Goldman Sachs: 8.8% Headline Unemployment By Year End 2012


Everyone in the forecasting business is scrambling to mark down both their estimates of second-quarter growth and their forecasts for later in the year. Goldman Sachs (no link) was pretty optimistic a few months ago; now they’ve grown quite pessimistic[. . . .] At this point, GS is predicting an unemployment rate of 8 3/4 percent at the end of 2012 — five years after the Great Recession began.

The New Normal:

So, terrible growth prospects; low inflation; oh, and low interest rates, with no sign of the bond vigilantes. Ordinary macroeconomic analysis tells you very clearly what we should be doing: fiscal expansion and monetary expansion by any means we can manage[. . .] And what are we talking about in policy terms? Spending cuts and an end to monetary expansion.

I am supporting President Obama for reelection because the alternative is worse. But there is an argument to be made that it is a terrible precedent for a President to win reelection with terrible economic policies that treat 9% unemployment as the New Normal.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Open Thread | Sarah Palin Flick Opens to Empty House >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The alternative (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    is worse crowd is about 40% of voters.

    Even with all this, it's going to be a close presidential election IMO simply because the GOP is in such bad shape. Obama's best hope is that the GOP nominates Bachmann who will give him a better chance at winning.

    Anyway, I knew Obama was going to be an economic disaster. I saw it coming head on since he first started running. All you had to do was look at this economic advisors. The only thing I'm glad about is that he hasn't turned completely into Carter II simply because he hasn't destroyed foreign policy for the party.

    Are you sure the alternative is worse? If Obama (none / 0) (#49)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    cannot name Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but instead chooses a former bankster, why does that sound like a good thing?

    This is not confirmed, and maybe he's trying to trick the R's into going on vacation in August, but I do not think so.

    At least the remaining Dems would stand up to a Republican prez; they are unable to stand up to Obama.

    Obama is a fully made member of the Corporatists.

    Many "leaders" on the left will say this is awful, they will tell Obama he should appoint Warren, then they will say they will vote for him anyway.  Impressive.


    Is this the part where (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by shoephone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    I'll be told to button it up instead of point out that Obama voted to confirm John Roberts?

    Actually, he voted against Roberts, (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 06:03:10 PM EST
    ever mindful of the political consequences of voting to confirm:

    It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

    See this TL article about it, too.  Which reminded me that both Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold voted to confirm Roberts.


    {{Sigh}} (none / 0) (#98)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:26:06 PM EST
    Pols being pols.  There are no saints.  Really, there never were.  :-(

    Oops. My bad. (none / 0) (#105)
    by shoephone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:54:02 PM EST
    For some reason I thought the opposite was the case.

    Feingold voted to confirm John Ashcroft, too (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:51:08 PM EST
    Political saints...I don't know of any.

    For me personally? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:06:24 PM EST
    No, I'm not sure. I'm just stating that Obama will get about 40% of the electorate because that's what even Walter Mondale got. Whether he gets any more than that is debatable and it also depends on the GOP unfortunately.

    Then how about this (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    just in from the AP:

    "n a White House video distributed Saturday by Obama senior adviser David Plouffe to supporters, Mr. Obama is shown praising the virtue of compromise to a group Democratic, Republican an independent students. He noted that President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation permitted slavery in border states loyal to the Union, in an attempt to hold the nation together.

    "Here you've got a wartime president whose making a compromise around probably the greatest moral issue that the country ever faced because he understood that `right now my job is to win the war and to maintain the union,'" President Obama said.

    "Can you imagine how the (liberal news outlet) Huffington Post would have reported on that? It would have been blistering. Think about it, 'Lincoln sells out slaves.'"

    He told the students: "The nature of our democracy and the nature of our politics is to marry principle to a political process that means you don't get 100 percent of what you want."


    I don't (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    think you really want to know what I think about that crap. All I can say is has there been a more stupid bunch of politicos in the WH?

    Even Lincoln realized that some people are intractable like the slave owners and just declared war. Obama would have offered them more slaves.
    The biggest irony is this is coming from people who called other people names simply for criticizing Obama's lack of experience.


    Well...i wonder (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Madeline on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:30:03 PM EST
    what he would have thought and felt and how he would have reacted to Lincoln giving up KY and '1864' Barack Obama lived there and was about to be sold. I am assuming the 1864 Obama would be just the same old practical negotiator and said he understood Lincoln and the union had to maintained.

    I am hopeful that the the 2012 Lincoln would not have announced it to students thereby instructing them on the moral of politics that you must marry it to principle even if human beings are the tokens.

    I cannot fathom any public figure, let alone a black man speaking so cavalier about slavery.  


    I just reread a Lincoln biography (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    and wish that Obama would recommend that the students do so.  His interpretation of Lincoln and lack of context is overly simplistic in his comments here, perhaps understandably in the context of his comments.  But I hope that a graduate of Columbia University had some history courses there and actually has a better understanding of Lincoln's actions -- and Lincoln's growth on the issue, an example for Obama.  Lincoln listened, Lincoln learned, Lincoln changed his mind on slavery.  Can Obama listen, learn, and change his mind on the economy?

    I do not agree at all (none / 0) (#125)
    by Madeline on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:37:38 PM EST
    Obama is absolutely capable of appointing a right wing justice to the Supreme Court. Hell....it will be Cass Sustein and that is as low as you can go.

    Barack Obama alone is  capable of being a pretender to the throne or haven't you noticed?

    Gads.  Sometimes you sound like a Freshman political science major. Seriously.


    Wow, talk about "personal arrogance..." (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:50:38 AM EST

    I'm sure when Madeline picks herself off the floor after the deep swoon your impressive resume has inspired, she will fall into line behind the really, serious, important, all-knowing, sanctimonius blivets, chastised back into her place among the truly common people who can't even be trusted to have an opinion, so must be regularly told to STFU and stay out of the way.

    Or not.  Because like it or not, her opinions and beliefs are every bit as valid as yours, even if she doesn't know the super-secret handshake, which seems to be more of a lips-to-a$$ kind of thing, and hasn't been given her copy of the All New and Revised Democratic Dictionary...

    No one gives a crap, Donnie, how impooortant you (think you) are and what a good little Democrat you are, or how many times you blast people for not being afraid enough of the evil Republicans.

    Maybe if people like you weren't so busy shouting down other Democrats who have valid reasons to be unhappy with the party, what we - because I'm also one of those who gets sneered at with your favorite non-answer answer: "well, I guess you'll be voting for President Bachmann or President Romney" - have to say might be making a difference.

    As christine would ask, in her totally passive-aggressive way that fools no one, "hmmmm...I don't know why I was thinking this, but, maybe, Donald, could it be that you are a mite worried that some commoner could elbow you out of your comfortable position of making sure the status quo continues, and the universe implodes because you aren't there to save us all from the stupid people?"

    Give us all a f**king break.


    LoL (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:02:43 AM EST
    That must have been some Fire & Brimstone at church this morning.

    you've been on a roll, girl! I'm not bad, but I stand aside in deference; When a freight train is barreling through, standing aside and clapping will have to do.


    Nothing in your expertise (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    suggests how someone else ought to vote.

    Donald, I often admire your comments and appreciate your insider view on the past, but this comment just is not the same as those in past.


    Sometimes Obama does too. Seriously. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:37:13 AM EST
    I don't think we yet know that (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    "the alternative is worse," since we don't yet know what the alternative might be.

    Unlikely to be a primary challenger to a black incumbent president with a D after his name.  Even 1980 is instructive in that regard.  Still, at what point does one stop being blackmailed into enabling Democrats who are little better than their opponents?

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:41:08 PM EST
    there will be no primary challenger but the current voting coalition of voters is shot. Obama has made sure of that.

    He's going to take the Democratic party (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:45:11 PM EST
    down, how badly?  I dunno, but he's going on all of their tickets.  Hopefully his influence can be overcome, or maybe not....if a Democrat was a big beltway supporter of his I don't know how badly I want to see them again.  This is such a mess.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    the ones who were his greatest defenders like McCaskill in MO are sure to lose. I'm not sure about any other names. I think maybe the only thing we have going on here in GA November of '12 might be congressional races.

    The Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:46:54 PM EST
    is already down.  They created Obama and now they don't know how to live with him.  The leadership is tepid or wrongheaded when it exists at all and not even on the same page.  So one has to wonder...what in Hell does it mean to be a Democrat these days?

    If your politics isn't driven by values and their attendant issues, what's left?  Ambition.  Self interest.


    File this (none / 0) (#171)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    in the "believe it or not" folder

    I read on one the blogs (maybe it was Digby) something kind of interesting Re: Obama's "Grand Bargain"

    Maybe, just maybe, this powerful, carefully conceived, end run by Obama for the "check mate" guarantee of placing him in the Hall of Fame of Transitional Presidents ,and assuring his Legacy might just backfire.

    There may be some rumbling (let's just call it a rumor for now) in the Congressional Black Caucus regarding this assault on low, and middle class folks. The glow of the "First Black President......." may be showing some signs of withering somewhat. Now follow this, it gets a little tricky.

