“Real median household income reached its peak at $54,932 in 1999, 8.9 per cent above its current level, under President Bill Clinton and has not been below $50,000 since 1995. Under President George W. Bush, it fell to $52,778 by 2004 before recovering to reach $54,489 in 2007 and then sliding again in 2008.”
The Republican and Third-Way war against the middle class continues to be successful. The rich are doing better than ever, fueled by government policies that help them every turn, rushing to their aid with all manner of bailouts and financial gimmickry if a banker so much as sneezes.
For the middle class? Social Security and Medicare cuts to be agreed upon after the elections. Peas, cat food, and more of us declining into poverty.
When Elizabeth Warren says that we in the middle have been “chipped, squeezed and hammered”, she’s being polite. We’ve endured a chainsaw to the kneecaps, and they’re coming back for the elbows.
We need Warren in the Senate both to prevent Brown from (photogenically!) continuing to vivisect the 99%, but also as the start of a movement to put real Democrats, FDR Democrats, back in power. Our current Democratic president, for example, actually brags that he’s more conservative than Herbert Hoover.
Well, Hoover policies yield Hoover outcomes. And here we are.
Paul Krugman calls it a depression, and who can seriously disagree? And there will be no letup until we have people in Washington who fight for the 99%.
I wish Ms. Warren the best in winning a Senate seat. Let’s all do what we can to make sure that Massachusetts voters understand that she’s who we need in our corner of the ring. And let’s equally make sure that voters know that while Mr. Brown might look cuddly, he has toiled mightily as a good Republican to screw us over.
Discuss
59 Comments . Leave a comment below.If the poverty rate is worse during Obama’s term then shouldn’t we dump Obama….do we agree?
“We left a mess. He has not cleaned it up fast enough, so put us back in.”
I’ll have to say “no” to your proposal. Obama’s no bargain, but today’s mainstream Republicans are utterly unhinged from reality.
Absolutely not! This kind of thinking is a big part of how Democrats lose elections.
You’re welcome to think whatever you’d like. But if you want Elizabeth Warren to get elected, she’s going to need some help from Obama’s coattails, and comments like this are counterproductive.
don’t you agree?
The hope is to replace them with folks who fight for the 99%.
I clicked the wrong “reply” button.
Just didn’t like the X’man’s snarky question.
I thought for sure I saw it on his “to-do” list.
Just cut taxes for rich people. You’d think he’d know what to do by now.
Didn’t he?
are still trying to fix it – their way.
Good and hard.
It seems like it’s nervous reaction or something.
If you want to joke, maybe if Obama wasn’t spending so much time doing this
http://jacksonville.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c003e53ef01761686bd57970c-pi
or this
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/14/obamacares-rules-exempt-from-p
Pretty funny huh?
“How come Obama hasn’t fixed this yet?” is an extremely vapid question. If you’re going to hold us to some kind of higher standard, you could start by asking more intelligent questions.
Maybe you’d prefer my joking, now?
In 2008 he said he’d do a bunch of stuff (note I don’t remember universal health care being on it) and he’s done’ very little of it.
I don’t remember him saying he’d double the number of troops in Afghanisatn either.
So I’m suggesting that seeing as how he’s not made progress in the last four years, four more is not going to be a good idea. He’s probably going to win (and considering the electoral college, it might be big), but probably 48% of the population will agree with me.
Your memory is selective.
He did in fact promise to insure more Americans, make insurance more accessible and end insurance company abuses. I think he delivered on that.
Obama did in fact promise to add two combat brigades to Afghanistan during his campaign, so increasing our involvement in Afghanistan was directly in line with his campaign position.
He promised to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans but has been stymied by Republicans in Congress.
How about this: why don’t you name one major campaign promise that Obama made and that you actually wanted to happen? Because if it turns out that you actually wanted him to fail on all of his goals, then it isn’t very convincing when you criticize him for failing to overcome Republican intransigence to achieve them.
I don’t remember him saying he’d double the number of troops in Afghanisatn either.
In 2008, Obama was explicit about sending two additional combat brigades into Afghanistan. I didn’t agree with that policy then, and I don’t agree with it now, but it wasn’t a bait-and-switch.
Maybe, just maybe, your memory isn’t as good as you think it is. Luckily the Internet never forgets…which you’d know if you’d taken five seconds and double-checked your facts before spouting off.
from a Pulitzer prize winning site.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
You’re right, I guess I didn’t follow the health care promise because I assumed that the idea that we could do it and reduce my premiums $2500 was so far fetched it would never happen. I was wrong and right. We got the universal health care, but my premiums have gone up.
I’ll do a little more research on Afghanistan. I was following this story closely but I guess I thought “two brigades” and “double down” we orders of magnitude different. Perhaps not.
I fail to see how building up troop strength greater than what he promised in any way breaks any campaign promise — although it no doubt disappointed many on the left who assumed he didn’t really mean it when he said he was going to strengthen our presence in that country. No broken promise there.
