All else is 'on the table.'

Whatever happens, they can blame the victims ...

... I'm not convinced that it isn't really a case of the financial elites seeing the opportunity to drastically cut --- excuse me "reform" --- the welfare state and going for it. Unfortunately, as we know, people and economies don't always heal properly when in terrible pain, so while they may cut out the hated safety net they could end up killing the patient.

One never knows but if the turmoil is extreme, perhaps a few Marie Antoinette's may also pay the price. When the 'shared' pain is deliberate, vindictive and disproportionate it just isn't surprising that visions of revenge can override sense. After all the victims will only need to look to the 'elites' for the pattern.

Obama, the Marshmallow Man ...

Clueless

Worth thinking about ...

Reagan may have proved that deficits don't matter politically, but Clinton proved that fixing deficits doesn't matter politically either. They impeached the man over unauthorized fellatio and then ran on tax cuts, stole the election and immediately put the country into debt all over again. The idea that Democrats will get some political benefit from a lot of sharp talk about deficits and "freezes" is a pipe dream. Obama will be hurt by the bad economy and benefit from its revival. But unlike Reagan, he's tied his own hands on policy leaving him little room to maneuver if the economy stays bad. And when (if) the economy rebounds he will not seen as someone who was courageous for "staying the course" and validating his own liberal beliefs --- he will be seen as having acquiesced to the conservative agenda, which will get all the credit. And conversely, liberalism will be discredited even though it did all the heavy lifting. Awesome.

... should, that is, the Obama team consider using their collective thinking apparatuses (something they seemed to know how to do during the campaign but put aside once elected).

Words and games ...

Shades of 1937? Obama to Announce Three-Year Spending Freeze in State of the Union

Wonder what Obama will actually say in his speech ...
---------------------

I tend to think that Greenwald is right in who Obama intends to betray:

The clear fact is that, no matter how severe are our budgetary constraints, military spending and all so-called "security-related programs" are off-limits for any freezes, let alone decreases. Moreover, the modest spending freeze to be announced by Obama tomorrow is just the start; the Washington consensus has solidified and is clearly gearing up for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, with the dirty work to be done by an independent "deficit commission." It's time for "everyone" to sacrifice and suffer some more -- as long as "everyone" excludes our vast military industry, the permanent power factions inside the Pentagon and intelligence community, our Surveillance and National Security State, and the imperial policies of perpetual war which feed them while further draining the lifeblood out of the country.

---------------------
Isn't Obama just so smart? And destructive?

The Obama Chill: In 2012 Obama Will Run Against Democratic Congress

And mind you, I spoke of Obama’s “perceived self-interest” above, because no matter how you look at it this policy simply makes no sense. Voters in 2010 are going to be voting on their pocketbook. Voters in 2012 are going to be voting on their pocketbook. They don’t really care about deficits. Rather, they care about a working economy. And this little PR stunt will only make it harder for Obama to do what he needs to do to get the economy working again.

Bush the Lesser strutted in cowboy boots, Obama blows smoke at us ...

Smoke and mirrors, but no legislation and no accountability.

Obama might as well hold his breath, stamp his feet, hammer his shoe on a table or strut across an aircraft carrier.

'Start lending,' Obama tells the bankers

Pretty please ...

The Obama Administration's approach to handling the real problems in this country almost makes Bush appealing (I said almost).

The following is a copy of a post from Hullabaloo (digby). She appears to take these critters at face value. I cannot take they seriously anymore (not that I don't take the consequences of their perfidy seriously). They're playing us and they think we are stupid.

------------------------------------

"We Were There For Them"

by digby

Understatement of the century:

When I asked top White House economic advisor Larry Summers if the President needs to encourage banks to do more lending, he told me that bankers “need to recognize that they've got obligations to the country after all that's been done for them, and there is a lot more they can do.”

Tomorrow, the President will meet with heads of the country’s biggest banks and Summers told me the White House has a blunt message: “President Obama is going to be talking with them about what they can do to support enhanced lending to customers across the country.

"We were there for them. And the banks need to do everything they can to be sure they're there for customers across this country.”

They sure were.

But I'm afraid that Summers is willfully misrepresenting his banker pals' moral philosophy which says that they are "fulfilling their obligations" by making huge profits and giving themselves enormous bonuses. They are the productive members of society who are supporting all of us parasites with their superior talents and stronger work ethic. "We have to tolerate the inequality" of giving bankers huge paychecks in order "to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” In fact, they are doing God's work. Profits, after all, are not satanic.

