Looks like President Barry H. Bamz is officially in lame duck season, because on Friday, House Democrats stabbed him right in the back -- they also betrayed, rejected, revolted, and rebelled! -- blocking a bill to allow him to make super top secret trade deals with other countries. (That's how trade deals are made, apparently. In secret. Because of sensitive things we humble folk couldn't possibly understand and don't need to know, yay for transparency.)
No, her Job is to introduce and pass legislation to rein in bankers, and advance the Democratic Party (and Massachussetts') agenda. It is not to stand behind a podium making speeches, or yell at people during hearings without doing her real job. That's the mistake I see so many liberals make all the time, and they've been doing it for years. They're falling in love with the rhetoric, and not looking to see if the person spouting it is actually doing something about it legislatively.
If you ever negotiated anything concerning a whole lot of people you know that things are fluent, they change every session. what's in there today is not in there tomorrow. It is nearly impossible to reach a deal with all the distraction. The thing is that we should all be represented at the table and labor, environment or the average citizen of each country is not fairly represented in these negotiations. Corporate and banking had representatives at the table and history tells us that they do not have our countries best interests in mind. Once a deal is reached it should be made public and fully vetted and debated and you are right that they fear once it is made transparent the American people will be unhappy with it and want to amend the parts that fill the pockets of corporations and banks while screwing the rest of us and that's why they want this fast track legislation so we can't.
WIth respect, you have this backwards. The Democrats did not betray Obama. Obama has betrayed the Democrats (as least the non-Wall Street kind) and the nation. But then, that's what he was paid to do.
A lame duck? I think not, at least not in the traditional way. Remember, Obama is just a hired hand. An especially glib and well-paid hired hand, but a hired hand nonetheless. The oligarchs that he works for will still be there after Obama leaves office, and still be able to make deals and give people choice seats on corporate boards etc. In other words, the true power behind Obama is in no sense a lame duck.
And as far as fast-track/TPP/Obamatrade, well, surely being ruled by unaccountable corporate lawyers meeting in secret will be good for the economy? Didn't Adam Smith say that?
Got a bridge I want to sell you. Governance is not a sport or popularity contest. To put it in those terms: The president played decoy, while the House and Senate kept the GOP distracted. Knee jerk GOP reaction muddled the water to defuse public narratives. Anti-Obama sentiment confused the moribund propaganda arm enough to shred the unity of the narrative.
Hand off to Pelosi, - 2 points at the buzzer, and TPP goes down in defeat. Strategy. It's more than meets the eye.
Too bad for the biggest donors that there are still some old fashioned representative legislators who think that Congress's oversight can be just as important as introducing or voting on laws. At least with Republicans in charge, oversight resources can be starved, there's always that elventy hundred percent of time required of legislators to meet with the most remunerative, and the Carl Levin's of Congress are aging out.
Congress's "oversight" is limited to getting testimony, and possibly "embarrassing" someone or rousing the public to demand action, but that's it. In order to do anything effective, you need a law, resulting regulations implementing it, and the ability to enforce them. Which, having read the Constitution, means that the latter two are the responsibility of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch. Hence, all the posturing in committee hearings and pissing matches in the press do not constitute "oversight," unless they result in a law which gives the Executive Branch the ability and budget to enforce it.
A lot of people in Europe are opposing TTIP - the Atlantic version. Basically this would give multinationals the right to sue for compensation if new laws mean they make less profit. It would also force us to take all that shitty meat that the US allows to be sold - hormone forced beef and chlorine washed chicken.
Lesser of the two evils simply moves the country towards extreme GOP policies. Look at Obamacare. This was a rightwing idea in the early 90s. Today, Democrats run like cockroaches when it comes to defending it even when it has been working well and they helped make it law.
In 2014, the likes of Allison Lundergan Grimes were on display as the supposed lesser of two evils. She lost by 20 points dying for her right to not reveal whether she, despite being an Obama delegate, voted for Obama.
And for clean coal.
And for AllisonCares which was like not Obamacare.
At this point, it should be startingly clear, Obama and both parties in Congress for the most part support a globalist agenda.
They are all bought and sold with no regard for the future of the United States.
