Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’
- ACTA: The International Treaty You've Never Heard of That Could Affect Internet Freedom
- Military Intervention vs. Maritime Union Power
- Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlement”
- Shades of an American Kristallnacht?
- How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’
- Could Ecuador Be the Most Radical and Exciting Place on Earth?
- The Washington-Wall Street Revolving Door Just Keeps Spinning Along
- Ten Steps for Radical Revolution in the US
- Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlement”
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Obama’s State of the Union, Troublesome Passages for Progressives
Excuse me for not yelling myself hoarse for Obama’s warmed over State of the Union address.
While I agree with his call for economic fairness, there was not much in his speech that was new or all that promising. And there were several troublesome passages for progressives.
First, mentioning John Boehner, Obama said he was still open to a grand compromise on Social Security and Medicare, which would make Americans have to work longer and get less benefits from Medicare and Medicaid. We don’t need a Democrat to hack away at these crucial social programs.
Second, he took a gratuitous swipe at universal single-payer health care. Sounding like Ronald Reagan, he said, “I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.” As an illustration, he said, “That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.” Huh? He used to say he was for single-payer universal health care. Then, when he was running for President the first time, he said, “If I were starting from scratch," I’d be for single-payer universal health care. Now he disparages it to score cheap political points.
Third, he was belligerent on Iran, saying (to raucous applause) that he would take “no options off the table,” which is easily decipherable code for saying he’d threaten to blow Iran off the map if it got one nuclear weapon, even though the United States has thousands and Israel has hundreds.
Fourth, he said that America is a “Pacific power,” reiterating the theme of his new strategic doctrine, which is aimed recklessly at China.
And finally, sounding like a mix of Madeleine Albright and George W. Bush, he boasted that the United States is the “one indispensable nation in world affairs—and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.”
This was cheap jingoism that the American people, already suffering from a superiority complex, really could have lived without.
80 Comments so far
Show AllIf the writer's analysis of Obama's SOTU is correct, then the entire US population should be out in the streets, baying for the hides of the political and financial Elite.
Instead... oh, look, 'American Idle' is on... 'scuse me while I Tweet this vital... *mumble mumble mumble*
They undoubtedly will do so as soon as they've finished their shopping (and hung up the mobile phone).
Why wouldn't a nation that eats fake food vote for a fake president ?
We live in a fake world where reality means nothing and share holder profits is the measure of everything , even life ala for-profit health care.
"The annual presidential addresses to a joint session of Congress have taken on an increasingly empty and ritualistic character—the same empty phrases, the same perfunctory ovations, the same gimmick of individuals placed in the First Lady’s box to serve as cameos, the laundry list of proposals, either insignificant or overtly reactionary, the sickening appeals to national unity and militarism."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/sotu-j25.shtml
In this context, kudos to the Boston Bruins' goaltender who skipped the White House event celebrating his team - seeing that event too as an empty ritual drained of meaning, and just generally a waste of time. It's a waste of time to hope for anything positive or progressive from this established order, although I sympathize with Rothschild's position as the last embers of Obama's "hope" dwindle to smoky char. Enough of that, the times call for both occupying and opting out.
And the continued propaganda that for profit health care is the American way while
*45,000 a year die without health care per year in the US
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917,
*more people are currently without health care than ever before in American history,
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/01/24/number-of-uninsured-americans-steadily-increasing/
*and Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
*Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
President Barack Hussein Obama's Hope agenda was for moderates, not the purists on either side. Based on the litany of success against unprecedented republican opposition - if you believe that stuff - President Obama has been what i expected him to be. he has moved the agenda a little, paving the way for another four years and following that, at least four years of Elizabeth Warren. Progressives were fools for believing Obama would be anything but a centrist and will continue to be fools for staying home. I have been a loyal fan of President Obama since his speech at the convention years ago. I buy it, lock, stock and barrel. You see, i believe in things try it some time, its very nice. It is truly a beautiful day in Zamunda. I am sorry your world is so bleak
Never mind that "progressives were fools for believing Obama would be anything but a centrist." That has nothing to do with anything. What Obama told the electorate, in order to get their support, is diametrically opposed to what he has actually done.
You are using a dishonest bait-and-switch argument. Before the election, Obama boosters vehemently denied that he was a "centrist," and said that all criticism from the left was unfounded. After the election we were told by the Obama boosters that we were fools for not realizing he as a "centrist."
Your snarky "I am sorry your world is so bleak" reveals an arrogant cruelty and callousness that always lurked behind the "hope" mania during the campaign.
