home

The New Reality

A face in the crowd:

Velma Hart, who told President Obama she was "exhausted" of defending him and became the face of disappointed Americans this fall, has lost her job. [. . .] A spokesman for AmVets confirmed that Ms. Hart's layoff was "an economic decision that had nothing to do with her job performance."

Ms. Hart spoke for many when she asked President Obama whether this was the "new reality." I'm not sure what the Obama Administration has to offer:

As she and her family cope with her new financial setback, she plans to explore the administration's mortgage loan-modification program.

With the incompetent and corrupt Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner around, that's not much hope imo. D-Day reports:

Georgetown U.’s Adam Levitin [. . .] singled out the Treasury Department. “The prime directive coming out of Treasury is ‘protect the banks’ and don’t force them to recognize their losses.”

That's the new reality.

Speaking for me only

< Randy "Duke" Cunningham: Prisoner's Rights Advocate | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You kidding? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    Obama and crew have lots to offer the poor woman...indignity at the airport, the shaft in foreclosure court, and higher taxes come Jan 1 (if she had a job that is).

    And if she should choose a temporary escape from sorrow via a spliff, they got chains to offer.

    Not funny (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:23:10 AM EST
    cuz it's true.

    Parent
    Speaking of spliffs, kdog, (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    the word spliff  was an answer in one of last week's crossword puzzles in my local newspaper. The clue? Joint.

    I, of course, thought of you, kdog.

    Parent

    The New Reality (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    is the No Help Era.  No help from Republicans on anything, no help from Blue Dogs on most things, no help from the Obama Administration on things they can actually control.  It's sad.

    The national corporate consortium PR department, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 08:44:29 AM EST
    also known as the mass media, seem to be going to great pains to inform us that 9% plus unemployment is the new normal, and the jobs "are not coming back."

    I am hearing it every night from all the most brilliant pundits.  At the same time I am reading about the 7th consecutive quarter of corporate profits & the piles of cash the banks and corporations are sitting on.

    I guess the PR group is busy selling us on the idea that hiring folks is not the most profitable use of all this available cash, much of which was provided courtesy of Uncle Sam. The owners just want it for themselves.

    Who could have predicted?

    Hart still supports Obama (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    dont (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:09:26 AM EST
    you?

    Parent
    Not asking me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:12:29 AM EST
    But this always strikes me as an interesting question.

    What does "support" mean? If it means vote for him in 2012, than I support him.

    If it means supporting HAMP, coddling of the banks, inadequate stimulus, Catfood Commissions, caving on the Bush tax cuts, etc., then I do not.

    If it means prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, then I do (most of you do not.)

    Parent

    I think you said it pretty well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    to me "support" means he is the democratic president and I will vote for him again if I have to.

    I doubt if that woman supports every single aspect of his administration.

    I just wondered why the fact that she still supports him was worthy of a comment.  since I still support him even tho I do it holding my nose.

    Parent

    These parties are lucky a substantive and (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    energetic third party has not been starting to grow (like the Republicans in the 1850s).  They could grab a substantial share of seats and possibly the White House.

    Parent
    absolutley (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:31:41 AM EST
    I will be surprised if there is not a vigorous third party in the presidential race in 2012.

     

    Parent

    Depends on which side (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:39:07 AM EST
    Wants to split the vote.  We actually need 4 or 5 vibrant parties to dilute both major parties' influence.

    Parent
    if anyone but Palin or Huck (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:42:16 AM EST
    or DeMint or someone like that gets the nomination I think its possible there will be a rightist candidate as well as one trying to appeal to center left.


    Parent
    Good thing (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:43:51 AM EST
    The world in ending in December 2012 - unfortunately, we are all going to wast the last two years of our lives with these people invading our lives.

    Parent
    Spelling- sheesh. (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:44:05 AM EST
    Many powerful forces to overcome... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    the corporate media wants no part of a viable 3rd Party, Wall St. doesn't want to have to hedge 3 ways, as well as all the other powerful lobbies.

    We sure need one, but need alone ain't gonna deliver with so many forces stacked against.

