-
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dutch Wrote:I saw Obama's speech ; lasted for more than an hour; it was all the way to the point, without B.S. as Trump does. I hope the members followed that on TV; at least Obama showed he went to school and not only to an "mob" university. Very enjoyable to see a person who's got a very clear picture of what is wrong with this country and its present government. Too bad he can't run again. "Too bad he can't run again." Dutch, Obama is more responsible for Hillary's loss than anything. Hillary couldn't address the 40 years of stagnant middle class wages or the immense transfer of wealth from the lower class to upper class. The disappearance of opportunity or the cost of living increase. There is a huge group of people that are not doing well. Those that are doing okay blame the less fortunate for their own predicament. Hillary couldn't address the poor class because it would call attention to Bill's and Barack's presidencies. So what can Barack talk about to win votes, an appeal to intellectualism? What did Barack do to bring opportunity back to the lower classes? College tuition rose about 50% during Obama's tenure. What that means is not so much education became more expensive, it means education is totally denied to some.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dutch Wrote: Chet you are forgetting a couple of things: first of all the GOP did do their utmost to derail Obama with all the dirty tools they had, so he could not make much progress. Furthermore he "inherited" the "wars from Bush as well the crash of 2008; had to bail out GM and Chrysler ( if FIAT would not have rescued it) as well the insurance companies. like AIG. Furthermore the Supreme Court appointee was "stolen" by the GOP. The Congress made life for him and therefore the "poor" impossible, because of the "money" in politics. Don't forget what the Koch brothers did and still do, because of the corruption in this country. Chet, it is the CORRUPTION which makes sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. At least Obama was an straight shooter and tried to be honest and to the point, but that does not help if the"deplorables" push you into the swamp. Just wait a couple of years, then you may think different, because the "things/antique laws" etc. will continue in its present form, because the "rich and "powerful" will like it that way and no one has the guts to change it to what you or I think or want. Dutch, I understand all of that. Hillary couldn't campaign to solve the problems because that would put a shadow on Barack's and Bill's presidency. Bill Clinton admits that passing the CFMA was a mistake. "The former president admits his error: He said his Treasury Secretaries — Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers — were wrong in the advice they gave him about regulating derivatives. And, he was wrong to follow their advice." Additionally it was blamed for 2008. When Obama took office in 2009 he avoided prosecution of the collapsers of the economy in favor of preserving his funding base. Additionally he landed on the side of anti regulatory people. ""Even if Obama decides it is “necessary” to act he only promises to “address” “obvious gaps” — not “end” or “fill” them. In the financial sphere, Obama has allowed “obvious gaps” to persist and, by listening to Summers’ continued embrace of an “economic philosophy that has completely failed” he has even made the gaps worse. Obama’s regulatory review program does not promise to fix any of the anti-regulatory actions taken or allowed to fester and grow under his administration. I provide twelve specific examples of these obvious gaps in financial regulation which have persisted and grown during this Obama’s first two years in office. (There are more than a dozen gaps, but it is premature to address some of them, e.g., Basel III, the Volcker rule, and the new consumer financial protection agency, because there is so much uncertainty about the rules that will emerge.) The gaps addressed here are those where Obama has not even proposed to take an action that could prove effective."" m.huffpost.com/us/entry/810950 So Hillary was hamstrung from promising any change to 40 years of stagnant wages without casting shadows on Obama's legacy. Hillary couldn't campaign to fixing the economy for the working poor because she had to say the economy was fine, progressing and needs only minor tuning. I would say that most of the Democratic Party denies the working class is struggling. To prove the struggle look at the advancing of Sanders and the progressives. ""Under Obama, Democrats suffer largest loss in power since Eisenhower"" Whatever the reason he lost Congress doesn't make any difference. The fact is it happened and hurt. It hurt Hillary because she was forced to support and defend a presidency that was hampered by an opposition congress.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dockadams Wrote: People now praising Perez? That's a switch. Its a switch because somebody finally identified what establishment Democratics have been ignoring and denying for forty years. Perez addressed real issues this morning. Maybe there is an awakening to recognize the issues that elected Trump. If Hillary had given the speech Perez gave this morning she would be president today. Read and heed: "People are enthusiastic because we're fighting for the issues they care about," said Perez, pointing to health care and wages as the top issues for voters. "This is the most important election of our lifetime." google.com/amp/s/cbsnews.com/amp/news/t...
-
-
|