You may congratulate yourself for your clever little put-downs of the Left in this discussion, but the reality is that the general public was lied to and betrayed and will not forget that. That reality sucks for apologists for the Democratic party.
People need to recognize we have not had a Democrat in the white house since Jimmy Carter.
Gee. Some troublesome passages for progressives in his SOTU address, huh. What an astounding aberration considering his wonderfully progessive record in office! Must have been an off day. I'm sure things will improve greatly when he's elected to another "lesser evil" term.
Reuters' lede today is:
"President Barack Obama's bid to get millionaires and multinational companies to pay more taxes may play well with many voters, but it faces major hurdles in Congress."
Oh yeah. Congress. Maybe they are part of the problem, too.
they are definitely the problem, but this president is loathe to use his bully pulpit to call them out on it. When no one calls someone out as a crook, they keep stealing; its human nature. At this point in his administration, given Congress' behavior, its time to start naming names. Make the people believe you CARE about them, and they'll take whoever you name as being in the way out to the woodshed for a good talking. This President has a trump card, public discontent, but he just doesn't want to use it.
Boehner is an enemy of the people. That's what I would say if I were POTUS, right about now. They've been asking the Prez for his 'green card', for God's sake. Right about now, he should know they consider him the enemy. He needs to indicate he considers them the same, and will fight with the people for fairness against the 1%. His current tack may net him a second term (I say 'may'. As of now, I'd rather vote for Gingrich, who at least has a point of view. The Prez's support is soft as a down pillow.) But he'll almost certainly go down in history as a man who couldn't find it in himself to rise to the demands of this moment in history, despite being literally the most powerful man on the planet.
USA is suffering from Electile Dysfunction...
(Don't blame me. Someone else said it first.)
But it was funny! Cheers!
Great one rosemarie! If you didn't say it first, I heard it from you first!
Electile Dysfuction brought on by a heavy addiction to E-leeches.
Just a few troublesome things. No worries though Mr. Rothschild, Obama's constituents (Corporate/Bankster Mafia) will ensure that he is "re-elected". After all, the USA has the best democracy money can buy.
Obama uses words to deceive and manipulate, nothing more.
His (and 99% of his colleagues') allegiance is to his corporate owners.
Every moment given to his words is time wasted.
That's it? How about the fact that Obama basically inserted a commercial for the natural gas industry into his speech using virtually the same wording they do on TV?
From a strategic standpoint the President's words have been responsible. Anything "cut" from Social Security or Medicare can always be replaced later. And the important thing is having it done on whose terms; if the Right has its way these programs would be looted for private profit and the far off projected "savings" would be an excuse for tax cuts for the wealthy today.
On the second point; I believe he's trying to reach out to the voters that went GOP in 2010 and may be having second thoughts about the GOP 2012 freakshow. Given the context; better than the alternative.And anyway; it doesn't matter. The bill is still law and so long as it stays that way private insurance will be done in 10 years.
On the third point; its a departure of the neocon call to war at all costs.
And on the last point; he's hiding peas in the mac and cheese. Americans get emotional about their "exceptional" nation and punish people who sound like they don't share it. So redefine it. Soft power and diplomacy please.
This comment demonstrates why Lincoln placed "You can fool some of the people all of the time" first in his famous statement. Guess Who?
Ok. So I guess I should just sit at home on election day and not vote for democrats. Is that what you're getting at?
If that's the choice you're giving yourself, then it won't matter what you do on election day, GW, but that has nothing to do with what I was "getting at".
It has become way beyond wearisome responding to you Obamabots. No matter how many times things are explained to you, you come back with the same tired shit. Your original comment above went beyond that to the delusional.
(1) Social Security is NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. Social Security has not added one thin dime to the federal debt. Social Security IS NOT IN TROUBLE -- except from those, including Obama, who want to gut and destroy it. Yes, your hero Obama included. The payroll tax reduction is a blatant ploy to undermine the stability of the SS system, while providing effectively NO relief to working people (if you have trouble believing this, do some research, "dude"). The money being removed from this system is not going to magically appear down the road some fine sunny day -- wow, where did you come up with that doozy?
(2) Believe all you want in your Tinker Bell fantasy about what Obama is up to, but the "lesser of two evils" strategy is a failed one, provably so. It's way past time to move on.
(3) Your health care "analysis" is a head-scratcher. So private insurance companies will be gone in 10 years, eh? That is plain nuts. It would be laughable if I could find anything funny in the fact that they are stronger than ever and that thanks to your hero, I will not see real health care reform in my lifetime.