    Obama's treachery towards these "entitlements" has been so shocking, and the damage to the AA community will be so devastating that some of the older, wiser heads are quite concerned. Since Obama has "come out" and discarded any notion of caring for the principals we voted him into office to protect a debate (or brewing battle) may be starting.

    I don't want to drag this out as its just in its infancy, but its something to watch. The premise is this: The leadership of the Caucus & the remaining Liberal/Progressive members of Congress, understanding the reality of what's taking place, team up and try to organize a plurality of Democrats to take the fight to Obama.....not in a Primary, but in a demand he step down and be replaced with someone who holds our values.

    I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but this is really serious business. Some of the older AA members understand this and see it as their duty to dilute the devotion of the "First Black President" meme and try to get support for what is admittedly dramatic action. Once its accomplished, and the hurt is taking its toll they're afraid of having to answer the cry, "why didn't you warn us?"

    Let's see, it may be a beginning.....or it may be nothing.


    link? (none / 0) (#176)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    We know that the alternative will be (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    a Republican. We know what the Republican "Party" has become (see, for example, the famous Brooks' article in the NYT two weeks ago, wherein he referred to the group as "fanatics" whose only focus is lowering taxes.) Apart from other things we can deduce or make an educated guess about (an ensured generation of even more corporate & ultra-conservative opinions emanating from the Supreme Court)...Apart from what is in front of our faces, oldpro, you & I know that.

    As to "at what point does one stop being blackmailed," may I reply in this way: There have been times in my life where I made a decision "not wanting to give someone the satisfaction" or "over my dead body after what he/she did to me" because myself had backed into a corner. Such decisions of course were dreadful because I made them out of a kind of "I'll never go near that again" anger. Insofar as an election goes, it really doesn't matter if I like the person in terms of how I vote (and, I always vote or that would be my non-vote contributing to the other guy in any event.)

    From some earlier comments you have written, it is clear that you really are an "oldpro." So, please don't think this is preachy when I say that my own experience in situations where my own dislike of Person A tripped me up and led me to endorse Person B (who made the "A" look like a piker in terms of doing things that I perceived to be wrong.)

    Lastly, about 1980: Yep, I was entranced with the Kennedy entrance...loved the conventions speech, etc. etc...and ignored the whole thing later other than to drag myself to the polls to vote for Carter...and, then, as a federal EPA employee, I got to see first hand (along with others who felt the same as me) the destructive attempts of the Reagan administration against the environment and interior. I cannot forget that.  


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    A Republican in these times is by definition worse. That really is not arguable.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#128)
    by Madeline on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:44:36 PM EST
    Barack Obama has destroyed the Democratic Party.  In addition, he now has marionettes singing the same old song: It's better than a Republican.

    It's not better than a Republican. He and they share the same head space; dishonest, incompetent, self serving and destructive.


    The Great Pretender (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by klassicheart on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 01:31:37 AM EST
    I totally agree.  Obama is a pretender and not really a Democrat. He has destroyed the Democratic party.  And that is why the Democrats are losing all credibility in addition to being seen as weak and helpless in the face of these constant and unremitting assaults on the foundation of the Democratic party....they have no balls, no fight....just like Nancy Pelosi gave up women's rights in the Health Care bill, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress....Somehow Republicans fight back...even if their ideas are bad.  People respect and trust people who will fight for their causes. Who is fighting for Democratic ideals if Democrats are resigned to vote for someone they claim is the worst of two evils?  I call that cowardly.  

    "Not F*cking Crazy" (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:45:33 PM EST
    is hardly an inspiring campaign slogan, although it is considerably catchier than "Win The Future."

    An astute observer of the policies championed by our current President might rightly question just what kind of future Obama envisions us winning. And just who does he think the potential winners will be? Surely not the poor, the working class, or the sadly decimated middle class.

    My sense is that many people may conclude they cannot vote for the Republican candidate and his/her attendant insanity. I also think, though, that many, many of those same voters will simply choose not to vote, to either stay home or to only vote down ticket. And the likely choice will be to not vote at all. And that will hurt down ticket candidates, and probably give the GOP the Senate and even more statehouses and legislatures.


    i tend to agree (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    And the likely choice will be to not vote at all. And that will hurt down ticket candidates, and probably give the GOP the Senate and even more statehouses and legislatures.

    the 2008 Obama campaign made much of mobilizing young/1st-time/often relatively unsophisticated voters

    now he has lost some of that bloc (although some in this group voted for him for American Idol reasons & may well do so again)

    he needed not to disappoint the ones who really thought they were voting for (positive) "change"


    WE know the speech (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:05:12 PM EST
    We know they're a hundred times worse.

    We know the importance of the Supreme Court.

    We know that Obama is a tragic disappointment to those of us who love our country and cherish Liberal values.

    We also know that many of us knew then that Obama was a fraud when the ones telling us to shut up & suck it up now were captured groupies & willing stooges for this Bernie Madoff Candidate.

    And you know what stupid is? Stupid is having to listen to the same stupid people who voted us into this mess stating that we hate Obama. It couldn't possibly be that we hate the duplicity of what he`s done vs. what he campaigned on. And we especially hate when, having been told and warned a 1000 times about republican treachery, he ignored us and thought he could roll them as easily as he did the stupid people lecturing us now,

    Stupid then, stupid now.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by klassicheart on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 01:36:24 AM EST
    And therefore why would advice from these sages who were Obama boosters be worth anything other than derision?  Continuing to follow those who were so wrong does not seem  too smart to me.

    Red county; red state! (none / 0) (#109)
    by the capstan on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:18:24 PM EST
    Unless someone sane and green turns up, I have the luxury of once again voting my conscience.  Carter was the last Democrat to score here. And if I am told to pack my computer and leave here, I guess I will--again.

    Hilarious post (#107) (none / 0) (#153)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    Apparently the people who NY Shooter believed "loved their country and cherished liberal values" in 2008(read those who did not donate to BHO but were strong HRC supporters) are falling head over foot to donate to the Obama campaign in 2012.

    From the posted article
    "Thirty-one of his bundlers collected in excess of $500,000 each in contributions, according to the campaign. They included the Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg; two hedge fund managers, Orin Kramer and Blair Effron; and Andrés W. López, a wealthy Puerto Rico lawyer and law school classmate of Mr. Obama.

    Others who have bundled large checks for Mr. Obama include Andy Spahn, a close friend and consultant to Steven Spielberg; Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue; and Jon S. Corzine, the former New Jersey governor.

    The newer generation of Obama bundlers reflects the Obama operation's gradual absorption of the Democrats' traditional large donors, some of whom did not raise money for him during the 2008 campaign. Some were prominent supporters of Mrs. Clinton, his primary opponent that year.

    "These are the traditional large donors to Democratic candidates," said Ellen S. Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group. "They are giving a lot more than $69," she added -- the size of the average contribution to Mr. Obama's campaign, according to aides."


    So the fact that ... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 07:23:46 PM EST
    ... wealthy, traditionally-Democratic, campaign contributors are now contributing to Obama's campaign is a surprise?  It's supposed to somehow disprove NYShooter's points?


    That is hilarious.


    I think (none / 0) (#166)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:15:10 AM EST
    this is the first time I've responded to you (at my advancing age dim lights are rough on the eyes) but I'd just like to say I'm glad you enjoyed my post.

    But to your point, did you find there's something hypocritical in wealthy Democratic donors contributing to the Democratic candidate? Isn't that what they do? Or did you hear a rumor that Hillary was planning on contesting for Obama's position?

    p.s. that's old news btw


    Part not highlighted (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 07:53:22 PM EST
    "They are giving a lot more than $69," she added -- the size of the average contribution to Mr. Obama's campaign, according to aides."

    Small grassroots campaign is again part of the Obama campaign rhetoric. Not true in 2008 and not true now.


    Who is more dangerous to us (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    A person who looks and acts crazy promoting policies that are harmful to the poor and the middle class - or - A person who appears calmly sane, (the only adult in the room) cleans up and legitimizes the crazies' talking points and promotes policies that are harmful to the poor and the middle class.

    Amen! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    All I have to do... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Thanin on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    is look at everything the newly elected republican governors are doing to know the alternative would be worse.

    You should see the view from here (none / 0) (#196)
    by oldpro on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    with the budget my Democratic governor proposed along with the 'reforms' she sponsored.  Hard to believe a Republican governor would have been worse...

    Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    happens to be a Reagan trickle-down Republican.  Those who say a Republican would be worse really should be looking at 3rd party candidates.  It's the only thing that makes any sense at all.

    The alternative is worse? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    Is there a level at which that is no longer the case. Are we not simply trading long term pain for short term gain?

    I fail to imagine that a McCain presidency would have been, in the long run, more damaging than what we've had these past 4 years.

    With McCain there is no tea party.
    With McCain Democrats at least pretend to disagree with W's policies.
    With McCain the left acts like the Left.
    With McCain you do not have the democratic president endorsing and selling Republican economic policy as the party remains silent.

    How many years will go by before a major democratic leader can publicly say how wrong Obama was? How many years before democrats can be democrats again?

    And why? Because in the short term, the alternative is worse.

    And just think of the fun (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    Democrats of all stripes could have had with VP Sarah Palin!

    VP Biden...not so much.  Remembering of course, that it was Joe who brought us Clarence Thomas.