    Parent

    it is because you and BTD continue to (none / 0) (#38)
    by Bornagaindem on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:07:06 AM EST
     support him that he continues to do the things he does. After all as the repugs say where are you gonna go? Well I am not a stupid Ronnie Raygun repug who willl vote against my financial interests just because the repugs pretend they will stop abortions.

    I do not continue to support Obama and  I will not vote for him in 2012. In fact I will throw out every incumbent every time until I get my government back.

    There are three initial demands

    1. non partisan drawing of congressional districts
    2. public financing of campaigns and giving air time to candidates either through free ads on public airways or through public television/radio
    3. declaring corporations are not people and blocking any contributions to any political entities or any participation in the election process


    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 03:46:59 AM EST
    Except for the Afghanistan part.

    Parent
    Well what is the reason to support him? (none / 0) (#41)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 08:57:09 AM EST
    Like you, I do not support  HAMP, coddling of the banks, inadequate stimulus, Catfood Commissions, caving on the Bush tax cuts, etc.

    Unlike you, I do not support one more day or one more dollar for whatever it is we're doing in Afghanistan.

    So why support him with a vote?  Because his opponent will more vigrously pursue the policies Obama is implementing, or initiate even more perverse and cruel policies?

    Judicial appointments maybe, but he lacks the fight to get them confirmed.

    Parent

    Poor lady. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:04:08 AM EST
    I wish her the best but as one that is trying loan modification myself, I don't have much hope for her in that department. I hope and pray that she has a different experience with it than I am having.

    Hart asked a truly superb question (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    On the eve of the 2008 election, who would have thought that such a question would have been possible?

    conceptually speaking... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by sj on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:11:19 PM EST
    ... I think surely some of the 18,000,000 thought such a question was possible.

    On the eve of the 2008 election, who would have thought that such a question would have been possible?

    "Indistinguishable on the issues" does not mean candidates are interchangeable.

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    The 1%... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    who voted for Nader knew.

    I coulda told ya the continued erosion of the middle class & reverse robin hood was assured under Obama or McCain...in fact I did tell y'all:)

    Parent

    Considering her notoriety, it would be an (none / 0) (#6)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15:41 AM EST
    embarrassment for the administration if she gets treated badly by the mortgage loan modification program.  Therefore, Geithner et al will probably ensure she has a different experience than the others.  This I fear could mask the problems people are having with these programs (and how little Treasury is doing to help anyone other than banks).

    Good point (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    HOWEVER, Geithner and his team are incompetent, and thus quite capable of botching this obvious PR move.

    Parent
    They're entirely competent... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by lambert on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:59:47 AM EST
    ... at delivering trillions to the banksters.

    Not only do they not care about the peasants, they don't care how they look to the peasants. That's not incompetence; that's aristocracy.

    Parent

    Boing (none / 0) (#37)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 03:50:31 AM EST
    That's ringin' the bell.

    A bullseye.

    Parent

    Good point. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:23:24 AM EST
    Abject incompetence cannot be cured easily I guess.

    Parent
    Not to worry (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    an article today in the Boston Globe says the economy will start growing again... at the end of 2011.  And the economy will be just peachy again... in 2013.  Mind you, this is all in a state that's ahead of the national curve for job growth.

    So you know, only 3 more years to go!  Try not to starve.

    No, no - (none / 0) (#28)
    by smott on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    I remember quite clearly that the economy recovered this past summer.

    Remember? The Summer of Recovery?

    They wouldn't lie to us would they?

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    I don't know if it's just me, or if it's a larger issue.  But it sure feels like things have turned again for the worse.  Whether this is officially a double-dip or not, more layoffs are here.  If people aren't getting hired, and they're getting fired again, I don't know what else you call it.

    Not just seeing this on the news.

    But corporate profits are up!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lambert on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 01:00:26 AM EST
    So where's the issue? What's wrong with you?

    Parent
    Check this out (none / 0) (#40)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 08:49:38 AM EST
    I only quibble with the word 'new' (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:09:21 AM EST
    Protecting the banks from both recognizing and suffering the magnitude of their losses was the goal from the start of the TARP talks in Oct. 2008. Does not make Obama any less responsible.