Perhaps those favoring liberty and personal as well as national sovereignty have more in common than they think.
Ben Franklin was right. We're all in this together, and we'll either hang together or we'll surely hang separately.
No, her Job is to introduce and pass legislation to rein in bankers, and advance the Democratic Party (and Massachussetts') agenda. It is not to stand behind a podium making speeches, or yell at people during hearings without doing her real job. That's the mistake I see so many liberals make all the time, and they've been doing it for years. They're falling in love with the rhetoric, and not looking to see if the person spouting it is actually doing something about it legislatively.
If you ever negotiated anything concerning a whole lot of people you know that things are fluent, they change every session. what's in there today is not in there tomorrow. It is nearly impossible to reach a deal with all the distraction. The thing is that we should all be represented at the table and labor, environment or the average citizen of each country is not fairly represented in these negotiations. Corporate and banking had representatives at the table and history tells us that they do not have our countries best interests in mind. Once a deal is reached it should be made public and fully vetted and debated and you are right that they fear once it is made transparent the American people will be unhappy with it and want to amend the parts that fill the pockets of corporations and banks while screwing the rest of us and that's why they want this fast track legislation so we can't.
WIth respect, you have this backwards. The Democrats did not betray Obama. Obama has betrayed the Democrats (as least the non-Wall Street kind) and the nation. But then, that's what he was paid to do.
A lame duck? I think not, at least not in the traditional way. Remember, Obama is just a hired hand. An especially glib and well-paid hired hand, but a hired hand nonetheless. The oligarchs that he works for will still be there after Obama leaves office, and still be able to make deals and give people choice seats on corporate boards etc. In other words, the true power behind Obama is in no sense a lame duck.
And as far as fast-track/TPP/Obamatrade, well, surely being ruled by unaccountable corporate lawyers meeting in secret will be good for the economy? Didn't Adam Smith say that?
Good little explainer why many don't trust trade deals.
http://economixcomix.com/ho...
Got a bridge I want to sell you. Governance is not a sport or popularity contest. To put it in those terms: The president played decoy, while the House and Senate kept the GOP distracted. Knee jerk GOP reaction muddled the water to defuse public narratives. Anti-Obama sentiment confused the moribund propaganda arm enough to shred the unity of the narrative.
Hand off to Pelosi, - 2 points at the buzzer, and TPP goes down in defeat. Strategy. It's more than meets the eye.
LOL.
Too bad for the biggest donors that there are still some old fashioned representative legislators who think that Congress's oversight can be just as important as introducing or voting on laws. At least with Republicans in charge, oversight resources can be starved, there's always that elventy hundred percent of time required of legislators to meet with the most remunerative, and the Carl Levin's of Congress are aging out.
Congress's "oversight" is limited to getting testimony, and possibly "embarrassing" someone or rousing the public to demand action, but that's it. In order to do anything effective, you need a law, resulting regulations implementing it, and the ability to enforce them. Which, having read the Constitution, means that the latter two are the responsibility of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch. Hence, all the posturing in committee hearings and pissing matches in the press do not constitute "oversight," unless they result in a law which gives the Executive Branch the ability and budget to enforce it.
[Obligatory question follows]
A lot of people in Europe are opposing TTIP - the Atlantic version. Basically this would give multinationals the right to sue for compensation if new laws mean they make less profit. It would also force us to take all that shitty meat that the US allows to be sold - hormone forced beef and chlorine washed chicken.
Whatever Democratic spine is for, it should be treasured, as there is usually so little of it.
You mean the Mon Calamari state.
The problem lately is the lesser of two evils effect. It seems that 99% of people running for office already got their lube, leaving none for us.
Lesser of the two evils simply moves the country towards extreme GOP policies. Look at Obamacare. This was a rightwing idea in the early 90s. Today, Democrats run like cockroaches when it comes to defending it even when it has been working well and they helped make it law.
In 2014, the likes of Allison Lundergan Grimes were on display as the supposed lesser of two evils. She lost by 20 points dying for her right to not reveal whether she, despite being an Obama delegate, voted for Obama.
And for clean coal.
And for AllisonCares which was like not Obamacare.