(4) Listen to your hero's SOTU speech again, with an honest open mind this time. Where in there or in any of Obama's actions is there anything even remotely resembling "(s)oft power and diplomacy"? He has gone beyond Bush Boy many times over. He has expanded the wars and started new ones. His sabres are bigger and rattle louder. Meanwhile, our civil liberties, whatever was left of them, are effectively gone -- thanks to ...
Barack Obama -- Worst President Ever.
Well I thank you for your speedy reply; though I think you and I are entirely on a separate wave length.
You are correct that social security is not an entitlement, that it has not added to the debt and that social security is not in trouble by its own merits. But it is in trouble. Since we already disagree on Obama and the Democrats lets talk about something we're likely to agree upon; the Right. It *is* out to loot Social Security and its excuse has been and will be the fact that at a certain point in the future the program will be taking more from the budget than bringing in. The excuse for this is the baby boomers. Under this lame pretext they aim to offer all kinds of tricks; dumping younger workers contributions into equities markets to make those already invested wealthier. Offering retirees one time 'buy-outs'(a shame). Oh, and meeting every promise to the boomers even though none of this helps pay for them. Suggestions I've heard from the right is to liquidate federal assets(land, etc.) to pay for boomers. I don't know how well I explained that to you but I do *not* want my social security privatized.
So, if you don't think what Obama is doing is the best defense what is? What do you think we do? If its to challenge the Democrat from the Left; that backfired in 2000 and I don't think it would be worth it to try again. It seems the Right can do that and we can't. Progs always wind up being more sorry than the Dems.
Your comment is so full of misinformation and misdirection that it is difficult to know where to begin to reply.
Hate to break this to you, GW, but Obama is the Right. It is indicative of the times we are in that you even think otherwise. In my younger day, Nixon was the Right -- Obama is far beyond that.
I'll say it again: Obama's payroll tax holiday and/or reduction is a ploy to undermine Social Security. To lower the tax percentage might be a decent progressive idea IF it were comibined with a doubling or tripling (or elimination) of the payroll ceiling. As it stands, it has instituted something that was not happening before -- Social Security needing to "borrow" from the general fund. I put that term in quotes because it is the IOU's on Social Security that are not being "paid back", not the Social Security fund itself, which is still hugely solvent and will be for another dozen years or so, no matter what damage Obama is currently doing to it.
You are just plain wrong in falling for the "it's the boomer's fault" scam. There are plenty of ways to keep Social Security, the most successful governmental program in our history, solvent that do not resort to privatization and warfare between age groups.
As an aside, you're also wrong in your analysis of 2000. First, Gore won. Second, Gore ran his campaign into the ground all by his little old lonesome self -- the Left had nothing to do with it.
Again, focusing on where we agree just so I am understood;
I agree with you on the facts over social security. And I do not fail for the 'blame the boomers' scam I thought I had even said so. And yes; raising the contribution cap is an obvious way to fix social security long term. That's what I myself want. I may be mistaken but I honestly don't see a danger in the payroll tax holiday because when it comes to mandatory spending it doesn't really matter. Money comes into the Treasury; money comes out of the Treasury. Just like Medicare; it covers all the bills out of the Treasury while payroll taxes bring money into the Treasury. Every Republican 'reform' plan of social security utilizes this principle to cover "those who are nearing retirement".
Oh, and I wasn't suggesting Nader "cost" Gore the election. I was just pointing out that their was an attempt to pull Democrats to the Left by running Nader as a third party.
Z-man
Racism is a disease, it destroys reason and upends common sense, attacking its victim silently and camouflaging itself in intellectual chicanery. You are not the only weary one in this crowd.
You speak of "intellectual chicanery" while pulling a Race Card, TA? It's not enough to simply say you do not have a clue about WTF you are talking about. What a sad, ugly comment. You have no shame and deserve no respect from me.
Z-Man
Every now and then I will engage in a "pissing match". Continue on, in your righteous ignorance.
I would very much like to know the reasoning behind your statement that " . . . private insurance will be done in 10 years". To my mind, this bill has ensured that private insurance not only won't be done, it will positively flourish with it's new mandated revenue stream.
Some firms are already pulling out of the health insurance market. As for what becomes of private health insurance in the year 2014 the following happens.
No annual limits on coverage.
No discrimination on health or gender.
Caps on premiums.
Expansion of Medicaid.
The writing is on the wall dude.
