[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Obama Again Capitulates Obama Again Capitulates - by Stephen Lendman A previous article explained his sellout to Republicans last year on extending tax cuts to America's aristocracy, accessed through the following link: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/12/obama-capitulates-to-republicans.html It shouldn't surprise that on April 8, he repeated what's become a habit - breaking every major campaign pledge by backing reactionary Republican measures, harming working Americans most, besides governing lawlessly at home and abroad and much more, hurtling the nation dangerously far right, tipping it toward neoserfdom enforced by repressive harshness. Last December he said: "(W)ithout a willingness to give on both sides, there's no reason to believe (the current) stalemate won't continue well into next year....I am not willing to let that happen....it would be the wrong thing to do. As a result, we arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement," what, in fact, was assured well in advance of his announcement. Obama's notion of "tough choices" includes: -- permanent wars; -- greater super-rich enrichment; -- temporary social benefit crumbs; as well as -- class warfare through neoliberal austerity for working Americans, mainly middle class ones, targeted for elimination. Neither Obama or congressional allies explain, or that both parties accelerated it in recent years, most recently on April 8, again betraying loyal constituents who support him, besides America's most needy. On April 9, a White House Office of the Press Secretary announcement said: "Obama praised the agreement reached to avert a government shutdown, which will invest in the country's future while making the largest annual spending cut in history." In other words, Obama claims credit for benefitting working Americans by depriving them of vital social services. It's the corrupted logic driving both parties in lockstep to hand America's wealth to powerful interests by stealing it from all others. In his weekly radio address, Obama said: Cutting spending will "invest in our future." How he didn't say. "This is good news for the American people," naming supposed benefits, in fact, entirely absent. Disingenuously he added: "Reducing spending while investing in the future is just common sense. That's what families do in tough times. They sacrifice where they can, even if it's hard, to afford what's really important." With Main Street in deep depression, they've sacrificed plenty because Washington ignores them, spending recklessly on militarism, imperial wars, and lavish handouts to Wall Street and other corporate favorites - sacrosanct untouchable budget (off-budget, and hidden) priorities excluded from compromise. A real one would have waged war on concentrated wealth and power, slashed defense spending radically, notably by ending imperial wars and occupations, replaced today's dysfunctional tax code with a progressive one, guaranteed a living wage for everyone and enough income for the indigent, as well as other socially beneficial measures. In fact, no responsible policies were considered, just reactionary ones agreed to with much more to come. On April 8, New York Times writer Carl Hulse headlined, "Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown," saying: Republicans and Obama "headed off a shutdown of the government with less than two hours to spare Friday night under a tentative budget" sellout to working Americans hurt most, described as a "compromise." Even Obama admitted, "Programs people rely on will be cut back," saying they'll have to begin "liv(ing) within (their) means" or, in other words, do without vital services eroded or lost ahead of much greater ones coming. He practically bragged, in fact, about "making the largest annual spending cut in our history" on the backs of those least able to afford it. The "deal" involves social spending cuts for a stop-gap continuing resolution to fund government through April 14, as well as a broader agreement to do it through September 30, the end of the fiscal year. Next week, Congress will finalize the details, pass the measure and send it to Obama for his signature. At least $38 billion in mostly unspecified social spending cuts were made, perhaps more, a down payment before greater ones coming, involving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Along with other vital programs, they're headed for incremental elimination to return America to 19th century harshness, an idea Republicans, Democrats, and Obama support. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Stephen Lendman (#0)
Obama the Neocon I said back in April of 2009 that Barack Obama is basically another George Bush, and this whole Libyan affair seems to be proving me right. Obama’s going to “spread freedom and democracy” in some backward Middle Eastern country (and kill a lot of people along the way). And of course he doesn’t even consult Congress about this (which yes, he Constitutionally has too). Oh, and this resistance to Gaddafi appears to be at least partially backed by Al Qaeda, oops. Got love how this foreign intervention thing always seems to work out. But at least Obama has one new fan, the guy who has an uncanny knack to be wrong about everything; Bill Kristol. In his weekly column he referred to Obama’s address to the nation saying: “As I found the rest of the speech. The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests. Furthermore, the president seems to understand we have to win in Libya. I think we will.” Given that Kristol has been wrong about every prediction he’s ever made (see here), we’re basically assured to lose. As Ivan Eland has noted, with the United States and the UN only engaging in an air campaign, Gaddafi can just retreat into the large cities and secure them. Then we could have a decade long standoff a la Iraq and, God Forbird, perhaps even another ground war 10 years from now. But for now at least, we’re highly unlikely to “win” from the air. The rest of Kristol’s article reads like a “how to” for war propaganda: “When American presidents want to justify foreign interventions, and are worried the American people aren’t quite with them, they often reach for a strained analogy or comparison that will bring the situation abroad home to their fellow Americans watching on the tube. Obama’s awkward interjection explaining that Benghazi is “a city nearly the size of Charlotte” is a classic of the genre… I found this reassuring.” I wonder what all those starry eyed liberals voting for “hope and change” think now of their “born again Neocon.” (Kristol’s words, not mine.) And he should know, he apparently advised Obama on the matter:
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||