Wednesday, December 08, 2010

On Obama's latest capitulation


Far be it from me to state that President Obama's done nothing while in office. He's (probably) created some jobs with the economic stimulus package, he's passed some albeit tepid healthcare policy, he's overseeing some improvement in the economy, and--who knows?--he might just get "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" off the books.

Still, it seems like it's always one step forward and two steps back, especially given the complete stonewalling of republicans whenever anything just might possibly get done in this country and the media's worship of said stonewalling. Assholes like McChinless and the Bronze Boner don't actually have to DO anything, help anyone, show even an ounce of caring for us little people. They just have to say NO and the Faux Nooz morons drool over their "principles" and admire them for things like cutting off jobless benefits and giving us poor slobs a tax break.

It's easy for Pelosi and her chums to claim Obama's a turncoat; they still have their jobs with no sign of losing them, especially Pelosi. Obama's essentially caught between a rock and an asshole, the Scylla and Charybdis of choosing us little people over himself and his reputation. He's catching hell for choosing to help us little people, of course. But what the hell else was there to be done? You can bet that if he'd "stood firm" or "stuck to his principles" or whatever other cliche the media's using today, come April 15 we all would've been crying about how he didn't help us out. Even sooner, when unemployment benefits ran out and people were basically hitting the streets, progressives would've been tearing their hairshirts and claiming Obama done 'em so wrong.

Obama manages to save the tax cuts and jobless benefits for the rest of us, and the media basically portrays him as bending over with Boner's boner in his ass.

(Sorry for that image; maybe I've been reading too much of The Rude Pundit.)

It's a serious case of "you can't win for losing." Obama defends his move, stating that he had to give in or millions of Americans would pay thousands more in taxes next year and/or would be cut-off from their unemployment checks (more on that in a second). The media paints it like this:
Forced to choose between standing with the Democratic leadership and his own liberal base, or compromising with the ascendant Republicans in Congress, the U.S. President opted to turn his back on his own party.

Can't a brother get a break?

Nope.

Hey, so long as the rich get to keep their billions, who's going to say they're wrong? Millions of stupid Americans voted MORE of these republican assholes into office last month, so the McChinlesses and Boners of the world pretty much know they're golden, untouchable. They do NOTHING to help our country, yet the media slobbers all over them, calls Obama a pussy, and the rich get richer. Landslide win for the republicans. Fuck the rest of us.

P.S.: I wrote this Dec 7, but I wanted to give Elizabeth Edwards her day at the top of my blog.

7 comments:

Abu Scooter said...

Too many Democrats, especially "blue dogs," refused to attack either the Bush tax cuts for the rich or the Republicans who supported them. The fact that so many of them lost their seats to teabaggers gives me no comfort. All that really did was leave President Obama in a bad position.

That said, I can't agree with the deal Obama cut. If all he had conceded were the tax-cut extensions for the rich, I might have been able to deal with it. But he's given so many other things to the GOP (most notably, another inheritance tax cut and a gut shot to Social Security) that the deal has become expensive. It's a bad deal for everyone for the Republicans, the wealthy, and maybe the folks who will get benefits next year.

dguzman said...

Abu Scooter--you're right, right, and right. But again, what could he do? He is completely powerless, which is the crux of the problem. If Americans who voted for teabaggers would wake up and see reality, they'd see repugs don't give a shit about them.

gmb said...

dguzman: He is not powerless. And, in fact, he made a deal without including congressional democrats in the "deal making," which was a direct slap in the face to a co-equal branch of government. More importantly, he was giving away the house--a two-year extension of the tax cuts for the rich in exchange for 13 months of unemployment benefits for some BUT NOT ALL of the unemployed? And a lower estate tax rate than even W tried to get? And a 2% "temporary" payroll tax cut that would be used later to seriously gut SS? At best, he's a disgrace. At worst, the manchurian candidate. There is no defense for this "deal."

Liberality said...

He could just let the tax cuts expire which would be good for cutting the deficit. Isn't that what the wingnutters wanted? A smaller deficit? Not really huh, what a bunch of fucking lying hypocrites they are.

dguzman said...

GMB--you have a lot more specific info than I did when I wrote my post. I certainly didn't know he'd completely disregarded the dem "leadership" about this deal before he made it, until I heard it a day later -- incredible. The thing that pisses me off is that I used to rail against Bush for pretty much running it dicktator-style, and here's Mr. Hope doing the same goddamned thing.

gmb said...

I think the filthy rich saw how useful Clinton was and decided to go one better. So they found a black guy--one who was raised by his white grandparents, including his white grandmother, the bank executive--and sent him to complete W's work. They want to gut SS, and Obama will do what W couldn't. That's my fear.

Bill Hawthorne said...

Dear Dguzman,

My name is Bill Hawthorne and I am a political blogger. Just had a question about your blog and couldn’t find an email—please get back to me as soon as you can (bhawthorne(at)maacenter.org)

Thanks,
Bill