    Ah--it would have been fun (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:40:17 PM EST
    But, thowing stones or comments from the outside gets tiresome. Grumbling outside doesn't feed anything but giving a temporary feeling of doing the right thing. It gets nothing done. Northing. All things considered, it is better to be inside.

    The opposition (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    can no longer be the opposition when they work toward the same goal, whether they secretly agree with me or not.

    I understand the view point that says half a loaf is better than nothing, except I believe that depends entirely on what the loaf consists of.


    Actually, it can be educational (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:57:25 PM EST
    and sharpen differences...where there are any.  That's the problem for Dems now, of course.  Until they are out of power again, they won't remember who they are.

    In theory there is (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    We're not near that though.

    Hmm.. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:53:12 PM EST



    LoL, i understand how you feel (none / 0) (#28)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    truly i do

    but let's take your points in order:

    With McCain there is no tea party.

    how can you be so sure? McCain is not beloved of the psychopathic wing of the Republican Party, & the Tea Party is just that: useful idiots enabled & paid for by far-right crazies like the Koch brothers, who actually want the U.S. to default so they can accomplish extralegally what (so far) they have not been able to do legally, i.e., the destruction of the New Deal (what's left of it)

    With McCain Democrats at least pretend to disagree with W's policies.

    eh, not so much - i saw plenty of Democrats enabling the Cheney/Bush administration for 8 years - only real difference has been bloggers, who at least did speak out against Cheney/Bush, but bloggers are not in office

    With McCain the left acts like the Left.

    if you mean bloggers & MoveOn, OK - but see above

    With McCain you do not have the democratic president endorsing and selling Republican economic policy as the party remains silent.

    um, kind of by definition, no? - moot point

    i'm not sure a 2nd Obama administration will truly protect the Supreme Court but i am quite sure a Republican administration will not - & that's not even to talk about the hundreds of federal agencies & policies that would be left in the hands of the GOP


    Well, no one I know is worried (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    about how a Republican Justice Dept. would endanger our civil liberties, subvert our committment to justice or undermine the very definition of rule of law.

    This Democratic administration's idea of justice is unconscionable.


    indeed it is (none / 0) (#44)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    i just want the left-wing case against Obama to be stated more coherently & more cogently than the right-wing case against Obama

    that was the point of my comment but maybe that wasn't clear


    Dont think of it (none / 0) (#73)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    as a left-wing criticism of Obama, more of a criticism against the lesser of two evils style of voting.

    reply (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    how can you be so sure? McCain is not beloved of the psychopathic wing of the Republican Party, & the Tea Party is just that: useful idiots enabled & paid for by far-right crazies like the Koch brothers, who actually want the U.S. to default so they can accomplish extralegally what (so far) they have not been able to do legally, i.e., the destruction of the New Deal (what's left of it)

    McCain would be all that stood between them and a democratic super-majority. I wouldnt expect any real Republican challenge to come except in the form of a possible primary challenge. Also, Palin would be VP, and they love her. The tea-party began with insurance reform, the failed stimulus helped it live on.

    eh, not so much - i saw plenty of Democrats enabling the Cheney/Bush administration for 8 years - only real difference has been bloggers, who at least did speak out against Cheney/Bush, but bloggers are not in office

    if you mean bloggers & MoveOn, OK - but see above

    Compare(both congress and the online left) the reactions between Bushs attempt at SS reform, and Obamas putting it on the table. After one meeting with Obama Pelosi was already sounding meeker. How about the wars that are still going on?


    um, kind of by definition, no? - moot point

    Not at all. A democratic president selling trickle down economics and pushing austerity is horribly damaging. The dems would not, and have not, pushed back on it. They've jumped right on in.

    i'm not sure a 2nd Obama administration will truly protect the Supreme Court but i am quite sure a Republican administration will not - & that's not even to talk about the hundreds of federal agencies & policies that would be left in the hands of the GOP

    Off the top of my head I fail to see that what we've gained from an Obama admin on this is worth the overall damage being done.

    In general I may agree with the argument that a Dem is always better than a Repub. However, I think Obama has shown enough to say that may not be the case. Over Bachmann, even I'd probably say yes. But over a Romney? No.


    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by klassicheart on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 01:42:02 AM EST
    Plus, we have the Manchurian Candidate in Obama.  He has accomplished more for the right than anyone I can imagine.

    I'm there (none / 0) (#130)
    by Madeline on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:48:07 PM EST
    over Romney - no.

    You forgot this one (none / 0) (#78)
    by DFLer on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    With McCain, Sarah Palin would be VP....YIKES!!!

    So true (none / 0) (#137)
    by klassicheart on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 01:37:44 AM EST
    I can't bring myself to actively enable (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    Obama's re-election and the ever-rightward shift of the Democratic party, or send any message of any kind that it's okay to be bad on policy, okay to go where the Republicans want to go only slower, okay to be dismissive and disdainful of the valid and credible views of liberals and Democrats, just because the alternative is worse.

    Nothing about re-electing Obama is going to make the kinds of changes in the party or the kinds of changes in policy that will result in positive differences in people's lives.

    I WILL NOT vote for any Republican, but I also will not keep enabling the election of Democrats who want to govern like Republicans or keep selling us out to Republican policies.  And my Senators (Cardin and Mikulski) are on notice that, going forward, I will not vote to send them back to the Senate if what they are going to do there is serve as handmaidens to Obama's conservative vision of America.

    Obama may be re-elected, but he's not going to get there with my cooperation.  If it comes to pass that I have to wait until 67 to get Medicare, that the Social Security my husband now gets and that I will allegedly be eligible for in 8 years will be reduced, that I should lose my job in a moribund economy, that my kids' dreams are lost, I will at least know that I didn't actively help make that happen by casting a vote for any Democrat or any Republican who thinks that's okay.

    Screw me?  Well, then...screw you.

    Fighting Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by klassicheart on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 01:59:38 AM EST
    like you are what the Democratic party and its  leadership are missing...and until people understand that...we are doomed to the truly Republican policies of Obama.  Obama could care less about the middle class....everything he does is self serving and intended to maintain himself in power....Believing in Obama is like believing in Arnold S. as the terminator.  Obama was marketed to this country.  And those who bought the act should have no credibility now.  We have an imposter as a Democrat.  And to the extent Democrats enable him, they destroy what the Democratic party stands for. Meanwhile, the economy is now a Democratic problem...I doubt strongly McCain would have instituted policies designed to keep us in a recession...And I would have preferred to have the House and Senate in Democratic hands ...Instead, what did we get?  We lost the house and countless state races during the important redistricting. We will likely lose the Senate. On a macro level, what have Democrats gained with Obama? Social security now on the table? Insecurity of the middle class? No hope for college graduates?  How much worse does it really get with Republicans? Or do Democrats just do resignation and defeat so much better than Republicans?

    Obama does not listen to us on the left, he wants (none / 0) (#21)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    to stay under that bus and STFU.

    He believes he is doing what is Right; he looks to Reagan to guide him.  

    He WILL destroy the Democratic Party. I don't think it's completely destroyed yet, but he will do it with his messing with SocSec and Medicare.



    How can the Dems run on protecting and enhancing (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    SocSec and Medicare when their president is openly working to cut, gut, destroy the greatest achievements of the Democratic Party?

    They can say the R's will "slash," while Obama will merely "cut." Big deal. Jay Carney said that was an important difference!

    Not to me.


    Couldn't have said it better (none / 0) (#122)
    by suzieg on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:58:52 PM EST
    I live in Texas, so my vote is cancelled anyway so have nothing to lose by voting against him or write in someone else's name.

    Me to...I think (none / 0) (#131)
    by Madeline on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:50:54 PM EST
    Pennsylvania is heading red as of the last polling.
    Nothing to lose. And I mean nothing.

    I cannot support the reelection of Obama, If he's (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    this Republican in his first term when he needs Democratic voters to be reelected, how do you think he will govern with constraints on his Inner Ronald Reagan?

    I do not, cannot, trust this man as our president.

    Advantage of (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:55:14 PM EST
    being in a red state. It doesn't matter what I do. Advantage of being in a deep blue state also.

    People who live in swing states really have all the power anyway.


    True, we are off that hook (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    But we could send him some money and write and express glowing pithy wonderful things about him and his leadership except we can't do any of those things :)

    last week (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:19:52 PM EST
    even though i have not been a registered Democrat since 2006 or before, i got a DNC fundraising letter that included a box for messages to President Obama

    my message: Get back to me when you decide to run & govern as an actual Democrat

    then i mailed it back to the DSC on their prepaid dime instead of affixing postage, as suggested

    i was tempted to enclose all the rest of my junk mail for that day too


    I've done that, (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:30:06 PM EST
    Including as much junk mail or random pieces of cardboard as would fit in the pre-paid return envelope, that is.  The last time was, in fact, to the DNC.  Call it fruitless, but it made me feel a tiny bit better, if only briefly.   ;-)

    I'm actually thinking of sending a check (none / 0) (#182)
    by seabos84 on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    for 5 bucks from my new home address -

    I didn't think of filling the envelope with junk mail before sending it back! ha ha ha.