It's nice that the president is going to scold these people about not being greedy bastards, but I'm fairly sure that after everything that's already happened, the bankers will be trying hard to keep from smirking and the rest of the country will roll its collective eyes at the absurdity of appealing to their sense of gratitude and fair play. It's just a little bit late for anyone to take finger wagging seriously, I'm afraid.

------------------------------------

Come on, if Obama cared about jobs ...

... he'd actually do something about them.

The only programs Obama is going for are what used to be called Republican programs --- permanent wars and more transfer of the nations wealth to the degenerate rich. These are now officially Democratic programs also.

What's left of the Republican Party is literally insane. The Democratic Party has morphed into the Conservative/War Party. There is no Party for the left.

All sane people has been ejected from the Republican Party. The controllers of the Democratic Party have no intention of honoring any promises to Progressives. They will continue to stage elaborate political theater in order to pretend they are 'working very hard' but can't quite make anything work.

I really think that working through the Democrats is a lost cause. Either give up or start a new movement. The collusion between Reid and Obama is manifest. Taking these people seriously is a wasted effort.

Truth we can believe in ...

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana says we should stop reforming health care so we can concentrate on killing Afghans. This is how monstrous the right wing mindset has become: killing is a higher priority than healing. We can borrow to wage war but we cannot borrow to provide access to medical care to our own citizens.

When Ronald Reagan was elected our national debt was about $900 billion. After almost thirty years of mostly Republican rule it stands at around $12 trillion. The sudden conversion by the GOP for fiscal restraint is admirable but their priorities are all screwed up. You use debt for economic recovery not for wars of choice. We should tax the people supporting the war and we should draft their kids to fight it. That'll end this charade quickly.

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh ...

Bayh wants to send other people into every proposed war he can find and keep them there forever without ever bearing any of the costs himself -- not in military service for him or his family nor even in higher taxes to pay for his glorious wars. Sacrifice is for everyone other than Evan Bayh and his friends. He runs around praising himself as a "deficit hawk" while recklessly supporting wars and indefinite occupations that the country can't afford and which drive us further into debt. He feigns concern over the "deficit" only when it comes time to deny ordinary Americans benefits which he and his family already possess in abundance. ...

Today's quote ...

Obama. Competing with Hoover for his place in history?

... Obama would rather listen to losers like Larry Summers who was dismissed from the Presidency of Harvard because he couldn’t run the largely self-running university. Or to Timothy Geithner, whom W. appointed to the New York Fed Presidency and who helped usher in this economic nightmare. In this sense, Obama is looking less and less like the president he admires so much (Lincoln) and more and more like Herbert Hoover. Obama’s even beginning to sound like Hoover.

Oh, the hypocrisy ...

Tearing Up The Contracts

"Why is the Chamber of Commerce refusing to stand up for small business?" ...

Simon Johnson asks the question in title above.

There is a long tradition in the United States of big business trampling on independent entrepreneurs, and of those entrepreneurs fighting back through the ballot box. This time around, big banks captured their regulators, badly damaged small firms, and look set to do it again.

Why is the Chamber of Commerce refusing to stand up for small business?

The question is, I think, not exactly on the up and up. When was the national C of C ever about small business? As far as I can see they've always been about protecting the most selfish interests of very large corporations while claiming, quite disingenuously, that they are about protecting small business. Local C of C vary. They tend to represent medium to large businesses. Their business is to protect themselves. Creating an environment for new entries is NOT their goal.

Today's quote, oh well, let's make that two ...

... When corporate gains are privatized and losses are socialized, you think maybe the working people have finally had enough of picking up the slack? ...

-- The Wealthy Are Very Upset That People Are Angry. Oh, Stop Your Sobbing. by Susie Madrak

---------------------------------

... many Americans don't ever think much about the huge gap between what we claim about ourselves and what we do. But much of the rest of the world -- certainly including the Muslim world -- sees that discrepancy quite clearly, often up-close. ...

-- David Rohde's insights into what motivates the Taliban by Glenn Greenwald, salon.com

I didn't know ...

The last I knew, being a commercial pilot was a high paying job.

Michael Moore: Do You Want Airline Pilots to Be Working Two Jobs?

Don't miss ...

Eilzabeth Warren On Daily Show