[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Closer Than You Think: Top 15 ThingsRomney and Obama Agree On

Tue Sep 4 00:55:48 UTC 2012

Stan,

Speaking of 2006, do you know what I remember most on that November election 
night when the Dems took control of the House and Senate and I was happy 
?.....

Nancy Pelosi coming on all the national corporate networks within minutes of 
the confirmation of the Dems victory and saying, the first words out of her 
mouth....

" Impeachment is off the table ! "

Gee !....Odd words from the leader of the so called " opposition " party.
What does this speak VOLUMES to in regards to what the democratic party is 
all about ?

I cannot believe that so many of you on these lists are so naive to think 
that you are making a differnece voting for these corporate collaborationist 
SCUM !

Don't you see that you are being played by the " good cop, bad cop " routine 
?

We need to EITHER / OR BOTH , take over the democratic party at the local 
level and expand to the State and National, and ONLY vote for those Dem 
candidates that we cultivate and those who refuse to take corporate money, 
AND at the same time do a dual strategy of creating or joining an existing 
non-corporate party like the GREENS, as a means of hedging our bets ( like 
the corporate interests do ) in case a corporate Dem beats our non-corporate 
Dem in the primary.

This is what needs to be done !

David Johnson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <cge at shout.net>
To: "Stan Waggoner" <swag901 at ymail.com>
Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Gregg Gordon" 
<ggregg79 at yahoo.com>; "Michael Weissman" <mbwmbwmbw at gmail.com>; "ocCUpy" 
<occupycu at lists.chambana.net>; "Peace" <peace at anti-war.net>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Closer Than You Think: Top 15 
ThingsRomney and Obama Agree On

> That's nonsense, Stan. Once the Democrats were given control of the Senate 
> (in 2006) they could have abolished the 60-vote requirement. (Even with it 
> they could have halted war appropiations with a mere 41 votes). But they 
> preferred not to, insiting that they couldn't do any of the good things 
> they'd really like to, because they were being prevented by the nasty 
> Republicans. It was a good story - you and others bought it - but it's a 
> (conscious) lie.  --CGE
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Stan Waggoner <swag901 at ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> When misrepresenting the problems of getting our country back on track, a 
>> couple things need be remembered.
>>
>> 1.    The Obama administration has been hamstrung by the tyranny of the 
>> minority.  The Senate requires 60 votes to get anything passed that would 
>> help middle class America.  Mitch McConnell has said his number one job 
>> is to make Obama a one term president.  John Boehner has said that if 
>> some of their policies cost jobs, "so be it".
>>
>> 2.    The Democrats had 135 days when they had a 60 vote super majority 
>> in the Senate after Al Frankin was sworn as Senator from MN.
>>
>> 3.    During that 135 days.  Tedd Kennedy was in hospice, and only made 
>> it down to Washington to vote twice.  Once was the ACA.
>>
>> 4.    If we get mad at Obama, and do not vote for him, that only weakens 
>> his chances of getting help for the middle class.
>>
>> Do not get me wrong, President Obama has done many things I wish he had 
>> done differently.  However, a vote for anyone other than Obama is a vote 
>> for the failed, extreme right wing policies that caused the condition our 
>> country is in today.
>>
>> Stan Waggoner
>> AKA Reasonable Man Stan
>> WEFT
>>
>> From: C. G. Estabrook <cge at shout.net>
>> To: Michael Weissman <mbwmbwmbw at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; Gregg Gordon 
>> <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>; ocCUpy <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>; Peace 
>> <peace at anti-war.net>; C. G. Estabrook <cge at shout.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] [Peace-discuss] Closer Than You Think: Top 15 
>> Things Romney and Obama Agree On
>> Come on, Mike.  The statement may be slightly hyperbolic, but it's an 
>> accurate description of what the Obama administration is (not) doing.
>>
>> (1) The first sentence is true if in need of specification, such as
>>
>> (a) "Chronic unemployment highest since Great Depression" 
>> <http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20069136.html>; and(b) "Longest 
>> Period of High Unemployment Since Great Depression" 
>> <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/16/cbo-longest-period-of-high-unemployment-since-great-depression>.
>>
>> (2) The last sentence expresses the conscious decision of the Obama 
>> administration not to create WPA-like government jobs as an alternative 
>> to jobs controlled by private business:
>>
>> Jared Bernstein, former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden, 
>> wrote on May 30, 2011, "There will be no WPA-type programs in our near 
>> future. There was no appetite for them in the Obama admin in the midst of 
>> the worst recession since the Great Depression and there's a lot less 
>> now. The reasons for that are interesting and I'll speak to them another 
>> day. But it ain't happening" 
>> <http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/shoulds-versus-coulds/>.
>>
>> "...on a WPA program, Bernstein explicitly says it was the White House, 
>> not Republicans, who had no appetite for direct, public job creation 
>> during the first term. Bernstein says he made the arguments about public 
>> works jobs inside the White House, but he was clearly outvoted. He 
>> doesn't give the arguments made in response, tantalizingly alluding to 
>> 'interesting' reasons that he will 'speak to another day.' But he says 
>> very clearly that the reason we did all of this hoops-jumping and nudging 
>> in the stimulus package rather than just paying people to work at jobs 
>> that needed to be done was a philosophical decision inside the White 
>> House. In a sense we already knew this, but it's important that a former 
>> White House insider re-emphasized it" 
>> <http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/30/jared-bernstein-lets-slip-interesting-info-about-wh-economic-views/>.
>>
>> --CGE
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Michael Weissman <mbwmbwmbw at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Damian- things are bad enough if you describe them accurately. Making 
>>> stuff up doesn't help. This list is half truths. Let's start with the 
>>> first item.
>>>
>>>
>>> 15
>>> Although unemployment is the highest it's been since the Great 
>>> Depression, the federal government should NOT enact any sort of 
>>> WPA-style program to put millions of people back to work. Under Democrat 
>>> Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, Depression-era unemployment was tackled 
>>> head on by direct federal hiring to dig subways, build roads, schools, 
>>> parks, sewers, recreational facilities and public buildings. Oblivious 
>>> of this history, Democrat Barack Obama maintains that only the private 
>>> sector can or should create jobs.
>>> Neither the first sentence nor the last sentence there is true. First, 
>>> check any standard plot of unemployment vs. time. Second, Obama pushed 
>>> through the major stimulus which included lots of funding for direct 
>>> public jobs (teachers,...), public-created private jobs (hiring 
>>> contractors to build bridges...) and, generally bad tax breaks, needed 
>>> to get the bill through the Senate, due to almost unanimous R 
>>> opposition. The D's are pushing fairly big (still way too small) new 
>>> stimulus bills, again a mixture of direct funding of state jobs and 
>>> building things by hiring contractors. Can't get anything through the R 
>>> House.
>>> A discussion about what is to be done is really hard at best, but 
>>> worthless if it's not based on real data.
>>> One could go through the other points, but after this start why bother.
>>> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 