    I'm 51 and done - 8 POTUS elections, listening for 30 years to the political yuppie cla$$ of seattle and boston tell me all the conventional "wisdom" of why we gotta chase the goals posts to the right, the  right, and then to the right -

    cuz if we don't, the thugs will LIE about us and we'll LOSE!

    I made 51k once in my life, in ...2001?  and less all the other years. for scores of millions of us,  a job loss WILL equal:

    • who knows what for retraining?
    • who knows what for health 'care' - if you're out from health, do you have 6 or 18 or 24 months of "health insurance" premium socked away while you're not working?
    • who knows what for retirement as you dip into the Casino 401(k)
    • who knows what for you family housing as you struggle with your mortgage in a toilet housing market,
    • who knows what for the helping the kids,
    • who knows what for helping the old folks in the family who helped you,

    There ARE some differences tween the Tea Party crowd and the DLC-Third Way crowd:

    1. the Tea Party crowd IS a bunch of flat earth, racist, sexist bigots,

    2. the Tea Party crowd does NOT have all kinds of fancy college degrees, fancy job credentials, fancy zip code houses, fancy paychecks, and fancy excuses for losing to lying thieving fascists,

    3. the Tea Party crowd is a bunch of stooges and suck ups to rich pigs,

    instead upper middle class sucks ups to rich pigs!

    I'm voting "Medicare ForAll". 0bummer has decided I'm a marxist-trotskyite-maoist, and he's gonning with the swinging moderately centrally independents - GO FOR IT BABY!



    Oh, jeez, don't (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    even think about sending them even $5.00, or you'll be on their lists forever.  Better to send them a check for 1 cent ($.01).  That costs them way more to cash than its worth.  ;-)

    I've been doing this since the primaries (none / 0) (#123)
    by suzieg on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:01:10 PM EST
    and they still continue to send me begging letters

    Oh, yeah, no matter what (none / 0) (#183)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 04:51:42 PM EST
    you write to them in the junk-mail-filled return envelopes, they continue to send begging letters.  However, they no longer call my phone.  The last couple of times that I got calls from the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, and OFA, I went into such a rant about the failings of Obama and the current Democrats in general, they all hung up on me, and never called back.  A small, but satisfying, victory.  They all also no longer send me e-mails- their "Remove me from the e-mail list" seems to work better than the "Get me off the regular mail" list.  If they send me any more mailings, though, the next thing I'm going to do is write "Refused" on the envelope and drop it back in the mailbox.  Maybe, if enough of us did this, they'd get the hint.  (Although, I doubt it.)

    I guess Obama isn't our boyfriend (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 05:57:03 PM EST
    He's our stalker boyfriend....any response at all means we are thinking about them, we are confused about our feelings, we still care :)

    Thank God... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by masslib on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    I live in the safest of safe states.  That's all I'm saying.

    i think (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:08:42 PM EST
    those of us who live in deep blue (or red) states & do not want to cast a vote for 4 more years of the Obama administration can send a message by voting 3rd party

    Or leave the ballot blank at the top (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    although the most recent voting machine that I encountered did not allow that, although the law does.

    It's going to be up to the voting machines, apparently, anyway.  The rest will be just ritual.


    as Chris Hedges & others have said (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    if voting were actually effective it would be illegal

    can't you request a paper ballot? (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    We do use paper ballots (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    in my ward, but then we put them into machines -- machines that always allowed blank spots on ballots before.  I just find that interesting.  For this and many other reasons recently being discussed, I have no faith in the process now.

    We have (none / 0) (#101)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:42:33 PM EST
    totally electronic voting here, no paper trail at all.  I hate it.  Nothing to verify if there is a suspected problem.  Just "Yep, that's what the computer said."

    VT is safer (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 06:27:21 PM EST

    on your wavelength, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:23:09 PM EST
    Obama is making himself into a failed president. The alternative is worse, but as I argued here, he could hardly be putting himself in a worse political position with this debt ceiling "bargaining." Accepting historically high unemployment (no demand for more stimulus, no demand for doing anything for 99ers) is as inexcusable as demanding that Social Security and Medicare be on the table when he should have been working all along for a "clean" debt ceiling hike.

    I would not be at all surprised if unemployment is more like 10 percent by the end of 2012.

    Whoever you vote for..... (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by trillian on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:30:54 PM EST
    ....the Republicans will end up being in charge.

    Just wondering how (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:40:45 PM EST
    fighting for issues, not for pols, fits in with the Obama trainwreck?  What issues are you fighting for by supporting him for reelection?

    Can't be the economy or jobs?  Not justice, surely?  

    American exceptionalism?  What?

    stopping BTD before he quotes himself again (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:46:20 PM EST
    i think BTD would say, because he has said (& has frequently cited himself as having said) that Democrats overall tend to be better than Republicans on the issues that matter to him

    that said, it is pathetic that virtually the only argument for Obama's re-election is "the GOP is worse"


    Right....so he should (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    name the issues!  Spell it out, fella.  Trying to follow the bouncing ball...

    you are right (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    i did not read your original comment carefully enough

    All of them actually (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:25:27 PM EST
    But that's a low bar.

    The lasting reasons are named Ginsburg and Breyer.


    Obama did not nominate (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by mjames on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:38:02 AM EST
    Breyer and Ginsberg. And Breyer, though not a precedent-destroyer like Scalia or Roberts (Thomas is merely a stooge), is certainly no liberal.

    And since when is it good negotiating to give away the store without demanding concessions? At least keep them guessing.

    Are you going to vote for Obama after he cuts Social Security (raises the age to 67, imposes needs-testing, and imposes some different method of computing cost-of-living increases that decreases payments) and Medicare (raises the amount we must pay)? Because, to me, that means he shouldn't be running on the Democratic Party line.


    Breyer? (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:32:19 PM EST
    He is up for retirement?

    One of these days, one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will have to retire.  


    or croak n/t (none / 0) (#94)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    remember al franken's old satellite dish reporter on SNL?  for a few episodes, back when the Yankees were giong through an awful stretch in the 80's, he did a "George Stinebrenner Health Watch."  Time for the Scalia health watch.

    You might consider (none / 0) (#132)
    by Madeline on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:59:55 PM EST
    having as much trust in Ginsberg as you do Obama.  Ginsberg would never leave in a Republican Administration. Neither would Breyer

    So a vote (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:53:17 PM EST
    -- to let a guy lose in the short term so that the Democratic Party gets the message that you have to stand on Democratic principles to win -- is a bad vote?

    Not in my eyes it's not.

    Lose lose (none / 0) (#100)
    by Rupe on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:41:51 PM EST
    Losing to a Republican will only reinforce the notion that the party needs to move further right.  Of course, enabling a center right President affirms that the electorate agrees with center right policies.  I'm still voting for the Supreme Court nominations only, as sh!tty as some of their rulings have been lately they certainly could be worse.  But that is a truly depressing thought.  Despair is the feeling that comes to mind when thinking about American politics anymore.

    Don't think so. (none / 0) (#163)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    Losing to a Republican will only reinforce the notion that the party needs to move further right.

    The Democrats won the presidency and both houses of congress in 2008.

    And what did they do?

    They moved to the right.


    That's what I meant by lose-lose (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Rupe on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    I think the party will shift to the right regardless of the outcome of the election, win or lose.

    moving right is Conventional "Wisdom" (none / 0) (#186)
    by seabos84 on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    for the sell outs of the DLC-Third Way.

    voting for sell outs = getting sold out.

    voting for sell outs = getting sold out.

    voting for sell outs = getting sold out ...

    pretty complicated, no?



    Bad precedetn made worse by the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BobTinKY on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    the President being re-elected with such horrific unemployment numbers is purportedly a Democrat!

    BTW, thank God for the bailout of Goldman Sachs, where would we be without their uncanny ability to forecast the obvious.

    I'm reading this thread (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:00:49 AM EST
    And thinking to self about how frustrating our economic reality is, and nobody who can really do anything about it will do anything about it, and many people here who have always been on good speaking terms with each other are probably being affected by that because we are in such a bleak and powerless position.

    The alternative is worse (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    Thank you for continuing to provide a forum where the truth and reality can be discussed, and continuing to enable activists to fight for what is important.  It isn't something that many seem to be able to do.

    It is not much of a surprise (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:56:10 PM EST

    Herbert Hoover's economic policies, namely increased in federal spending, increased regulation and increased marginal tax rates as a cure for a weak economy has been tried and found to be counterproductive.  It is not at all surprising that Obama's replay of that disaster is having fewer and fewer koolaid drinkers in support.

    But Obama (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    didn't increase tax rates. He left the Bush tax cuts going and cut taxes even more.

    Good grief. Can someone tell me why conservatives are so ready to believe every myth out there?


    Because their party spokesmen (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by shoephone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    are just so much better at framing messages, whether there is an ounce of truth in them or not. Just think of how complicated and long-winded most Dems are in explaining their positions on economics, or any other complex issues. People fall asleep listening, even if the facts contained therein are accurate. Then think of John Boehner standing before the microphones all week long, stating that Republicans will not vote to raise taxes because "tax hikes kill jobs." Short and succint framing, while totally inaccurate.

    The policy he is trying to sell now (none / 0) (#116)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:45:00 PM EST
    Is tax rate increases.  As part of raising the debt limit.  