As to the $2500 health care premium, four Pinocchios to you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-whopper-claim-on-an-obama-health-care-pledge/2012/07/03/gJQAVhk3IW_blog.html
And if your healthcare premiums went up, then I guess you have Romneycare for that, right?
Thank you for the link to the five pages of Obama’s broken promises! I hope you’ll accept this gift, which is ten pages of Obama’s kept promises: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/
I’ll do a little more research on Afghanistan. I was following this story closely but I guess I thought “two brigades” and “double down” we orders of magnitude different.
That one rates a “Promise Kept” from your chosen fact-checking site: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/
“Obama’s order to send more troops does not change our rating for this item. It is still Promise Kept.”
and the fact that you can use “vapid” in a sentence does not count as evidence against that.
Perhaps I can clarify something for you.
What does that mean? It’s not a true statement. Romney has spent ten of millions (maybe over a hundred?) of dollars running for office. Do you think he’s trying to re-coop that? If it was all about money, wouldn’t he stay in the private sector. If you’re trying to be funny, it’s not. It’s dumb.
I could just as easily say “Obama saw that Clinton made $100 million since he was in office, so he ran for President so he could be super-rich as well” That statement could at least be plausible.
Pass the crack pipe, mack
No one else thinks that.
You make a lot of sense but you are swimming against the tide here on BMG. Did you notice the post from the BMG editors saying because Scott Brown is whining about EW’s ads, they must be working. Well transplant that whining to BMGers complaining about your posts… because it’s working.
Stick to your guns! Obama is going to lose because he has not fixed our economy.
He said it himself, when he said if things aren’t better than he’ll be a one term President.
Next thing the GOP should talk to Americans about…
I don’t think I’d urge anyone whom I enjoy reading here to “never waiver from your views.” I might might as well urge someone to be stupid, for the ability to “waiver” in one’s views is a sign of an active intelligence.
Nor would I ever regard it as a sign that anyone here caused whining indicated that that person were doing something right. If you think being irritating is some kind of virtue, civic or otherwise, then I’m glad you aren’t a neighbor.
If you want to have wishy-washy views on issues then go for it. Myself, I like people who stand by their views and do not surrender. I call it backbone, stamina and maybe even confidence. Now of course you can take the extreme stance and misrepresent my words “don’t waiver from your views” and convert it to “never waiver from your views.” but quite frankly that is below you and something you would “never” stand for from a BMG poster. Do you really think don’t means never?
As for the whining, posters have a definite “attitude” in responding to Merrimackguy’s posts lately. Yes, I call that whining! I’ll define that anyway I feel like defining it. I don’t think I’m irritating either, unless bringing subjects up which many of you would rather ignore is irritating, at which point I would admit to it.
If you want to call being a moron “having a backbone”, go for it.
And before diagnosing merit, it’d be nice if you looked at content.
Oh I forgot.
You don’t look at content. It’s against your principles. You have decided we “dislike” Merimackguy’s posts. And that’s all you need.
Should read:
And before diagnosing attitude.
… is a vice, not a virtue. It’s most commonly associated with religious views, since being unwavering in the face of contrary evidence is faith.
All positions, even the theory of gravity, are provisional until better evidence is found. Not holding this to be true is the very definition of faith and intellectual dishonesty.
Johnd isn’t here for a discussion so much as for a battle. One entering a discussion looks forward to new perspectives; one entering a battle wants to show unwavering fortitude in the face of the adversary.
well done
That was surprise. Oh well…
This is exactly why people are so angry, and the ridiculous rise in the cost of living along side this. Whoever addresses this problem is the one who will be the saint in the eyes of Main St America.
in a Senate ad. I would do it.
This doesn’t look good for President Obama either. But Scott Brown can definitely be blamed for it. He never acknowledges that it’s happening, considers it to be a problem, or has done anything to fix it. E. Warren could definitely take it and run with it. I think she should.
Instead of toning down her routine so that the talking heads can say she’s getting more polished, she should be giving ‘em hell and citing relevant numbers. It worked for Clinton at the DNC because PEOPLE ARE YEARNING FOR IT.
It’s only “Brown is bad” and “raise taxes on the rich.” Unsubstantiated comments like liveandletlive’s “But Scott Brown can definitely be blamed for it” fail to work as a political argument against Brown. It’s as definitive as blaming a single player for the Red Sox’s collapse this year.
Obama and the Dems had absolute full control of the US government for 24 months, and could have passed ANY tax policy or economic reform they wanted to pass. What was he waiting for? Instead, nothing was done, and now we’re becalmed, going nowhere, and facing a possible double dip.
For Warren, not having a specific and compelling plan to share with MA voters favors the incumbent. Vacuous bromides are insufficient.
Brown by 7 points.
Can you provide a link?
Thanks in advance.
Obama and the Dems had absolute full control of the US government for 24 months
Here in America, we have an institution called the Senate, and it’s designed to protect minority rights. You seem blissfully unaware of its existence or the voting record of some of its members like, say, Ben Nelson.
could have passed ANY tax policy or economic reform they wanted to pass
Sure, and if you don’t count a successful stimulus package, an overhaul of health care, or the rescue of the American auto industry, then yeah, they didn’t pass anything at all.