    We're all just widgets (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:27:30 AM EST
    Less important than the money we are supposed to be earning. We're a nuisance to profit. We are a hinderance.  Been thinking about this a lot lately.  The latest chapter in the memoir (in progress) blog was about when I was laid off for the first time twenty years ago. And I was young and strong then. For those older and not as able (like I am now, ahem), I shudder to think about their futures. We are a country that seems to have made a clear decision to stop caring about itself.  

    i don't think (none / 0) (#25)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    this is quite accurate

    We are a country that seems to have made a clear decision to stop caring about itself.

    "we" have made no such decision

    what has happened is that the country, such as it is, has been stolen by fascists (in the classic economic sense of the term) & by the plutocrats who are their enablers in the executive, legislative, judicial, financial & lobbyist branches of government

    now bend over & do as you're told - we have naked pictures of you & won't hesitate to splash them all over the intertubes if you cause us any trouble

    Parent

    Given agressive war on false premises, torture etc (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 09:32:44 AM EST
    I don't know why you limit them to fascist in only "the classic economic sense."

    If the shoe fits . . .

    Parent

    Right. Hyper-stratified income (none / 0) (#26)
    by observed on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    distribution at the top controlling the airwaves, and the ever present communist/terrorist/who knows what's next threat to keep people from thinking clearly about our economic and political realities.

    Parent
    True, but... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    ...more ordinary people we like to think have accepted and digested the narrative of the folks who have gotten us into this disaster and continue to steer us off the cliff.  

    I do, however, accept your diagnosis and criticism of my rather overly general statement.

    Parent

    no doubt (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    more ordinary people [than?] we like to think have accepted and digested the narrative of the folks who have gotten us into this disaster and continue to steer us off the cliff

    but we need to remember that so-called ordinary people have been & are being systematically indoctrinated into the belief that they can become extraordinary, i.e., as rich as their overlords although even the humble American Dream has for some time been out of all practical reach (i.e., w/out a mountain of debt) of any but a small and increasingly hereditary elite

    certain developments have gone hand in hand toward the deracination & decimation of the American middle, lower middle, and working classes

    destruction of labor unions, hand in hand w/indoctrination of American workers regarding the desirability of a job in "management" (i.e., a job w/no overtime & no union to enforce workers' rights)

    destruction of pensions in favor of compulsory 401(k) retirement (sic) plans (sic), hand in hand w/indoctrination of American workers regarding the wisdom of investing in Wall Street, hand in hand w/deregulation of Wall Street & looting of 401(k) accounts

    the list goes on & on

    & now, right out in the open, all of it starting to be backed up w/coercive measures once reserved for prisons, measures intended to make an example of "troublemakers" who would presume to resist

    it's Shock Doctrine pure & simple

    the Hobson's choice of irradiation or molestation - Gate Rape - coming soon to a shopping mall, theater, or sports arena near you


    Parent

    the insidiousness of our "freedom"... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:43:37 PM EST
    ...is that it produces a public largely apathetic to politics. Corporations own the land, and they move their political puppets to suit their will, and the public will let itself become distracted with side arguments like abortion, gay marriage, the latest sex scandal, Tea Partying, what have you. Most, not all, but most of us are fiddling while it burns, if we want to be honest. Perhaps we won't much longer, but for now...I don't know.

    Parent
    excellent point (none / 0) (#33)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:59:01 PM EST
    the public will let itself become distracted with side arguments like abortion, gay marriage, the latest sex scandal, Tea Partying, what have you

    & "they" know this of course

    which is why it's so droll to watch the strategy of TSA's John Pistole, parroted by clueless &/or authoritarian voices in the media, as he & they attempt to dismiss the public outrage over Gate Rape as just such a sideshow when actually i think the backlash is the incipient hint of a long overdue revolt against the post-9/11 "security" (i.e., police) state

    this is the most optimistic i have felt about the American public in some time - sad to say

    alas, i do not hold out much hope that this moment of dissent will long endure - "the new normal" is likely to include routine & unwarranted virtual & actual strip searches/sexual assault of a cowed & conditioned populace in many venues besides airports - w/out making a single one of us any "safer" btw

    Parent