    In reality ... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 08:05:20 AM EST
    ... if you're talking about Obama's proposed rollback of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, a large majority of people support it.

    A lot of (none / 0) (#193)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:53:25 AM EST

    A lot of people thought Herbert Hoover was doing the right thing at the time as well.

    Actually I was referring to Obama's undefined demands for "revenue increases" as part of the debt limit increase, or granny does not get her SS check.

    So much for a guaranteed benefit.


    Please clarify what you're saying here -- you seem (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    Excuse, but I'm confused!

    That is such a sad truth (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:24:36 PM EST
    about a president who wanted to make history -- for himself, though, and not for his policies.  Too bad that rewriting his own history must have made him think that he could rewrite the past of the country, too.

    Did you read the comment (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    you are agreeing with?

    Try reading it again.


    Yes; the details are off (none / 0) (#26)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:59:33 PM EST
    but the big picture is too reminiscent of Hoover's continued bowing to big business in the face of disaster.

    It's great except (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    it's totally wrong?

    Not what I said, so (none / 0) (#35)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:11:57 PM EST
    I'll just speak for myself only, too.  Nice how that works.

    The devil is NOT in the details? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    It is when it comes to what (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    exactly is wrong with our economy and what needs to be done, but that's just me :)

    What?!? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    When did Obama increase marginal tax rates?

    BTW - Federal spending under Bush increased twice as much as under Obama, and federal spending has started to decline.


    Goldman Sachs--in recent years-- (none / 0) (#22)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    doesn't have a very good record for predictions. Just a reminder.

    I am hard-pressed to know how (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    the economic, fical and monetary policies of this administration, with the assistance of Congress, are going to lower unemployment in any signficant way.

    Perhaps you know something the rest of us, and many economists, don't; if so, please share.


    Confidence faerie and pixie dust (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:25:11 PM EST
    Of course at the rate this administration is going, millions more Americans might give up looking for work entirely and thereby, lower the BLS rate if not the actual employment rate.

    Be sure to clap harder and dust off those pompoms.  


    Hmmm. I was thinking today about (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:22:02 PM EST
    the number of women employed during the Great Deprsssion. Not many; and, not many sought employment.

    Frankly, I don't even know why I said that...other than than my husband & I were talking about how much things have changed over the years. It is not on point, I know. But, it is responsive to changes in the work force over the years.


    You do realise don't you (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:21:33 PM EST
    that a large majority of those being hired/rehired now are men? That stat was fairly staggering, especially for all those women out there that need jobs . . .

    and don't forget, many lost good jobs and are being hired back into jobs with much lower wages (if they are lucky!).

    Yep, things are peachy out there in this new work environment we now find ourselves in.. . .

    You should try looking for a job, or perhaps looking for health insurance. Maybe look at your life not covered by your gov retirement/health care, and workout a new budget for yourself based on some real life stats of those who have been forced out of the workplace in the past few years (lost jobs, 401k value etc). Think about those who have been paying into the "system" for 25-30+yrs who may suddenly have to work longer and accept less when we do get our "entitlements". Maybe you won't find President Obama's expressions etc quite so appealing then . . .


    I grew up in some harsh realities (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:42:54 PM EST
    One doesn't forget that, nycstray. I don't presume to know about your background; but, "thanks" for thinking you know all about mine.

    You've made your "current" bkgrd (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 02:18:54 AM EST
    real clear. If you've grown up in "harsh" realities (as I have seen you allude to), you sure seem to have forgotten them. Or maybe you, like Obama, think everyone needs a dose of 'medicine'. It's really phucking insulting to see a Dem Pres telling folks they can have the American Dream if they act responsibly (while he's going beyond the Right to make it more difficult), or not help Main St because a few not so responsible people might receive help, while propping up the TBTF crowd. Don't even go there with me on his acceptance of high unemployment and spinning it to get reelected, yes again, the people take a hit.  

    Dog only knows where he'll go when he doesn't have to worry about reelection . . . But hey, wasn't he endearing during the last press conference?


    In answer to your question at the end (none / 0) (#173)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 12:04:24 PM EST
    "Yes, he <Obama> handled the last press conference quite well.

    Oh, and just to repeat, I know my own realities. You may be transcribing them incorrectly.

    Because...in this country, people can & do differ without saying or insinuating that something is wrong with another's bona fides when there is disagreement.


    Since you have disclosed (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 06:41:33 AM EST
    the details of your retirement health insurance, we do know that as a retired federal employee, if Medicare was eliminate tomorrow, you and your husband would still have great taxpayer subsidized health insurance for a little over $300 a month (family plan).

    So no, you do not have the same skin in the game as the people who rely on the current Medicare to make health care affordable.  


    Hey--the purpose of disclosue (none / 0) (#174)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    is to show one's cards. When we all show the real cards, we can have real conversation.

    You are correct: My situation now is very fortunate...and, I wish the health care system could be the same for everyone. That is why I supported the ACA as a step in the direction we all seek.

    But, my memory still hasn't failed...and, I do remember my roots. They were nowhere near middle class as we looked up; but, through a series of fortunate happenings, I honor that past (and surely recognize the reality of it) and am thankful today. To that extent, my perspective may be different than some others who write here. Know this: I don't walk away from the harsh realities...never have, never will.


    The purpose of telling people about (none / 0) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    your retirement insurance could have been to show your cards. Yet, that was not reason behind  telling us about your insurance. You were promoting the magical aspects of the exchanges as a major factor in holding down costs and cited your $300 monthly premium for a family plan. That a "significant portion of that cost reduction realized over the years stems from the concept & reality of an exchange."

    The reality of the exchanges at inception seem much different than what you contend.  Kaiser has put together estimates of what the premiums will be on the exchange for 2014. A family plan with a 70% actuarial value purchased by older Americans would have an estimated  premium of $24,042. That is an expensive premium for insurance that only picks up 70% of your health care costs and the insured must pay the additional 30% out of pocket.


    My comment above centered on pre-WW!! (none / 0) (#129)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:44:42 PM EST
    Not so. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:37:13 PM EST
    Don't buy the Rosie the Riveter myth that women did not start working until World War II.

    White, middle-class married women, true.  

    But many white, middle-class single women worked until marriage even in the 19th century.

    And, of course, poor women, working-class women, immigrant women, African American women worked in massive numbers for many centuries now.  


    Do you know the percentages (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:39:54 PM EST
    What per cent of women worked after marriage in pre-WWII? What occurred to me was "how were they counted?" White, black, married, unmarried? When the workforce percentages were calculated pre-WWII, for example, were white married women counted in the employment figures? (Or, was it assumed--without more--that married women, e.g., were not looking for work and not configured in the percentages? Because, if they were, the percentages of "unemployed" must have been sky high? And, if they weren't, it would have been a "limited" universe upon which to base employment calculations.)

    You have answered your question (none / 0) (#168)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    in a way, by questioning the source of the data.  The census data are questionable (see the book Who Counts? for one), so we have to use common sense.  Questions about working women were not even asked for much of our history, not until 1870, when that census -- even with its flawed questions (for example, often not counting women in agricultural families so unpaid) -- found women already were 15% of the U.S. workforce.

    Some estimates have women as at least 25% of the paid workforce by the end of the '20s.  But then, the federal government led the way in women being the first to be fired -- one of FDR's very flawed policies -- so that has to be factored into trying to figure out how many worked for pay during the Depression when, for example, many "Apple Annies" and/or homeless women (only beginning to be studied now) would have missed in many census methods (as are many today).


    Thanks towanda (none / 0) (#175)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    My entry into the "how many women worked & how were they counted" in pre-WWII is clumsily stated, I realize. The discussions here have prompted me to think about the "sheer numbers" of unemployed during the Depression as a way to understand how the macro-employment counting has changed (and been massaged) over the years. And, what hit me recently has been not that we have been understating unemployment figures during the past 15 or so years...but, that even the astoundingly high unemployment figures from the Great Depression must have been VERY understated in terms of the percentage of women in the mix (and how they were counted.)

    I agree with that undercounting (none / 0) (#179)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    of unemployment and underemployment throughout our history, including during the Depression.  Just as today, we have look at the questions asked, how they were framed (and who was framed out of them), before achieving an understanding of real numbers.

    I recall a great reading on health in the late 19th century that looked more closely into not just census data but actual census forms.  Clearly, the data collected on women's health varied greatly dependent upon the gender of the censustaker.  Most were men, of course, so if they even bothered to ask questions of women, everything went under "female complaints."  The rare woman censustaker, though, turned up much better interviews and information.

    Ditto re race, of course, as other studies of the census have found.  Many censustakers, mainly white, simply refused to go into African American neighborhoods.

    And the records are so flawed in so many other ways, as I found out in researching my own family genealogy.  Everything is fine for the men among my forebears, but the records on my great-grandmothers is so flawed, from misspelling of names to being entirely missing in some years.  It was quite common for censustakers to just note the number of females, too; details not necessary.  And I know that my great-grandmothers and grandmothers worked, before and after marriage (teacher, typist, seamstress, etc.), but none of that information is recorded even post-1870, when it was supposed to be asked.