What planet are you from? Anything "cut" from Social Security or Medicare can always be replaced later? Wow, what a stretch to support Obama as he continues to be the only Democratic president to ever put those programs on the block. And how dysfunctional do people have to be to separate our great death by insurance programs from, wait for it, the insurance program that is Social Security and Medicare. Do we not pay premiums every pay check for those programs?
I suggest you really study the opposition. They want to LOOT social security and medicare on the pretext of the boomer generation. For me the doomsday scenario is a Republican controlled government that has the power to do it. It seems like our side has to be lucky every election cycle and their side needs to be lucky only once.
The only real defense(as we're in the defensive role) is to take away the pretext. Obama is *not* considering privatizing.
Do you have any idea how pathetically weak your defense of the administration is? It is so weak, that it damns the cause you are promoting rather than helping it.
What you are describing here is so far from what the candidate led the public to believe in order to get their support that the two bear no resemblance to one another. You cannot just wish that fact away, and the millions of people who were betrayed will not forget. The thin gruel you offer up here will have no effect whatsoever on any of this.
"Hiding peas in the mac and cheese???" Obama supporters have sure fallen a long way since the days of "3 dimensional chess."
It *is* weak. Because the progressive side is weaker. And more vulnerable because we actually care.
Don't agree with me? Explain then why you're simply reduced to venting your wrath on Democrats as opposed to taking the fight to the other side? LOL I'm waiting.
How is supporting the Democrats consistent with "taking the fight to the other side?"
I will be waiting.
I am not "venting my wrath on Democrats." I am disagreeing with your position. See the difference?
Your position is vulnerable because it is not well reasoned, not because you "care."
Reading comprehension: I did not equate supporting Democrats with taking the fight ot the other side. No where did I say that. Where you got that I do not know. So you'll be waiting a long time for an explanation.
I didn't realize I had declared a position. Would you please tell me what you think my position is? So that way I know how it can be poorly reasoned?
Equating supporting Democrats with taking the fight to the other side:
"Explain then why you're simply reduced to venting your wrath on Democrats as opposed to taking the fight to the other side?"
Some positions you are taking:
"Anything 'cut' from Social Security or Medicare can always be replaced later."
"The bill is still law and so long as it stays that way private insurance will be done in 10 years."
"Given the context; (Obama is) better than the alternative."
"(Obama's foreign policy is) a departure of the neocon call to war at all costs."
I was not understood in the first instance; apparantly I was not communicating effectively. I was equating taking the fight to Democrats vs taking the Fight to the opposition. Not supporting Democrats.
I also hadn't realized my whimsical utterings actually were actually discernable positions. Perhaps I am decided more than I tend to think I am. How embarrassing. In any event I'm sorry if you find my positions to be weak. I think they have merit.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
*ahem*. We disagree.
You think TA has an idea of what you're talking about?
"TINA is a lie." But "no lie can live forever" as Carlyle said. We know that "Truth crushed to earth will rise again" on this dog.
"one indispensable nation in world affairs"
There's a bit of truth. We think the rest of the world is "dispensable". Even if we can sustain this fiction amongst the rest of human-kind, the planet's ecology will eventually arrange affairs to prove otherwise.
Yes, dmgreenaz, it added a nice touch that Obama quoted the "indispensable nation" phrase coined by renowned international war criminal and mega-mass-murderer of Iraqi children, Madeleine Not-So-Bright.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J62mr65PVc
Best,
Alan
"there was not much in his speech that was new or all that promising."
How about setting up a team to investigate mortgage fraud, and putting the most aggressive state AG, from NY, in charge?
DADT was repealed in a slow, thorough way. Obama is shooting for a solid solution, which often takes time.
Obama would make a good spy. If he was caught no amount of torture could ever make him tell the truth.
Funny thing. Obama DID work for the CIA, through the front company Business International Corporation. He was assigned to Afghanistan because he could speak Arabic and Farsi.
;>)
Excellent.
The part of State of Union 2012 I hated most was the "band of brothers" conclusion where Hillary and Barack and Bob Gates (who was George Bush's secretary of defense as Barack pointed out) put aside all partisan differences and sat together watching reality TV. The cuddly feeling they then experienced does not seem good enough bedrock for a new religion.
First, was it ever proved that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 ? Perhaps somebody else just for the sake of experiment now could make that claim. We want to see if such a person will then get assassinated just so we can confirm for sure the kind of country we're living in now.
Politicians ultimately are about show and symbolism, not rationality. Our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has been symbolism, not rationality. True rationality would have entailed more respect for both the Iraqi facts and the Afghan lessons of history-- areas where Hillary and Barack, those professional students, failed.