    Taking all of the flaws into censustaking and census data into account, and then realizing that public policy -- public spending -- is based upon census data, suggests reasons why questions were not asked and thus programs were not created, taxes were not spent, etc., on so many Americans in past.  

    And we may want to think about such uses of better but still flawed census data today, too.  See, again, books such as Who Counts?


    Let's talk about women today (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 06:33:14 AM EST
    Today the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) released a new report that shows how deficit reduction proposals to change the way cost of living adjustments (COLAs) are calculated in federal benefit programs--such as Social Security--underestimate the effect of inflation on the elderly and would especially harm women. The proposed switch to a new measure of inflation may appear to be a mere technical adjustment, but this report shows how the change will result in significant cuts to Social Security benefits that deepen over the years and dramatically increase economic insecurity among the elderly--especially women.

    The proposed change delivers a triple whammy to women, according to NWLC's report, Cutting the Social Security COLA by Changing the Way Inflation is Calculated Would Especially Hurt Women. Since women live longer than men, they face deeper cuts in their Social Security benefits under the proposed new measure of inflation, known as the "chained Consumer Price Index," because the cuts from this reduced COLA get deeper each year. Women rely more on income from Social Security, so these cuts would represent a larger share of their total retirement income. And since older women are already more economically vulnerable than older men, these cuts would leave many of them unable to meet basic needs.

    BTW, the recent reductions to WIC also were targeted against women and children who are already economically vulnerable making it harder for them to meet basic needs.

    Excuse me if I refuse to vote for anyone who promotes cuts that will force more women into  poverty.  


    FWIW (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 07:08:16 AM EST
    These proposed cola cuts will come on top of two years of NO cola increases....Zero.

    Since food, gas, and clothing have skyrocketed, but are "non-essential" items, I am truly thrilled that iPads and plasma tv prices have come down.


    A little more from (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 07:23:20 AM EST
    the National Women's Law Center report.

    "The average Social Security benefit for a woman now is just $12,000 a year--far from extravagant," Entmacher said. "But without Social Security, one in two older women would fall into poverty and many more would be financially dependent on others. Elderly women simply can't afford to lose any of their already modest benefits.

    Also about the faulty assumptions used to justify stealing money from seniors:

    The "chained CPI" produces even lower estimates of inflation than the current measure of inflation because it adjusts for consumers' substituting cheaper goods for more expensive items when prices go up.

    A more accurate measure of the changes in the cost of living for Social Security beneficiaries would use a separate price index for the elderly reflecting the dramatic inflation in health care costs that disproportionately burden them....

    I guess seniors can substitute water for milk and hopium for food. If they stay confined to their homes, there will be no need for gas and wearing a winter coat in the house in the winter and going naked in the summer might help them cope when utility prices go up. Of course, most of those options depend on the senior having a roof over their heads which might not be the case soon.    


    Obama to women (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    clap louder, die faster

    Sounds like dyspepsia or a bad am, Addams Fam. (none / 0) (#190)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:32:43 PM EST
    My point about GS (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    None of us know...including the largest institutions like GS.

    If "wishes were fishes," then I would say--& have said from the gat-go--that the single biggest step that should have been taken would have been to secure a bigger stimulus package in 2009. Krugman had the best argument. There are lots of impassioned statements about why we didn't of course, but the reason that rings the truest is that--even with both Houses in the Dem column at that time--party discipline long ago stopped being what it used to be (or was purported to be.) Meaning: The numbers for stimulus X2 weren't there in the Senate.  So, you get as much stimulus %%% as seemed available and you reduce your sights to get the votes...you don't lose the first vote or you've lost everything.  For many (even Krugman) a one-half loaf is preferable to nothing.  That's my take; but, that was then & this is now.

    Nope, noone has the magic wand here. Even economists & would-be prognosticators agree that there are limited things--under the constraints of this day & age--that a President can do to create jobs. The auto industry assistance was even resisted by a number of people...yet, it turned out more than well. We have trade agreements now that should create jobs...the Repubs are sitting on them.  The President's continual push & time-honored use of the "bully pulpit" for green jobs has produced incremental results...slowly. The transportation initiatives & $$$ associated with them would create jobs...the Repubs have held that hostage under the "debt ceiling" stuff (which is one reason why that hyped hostage argument needs to be taken off the table by some resolution.)  Etc. etc.

    Now, you have said that you did not vote for Obama in 2008. So, I wonder what could change (without a magic wand), what is doable & how, that you would move off the position you espoused even before the inauguration? Or what viable candidate speaks with a voice with which you agree?  As you have consistently & correctly pointed out, Anne, there are real hurting people out there who must not be forgotten. I very much agree. I also point out that eschewing/avoiding/refraining from uncomfortable choices doesn't help those hurting in any way other than philosophically.  It is an interesting philosophical stance, an honorable stance, a proud stance in the best sense of the word. But, does it dodge the responsibility of making a choice that effects everyone, especially the poor?


    Do you think that making the decision (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:48:52 PM EST
    not to vote for anyone for president was an easy one for me?  That as an American who has always voted since the first election for which I was eligiblee, and as an election judge spending hours and hours assisting in and seeing first hand the election process, I didn't wrestle with the possible consequences of my decision?

    You think it was "dodging" my responsibility to make a principled - and agonizing - decision not to vote that race?  Who did I desert, the rich?  The banksters and Wall Street?  Would my vote have been the one that caused Obama to see what's really important, that the Democratic party platform was something he needed to pay attention to?  Would my vote have stopped Obama from offering up women's reproductive health decisions as a bargaining chip?  Would it have protected social safety net programs from attack?  Would it have made him be the transparent president he said he would be, the answer to, and not the continuation of, the Bush/Cheney policies on state secrets and indefinite detention and the wars, both legal and illegal?

    Do you imagine that it was only the failure of Obama to get every single vote that kept him from being a damned Democratic president?  And mine was one of them?

    Well, then, my apologies; I guess I shall go sit in the corner now and accept responsibility for the disaster of the Obama presidency.  For the lack of jobs, for the benefits-the-rich policies, for the schizophrenic, passive-aggressive, is-he-for-it-or-against-it DADT, for the drones flying missions, for the war on whistleblowers, for whatever else you want me to feel is my fault because I decided that my vote - my one, precious, little vote - would be demeaned and diminished by once again throwing it to a candidate who didn't respect it, wasn't going to honor it and has shown nothing but disdain for principles I actually thought meant something.

    Bite me, Christine, just bite me.  Assuming you can release your death grip on those pearls you're wearing.


    Anne, you answered (none / 0) (#66)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:00:02 PM EST
    the subtext of christinep's comment

    there was a question too:

    So, I wonder what could change (without a magic wand), what is doable & how, that you would move off the position you espoused even before the inauguration? Or what viable candidate speaks with a voice with which you agree?

    i would be interested in your answer if you wanted to offer one


    Addams Family, I have been wracking (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:52:44 PM EST
    my brain trying to identify someone who speaks with the voice I'm looking for, AND is willing to run, AND is viable.

    Bernie Sanders speaks with a decidedly liberal voice, but he's not running; and, face it, unless you are a contributions juggernaut, no one is viable.  Shoot, we ought to just let Obama buy the damn WH - put that money into his precious deficit and make him STFU with his grand plans to sell out the old, the poor and the sick.

    What would he have to do to make me want to vote for him?  Get off this phony debt and deficit crisis, and sell the policies we need - like spending to fund projects that would put people back to work.  Make the argument for why we don't need to "fix" or "change" or "tweak" or otherwise monkey around with the social safety net - and keep making it until he wins that argument.  Make a damn decision about whether he's for or against DADT - quit making big announcements that portray him as some kind of human and civil rights advocate and then send his DOJ out into the quiet to do just the opposite.  Apologize for the Thomas Drake prosecution.  Call off the dogs on James Risen.  Stop treating whistleblowers as the enemy and go after the real enemies of the state - Bush and Cheney and minions.  Fight for women's rights instead of treating them like bargaining chips.  Fight for Elizabeth Warren. Let go of his irrational fear that a real program for those who need mortgage assistance might help someone who doesn't "deserve" it, so that the vast majority of those who want nothing more than to stay in their homes and make their mortgage payments have a better shot at doing so.  If his wife is going to make a personal crusade for better nutrition and against childhood obesity, do his part and stop cutting funding to programs that help feed women and children.  

    He could lead instead of follow, bring others over to a better policy and let the results speak for themselves - because for damn sure that's what the policies he's behind now are going to do, and it's not going to be pretty.

    I could go on, but the gist of this is, I want him to be a damn Democrat, not just pretend to be one while he sucks up to Republicans and treats us liberals like something stinky he stepped in and can't get off his shoe.

    I don't think that's too much to expect from a Democrat; if you or dear christine-the-incrementalist think that's too high a bar, well, all I can say is, it's long past time we started raising the bar instead of resigning ourselves to having to keep lowering it.

    Hope that answers your question.  And my tone, which I know is angry, is not directed at you, but at the overwhelming frustration of feeling there is no way out of what is going to be an ever-worsening situation.


    Anne... (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 06:01:20 PM EST
    What did you think about Nader?

    What do you think about him?

    I like him.
    I identify with his way of speaking.
    He seems like an old-fashioned Democrat.

    I would agree that he is not viable.
    But is that because he lacks something, or because everyone believes he is not viable?

    If he had millions and millions of dollars to spend on a campaign - the sine qua non for viability it would seem - would you vote for him?

    I didn't vote for him because I didn't really believe he was running for President. He was using his candidacy to build a movement. It is a movement in which I believe - but I could not vote for him.

    Anyway - I was wondering how you felt about him.


    I certainly can't answer for Anne (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by shoephone on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:09:53 PM EST
    but, as someone who actually voted for Nader in 1996, I found it impossible to make the same choice in 2000. During that campaign he showed himself to be a total narcissist who did not give a flying fig about women's reproductive rights. The conversation on ABC This Week went pretty much like this:

    Stephanopolous: What about the Supreme Court? What happens if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

    Nader: It's not a problem, because then abortion policy would revert to the states. States could still keep it legal.

    My jaw dropped, and I hit the ground running...as far away from supporting Nader as humanly possible.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#149)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 07:38:18 AM EST
    for your reply Shoephone.

    Please see my reply to Anne above.


    lentinel, I pretty much feel as shoephone (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:33:12 PM EST
    describes, below; anyone who thinks it's "no problem" for abortion decisions to revert to the states, which will guarantee that how much control women have over their bodies will be entirely a matter of geography, doesn't get it.

    Nader is right about the fact that both political parties are corrupt to the core, and continuing to keep voting for them is just ensuring that the corruption will continue.

    What we're seeing now - on both sides of the aisle - is proof of that, I think.  Worth continuing to support?  Here and there, yes, but on a blanket basis?  Anyone, as long as he or she carries that (D)?  Nope.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#148)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 07:37:02 AM EST
    for your reply.

    I did not know about that quote as offered by Shoephone.

    To tell you the truth, I find it hard to accept that Ralph Nader could say something that is so callous and really dumb.

    I have even attempted to google the quote about the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but have not been able to find it. I have found some quotes in which he said (in 2000) that he didn't think that Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned. He also said, in a separate quote, that even if it were, it would not end it because the issue would "just" revert to the States. I have not seen a quote in which he said that the reversal would be "no problem". I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't found it. Saying that the issue would "just" revert to the States is pretty damn close, however.

    The context in which I believe Nader made this comment was in answer to a question in which he was being asked if his candidacy would syphon votes from Gore, elect a republican who could then appoint justices who would overturn Roe. He said that he thought this was a scare tactic. The excerpt I found is here.

    I have no interest in defending Nader against an indefensible position if that is what he actually said, but I have never seen any quote from him - or any interview with him - in which he said something so ignorant and cruel - so I am both grateful to you and Shoephone for bringing it to my attention and curious enough about it to pursue it further.


    I was transcribing from memory (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    and that interview was eleven years ago. Sorry if I didn't remember it verbatim. He may not have said "no problem." He did, however, clearly imply that it would be no problem, because it would revert back to the states. If you don't think that's a problem for women's rights, you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in states across the south and midwest. Are you aware of what's going on in North Dakota, with regard to reproductive rights? Missouri? North Carolina? DO you know that in 24 states across the nation there is a enforced waiting period? Now that the tea partiers are running rampant throughout state governments, do you really think it's going to get any easier? Do you not see that Nader's attitude -- and yes, it WAS cavalier, I saw the interview -- is, indeed, a HUGE problem for women?

    Give me a phucking break. Your argument, which is based on trying to prove Nader didn't say what he actually said, is phenomenonally naive.

    Furthermore, when I called the Nader campaign office in Seattle shortly afterwards to ask for a clarification of Nader's position on reproductive rights, I was told by the idiot on the phone that he didn't know, hadn't heard or seen the interview, and didn't care. When I responded that, as a former Nader supporter I could not accept the campaign's nonchalance on this issue, he screamed at me and hung up on me. That pretty much ended my interest in Nader and his campaign.

    If you have evidence that Nader is a big supporter of women's right to abortion, and is willing to fight for it to be federally protected, please post it. Really, I will be waiting to see it.


    Nader (none / 0) (#180)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    Give me a phucking break. Your argument, which is based on trying to prove Nader didn't say what he actually said, is phenomenonally naive.

    I was not, and am not, trying to prove Nader didn't say something he said.

    I just said that I couldn't find a citation in which he had said that it would be "no problem".

    What I did find was a statement in which he said that he did not think that a republican administration would try or succeed in overturning Roe. He thought it would never be overturned. He went on to say that even if it were, it would not end choice in America. the issue would revert to the states.
    That is the phrase that you found so troubling. I can see why.

    But in 2000, he is also quoted as saying,

    "I don't think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child. And we've seen that around the world. This is something that should be privately decided with the family, woman, all the other private factors of it, but we should work toward preventing the necessity of abortion."

    When I look at the other things Nader said about the right of women to choose without governmental interference it is unequivocal. He advocated that women be given the choice of using the RU-486 pill without governmental interference. Ultimately, I just don't feel that he is the enemy, but I don't deny you the right to feel differently.

    I admit that I am inclined to look further than your recollection of what you saw because of it is way out of character for him.
    It is inconsistent with his other statements on this issue - as well as other issues of human rights.

    But - I am not proselytizing for Nader.
    As I mentioned, something prevented me and prevents me from voting for him.


    Hmmm (3.50 / 2) (#164)
    by DancingOpossum on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    I didn't find Nader's comments about abortion so horrifying. I think he's right that the right would never really allow Roe to be overturned; it's too potent a fundraising tactic for them to ever abandon. And he certainly shows a stronger commitment to abortion rights than Obama ever has.

    He (none / 0) (#169)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:44:09 AM EST
    was certainly correct in 2000 that a Bush presidency would not result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It didn't.

    And reading what Nader has had to say on this subject I certainly agree with you that he is head and shoulders above Obama when it comes to respecting and even championing the right of women to choose.

    When it comes to Nader, I have noticed that he is much more vilified by the left than is Obama, Clinton or Gore.

    I think that many liberals have bought into the proposition that the election of W. was Nader's fault. It is easier to use him as the fall guy than place the blame with Gore himself.

    Nader was brought to my mind because of an interview I saw on "Democracy Now" - Amy Goodman's show.
    He was talking about nuclear power and the nuclear industry.
    He was just about the only public figure expressing something straightforward and intelligent on the subject - a subject which I believe is life-threatening.


    Obama wasn't running in 2000 (none / 0) (#178)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 12:47:14 PM EST
    Please post your evidence that Nader is willing to fight for federal protection of abortion rights.

    Bush v Gore (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:03:42 PM EST
    Every so often, we are reminded how close an election can be. Smaller scale elections have been won or lost by a handful, one vote, and even the toss of a coin.

    Examples of close raises & outcomes that didn't turn out so well for those "staying home" as it were:  Humphrey v Nixon (1968--advantage incumbent Nixon in the following 1972); Carter v Reagan (1980 split in primary a major determinor of outcome in general--advantage incumbent Reagan in 1984); and, Bush v Gore (2000--voter fatigue & non-excitement about Gore plus Florida--advantage incumbent Bush in 2004.)

    Each precious vote counts...to the individual &, ultimately, to the nation. Beyond saying that, I won't bite. Not even my pearls.


    Gore (none / 0) (#90)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:55:31 PM EST
    ran a stinko campaign.
    He chose Lieberman as his running mate.

    And Clinton - he hung on to power rather than resign.

    W. would have faced an incumbent President Gore instead of the deer in the headlights that Gore became.

    Bush was the worst president in my lifetime - I think.
    Although I have nothing but contempt for Nixon.
    I also cringe at the sight of Lyndon Johnson's mug - lying to us over and over again.

    My point: It would seem on the surface that Gore would have been infinitely better that GW Bush. But he was and is such a flake that we can't really know for sure.

    No matter which creep is chosen to run on the Republican ticket, I can't imagine pulling the lever for Obama. My stomach wouldn't allow it.

    No. The democratic process has been entirely corrupted.
    Although I respect people who want to participate in what they deem is a patriotic process, I think that to do so is tantamount to treason because it only helps to support a system that continues to subjugate, humiliate and fleece the American people.


    If Gore had won (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:51:04 PM EST
    his own d@mned state of Tennessee, he would have won the Presidency in 2000, even without Florida.  And I agree- he ran a stinko campaign, he chose a terrible vice-presidential running mate, and certainly he would have been better than Bush (although, in retrospect, that could have been said about a whole heck of a lot of politicians).

    There's (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 07:28:40 PM EST
    a park near where I live in which there is a duck pond.

    Any one of the ducks would have been better - especially Roberta.


    Why in the hell would Clinton have resigned? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by masslib on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:55:49 PM EST
    To please the lynch mob of fanatics in Congress?  I don't think so.

    At the time (none / 0) (#141)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 05:19:39 AM EST
    I did not want Clinton to resign - for the reason you stated.

    But knowing what I do now - what he actually did - all the while knowing that Monica would have to tell someone about it (his words) I think the only honorable and patriotic thing would have been for him to resign.

    He was so involved in defending himself against the indefensible and lying to his colleagues in government that he was useless.

    But most important - if he had resigned, W. would have faced an incumbent President Gore in 2000. I think Gore would have trounced Bush.

    I'm not sure how Gore would have fared as a President - his really weird behavior after the election makes me think that he is really unbalanced - but I certainly would have preferred not to have had to live through eight years of seeing W's face on TV.

    And - in my opinion - a democratic congress enabled W.
    They questioned just about nothing and rubber-stamped just about everything. They still are doing so with regard to W.'s most obnoxious policies - from Obama on down.

    So - what would Gore and the Democrats have done after 9/11?
    I don't know. I know that they didn't have the same predetermined agenda regarding Iraq as did the Bush boys - but watching them now and over the last decade - I just don't know how different things would be - much as I would like to think they would have been better.


    Gore did not lose the election (none / 0) (#194)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:31:38 PM EST
    because of Clinton.  Frankly, he didn't lose the election period.  But this is pure fantasy on your part.  Further, he did not commit an impeachable act.  

    Yes. (none / 0) (#195)
    by lentinel on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 09:03:00 AM EST
    Gore lost the election all on his own.
    I agree.
    But don't you think his putrid choice of Lieberman - a real slug - as his VP had ONLY to do with picking someone who had come out on the Senate floor to condemn Clinton?

    That's how hung up Gore was on trying to distance himself from Clinton's behavior.

    If Clinton had resigned, Gore would have been able to simply campaign on the great (bubble) economy, etc. And he would have been an incumbent President running against a nobody drunk from Texas.

    I agree with you that Gore actually won anyway - and the SCOTUS along with Katherine Harris conducted what amounted to a coup d'etat - ending democracy in America.


    Lentinel: you wanted Clinton to resign? (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:31:28 PM EST

    Please (none / 0) (#165)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:12:05 AM EST
    see my response above re: the resignation of Clinton.

    About my favorite presidents...

    I will admit that there wasn't one of them that I have lived through that I wasn't just glad to have survived.


    Okay, Lentinel (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:34:48 PM EST
    You note all the Presidents that you dislike (putting it mildly.) For point of reference, which President in the past 50 or 60 years did you either identify with or approve of? As of point of reference, BTW, it is a fair question or observation.

    What is your guy doing (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    for the real hurting people out there now?

    Not enough done before, when hard decisions and responsibilities were dodged to instead push through/squander political capital on pet agenda items.  Even less being done now.  And, most important if you want to win the votes for him to win the future, what is he planning for the poor -- and even more likely voters, the real hurting middle class -- in the hard times ahead?  

    No matter how long, your tomes just don't seem to respond to the points so as to be persuasive.


    What is Obama doing for (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:36:33 PM EST
    the real hurting people out there now?

    Obama is promoting policies in the debt ceiling debacle that will guarantee that more people are hurting and if adopted many will not have the wherewithal to survive. Then once he completes that task he plans to lower corporate taxes.

    Not real sure how much lower companies like GE's taxes can be or why my benefits need to be cut since I paid more in taxes on an extremely small retirement income than they did.


    I'll make this short & blunt then (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    Towanda: For which viable candidate today would you vote?

    There are absolutes; there are comparisons.


    Or let me put it this way: (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:33:41 PM EST
    Show me the candidate who comes forward with a viable jobs bill.

    See, I'm not into all this personality stuff.  I'm not one who, when asked to identify issues, answers only with names. . . .


    The ballot will contain names...a choice (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    Why, yes, it will. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:04:59 PM EST
    So, let's see if we can move this along, now that we have achieved a focus on the future:  Who do you think will be those viable names on the ballot?

    Ans. Obama (D) v. (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    One of the presently announced Republican candidates.

    Wisconsin: Novemer 2010 (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:07:31 PM EST
    Ballot had a choice of names for Governor. My understanding is that a number of likely or potential Democratic voters sat it out.

    Consequences. Look, I know that there is time (lots of it really) in which to focus on the issues...and, I fully agree with any/all arguments that voters are entitled to set a high bar. But, you have seen close-up via Wisconsin one consequence of thinking that there are no/little differences between the two parties in day-to-day working & living. (So, for now, I won't push the issue further...because people need time to weigh options, to think, to see some more of the process unfold. You are no dummy; neither am I.)


    You do know, I hope (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    that the Wisconsin Dems were tossed into a mess because of White House meddling, punishing the Dem candidate then who had been a Clinton backer.

    So that is a problematic argument for more of the same such leadership from national Dems -- including the one who had promised to get into comfortable shoes and march in protests of attacks on workers.  The symbol of flipflops in past campaigns was replaced by the symbol of comfortable shoes offered to Obama to make good on that promise.  But when Wisconsin could have used his intervention, that did not happen.

    So you have your point, but it just brings up other points about the problems with Obama.


    Oh, I wish I could (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:53:21 PM EST
    give you a +10 for this comment, Towanda.  Spot on.

    I hear you (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:18:32 PM EST
    and I hear that you point out potentially both sides. But--in the cold, cruel, real world that translates to government--as you know--it comes down to results. Sure one side in the party may be right or better than the other (or this happened or that.) Every state has its stories. That is not to diminish what you said. It is to say, however, that your comment only underscores the need to chomp it down, suck it up, and work together. (Aka the Hillary Clinton model of putting aside differences to work for the broader polity...no matter how strong one feels.)

    You are asking that we (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 08:52:30 AM EST
    chomp it down, suck it up, and work together, putting aside differences, to work for the Obama's broader polity that many of us are strongly against. We were against these policies when they were Republican policies and we are against these policies now that Obama is pursuing them.

    No way I'm voting for a politician who is for cutting domestic programs that people need to survive. A politicians who is willing to trade keeping the Bush/Obama tax cuts in place in exchange for cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid.



    There are no viable candidates (none / 0) (#75)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    yet other than Obama that I can see, with one party in disarray and the other nearly dead.

    So you see viable candidates already?


    Roubini (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    predicts something like 9.8% unemployment and has a better record if you want to go with his.

    But you will sell fewer complex (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    instruments and investment vehicles with that figure :)

    So the fact that Goldman is willing to go (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:26:25 PM EST
    where it has gone in this measure indicates where they have decided to come in at in the struggle to maintain enough shreds of credibility to still be able to sell $hit to people :)

    Incorrect (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    Example (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:35:32 PM EST
    Goldman Sachs Says U.S. Economy May Be `Fairly Bad'
    By Wes Goodman - Oct 6, 2010 12:46 AM ET

    Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said the U.S. economy is likely to be "fairly bad" or "very bad" over the next six to nine months.

    "We see two main scenarios," analysts led by Jan Hatzius, the New York-based chief U.S. economist at the company, wrote in an e-mail to clients. "A fairly bad one in which the economy grows at a 1 1/2 percent to 2 percent rate through the middle of next year and the unemployment rate rises moderately to 10 percent, and a very bad one in which the economy returns to an outright recession." "


    Wells fargo economists came to my (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Buckeye on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    company and delivered presentations to us in which they said, among other things, 8.5% - 9.0% is going to be the new normal for quite some time.  Their econ team is good too.

    When you have enough juice... (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 06:44:46 PM EST
    ...to rig the biggest bets in the casino, you BETTER know which way the wand waves.

    Appreciate the info (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    I had focused too much on the Wall Street approach of 2004-2008. (Scusi for my selective memory.)

    I'm still waiting (none / 0) (#143)
    by itscookin on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 06:40:10 AM EST
    for someone to "hold Obama's feet to the fire".

    I'm still waiting to hear how (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 06:46:24 AM EST
    you "hold Obama's feet to the fire" while telling him that he has your vote no matter how bad he governs.

    Seems to him that "Hey Mr. President, sir, please don't hurt me but if you do, I will love you anyway (vote) might not result in him hurting you more.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#161)
    by DancingOpossum on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    Democrats who keep voting for Obama despite his wholesale rejection of Democratic party principles, despite his continuation and expansion of every hated Bush-Cheney initiative (and yes, Obama is far worse than Bush) are like abused women who keep taking back their abusers even when they have other options. They deserve what they get. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't deserve the abuse but we're going to get it anyway thanks to these enablers.

    There are always options. Every damn election there is a slate of third-party candidates on the ballot. So pick one. It doesn't even matter which one, not that much. Last primary election, I voted Green in every ballot where one was running, and Libertarian where there wasn't a Green. You can also choose to opt out and not vote, although I think it sends a stronger message to at least go out and officially register your disapproval of the candidates on offer.


    Goldmans Sachs don't need a weatherman... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Dadler on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    ...to know which way the wind blows.

    They ARE the the wind.  And a hot stinky one at that.

    Where are you, Mr. Zimmerman?

    Sorry the alternative is not worse if a repug wins (none / 0) (#192)
    by Bornagaindem on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 07:26:57 AM EST
    In all likelihood the dems will keep the senate and certainly take back the house so any repugnant republican will have his hands tied. Obama intends to end medicare and social security (hence all the "tax holidays" on those funds). It will be much worse if a democratic (in name only) does this than if a repug does this or rather tries. The reason is the spineless dems can't oppose their own  "he shall not be defamed (obama)" but they will be happy to oppose a republican that tries. So it is in our interest to vote against Obama and get a real democrat in 2016.