Obvious Republican is obvious.
But he didn’t. Nobody here can dispute that fact.
…but…
… he used that as bargaining power in a larger context: extending unemployment benefits and moving forward on ridding us of ‘don’t-ask-don’t-tell’ as two of the more welcome examples.
He didn’t do something he said he was going to do. That’s the point. I don’t care what he traded it for.
I don’t know why he’s wanking about it now when he could have had it.
As I have predicted many times on this site, Obama will only get one bill to sign in January. The GOP will NOT approve a bill which only raises taxes on the rich, regardless of the GOP losing the POTUS and the Senate. They will not! Obama will not raise taxes on the poor and middle class (where the majority of the actual Bush tax cuts come from) so he’ll hold bios nose (again) and sign a 2(?) continuation and hope for a DEM House in 2014. Write this one down boys (men… or guys).
He didn’t do something he said he was going to do.
Show me where Obama said he’d repeal the Bush tax cuts for middle- and low-income earners. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
You titled the relevant post, “Obama could have let the Bush tax cuts expire without any help from Congress,” so I’m sure that you’re aware that had Obama done what you say he could have done—allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse “without any help from Congress—then the Bush era tax cuts would have expired for all earners. You should probably take a look at what candidate Obama said about that OH WAIT HERE IT IS: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-11-08/news/17910293_1_tax-cuts-middle-class-tax-obama-senior-adviser
You need to start asking the Google machines a thing or two before hitting Submit.
Obama could have let the Bush tax cuts expire without Congress. They would EXPIRE if nothing was done. But Obama didn’t do this, he extended them for everyone. That is!irrefutable
Obama could have let the Bush tax cuts expire without Congress.
Of course I agree with that statement. That statement on its own is a fact.
But that statement in conjunction with merrimackguy’s original post points to someone who’s looking to damn Obama if he does and damn Obama if he doesn’t.
That is!irrefutable
It’s also irrelevant. Seriously, did you read my post?
And I addressed what I wanted to address.
Obama is a man of his word…
That of course does not address the question as to whether Obama would let all the tax cuts expire, but who said this statement besides you…
In your original post, you took Obama to task because he “could have passed ANY tax policy or economic reform they wanted to pass.”
In this post, you’re taking him to task for failing to revert to a pre-Bush tax code.
What makes you think that simply allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire constitutes “ANY tax policy or economic reform [Obama] wanted to pass?” This is some seriously lazy argumentation, and I think you know it.
George Bush and the GOP having total control over the US Government back from 2000-2006.
Do you have any more? This clearly shows Obama has done nothing to help middle class America. Not only has he done nothing but the trend is spiraling down. Great post, keep it up!
Please remember that any upcoming polls which show Obama winning are rock solid but any polls showing Scott Brown winning are bogus, pass the word.
While it’s true that working Americans seem not to be a high priority Obama, he does not view us a prey to be devoured in order to purchase yet another car elevator for yet another home.
Most Americans seem to understand this. Let’s hope they can keep that thought for a few more weeks. And let’s hope that Ms. Warren is the start of a wave of Democratic candidates for whom working Americans *are* a priority.
If it’s a guy who made tons of money off Wall St I don’t care. If it’s a guy who made tones of money off selling books or whatever. We would be in far better shape if we had more investors like Bain to help get our economy going, it’s FLAT and as EW says, “The middle class is getting hammered…” said with her whiny voice, eyes blinking and shaking her head.
Obama
Romney’s wealth is orders of magnitude higher than Obama but both are millionaires. Funny how US Senators become millionaires, no wonder they do it for a somewhat small salary.
Unfortunately I don’t see that as an option that’s in front of me. I can choose someone who will neither aggressively help nor aggressively attack working Americans, or someone who *will* (as far as I can tell) wage war against working Americans. As a working American, I choose the former.
Obama made money from selling books. Romney made money by leveraging his vast privilege to prey upon the defenseless, to grab government bailouts, and so forth. I don’t think those are comparable
her whiny voice, eyes blinking and shaking her head
By all means, ignore the actual content of Elizabeth Warren’s message. The whininess of her voice is, obviously, more important.
You say you just want someone who will fix the problem, then you start talking about Warren’s blinks and head shakes? Pardon me if I have trouble taking you seriously.
Sorry if I have trouble getting past things like that sometimes. When I see members of Congress wearing stupid hats or outfits, Ron Paul’s voice, Dennis Kucinich’s UFO beliefs… I just don’t like some of those mannerisms.
The keynote speaker at the DNC made it quite simple. You can tell a man(woman) by who he(she) walks with. So Sen Brown walks with financiers who sunk the economy, employers who want to limit regular health insurance, gets an anti-abortion groups endorsement, and has an 80% rating with national pro-life groups on his voting record, welcomed Tea Party support, agrees with a Paul Ryan budget, and considers Mitt Romney and Karl Rove chief backers. Just turn it around 180 degrees for Elizabeth Warren and you have your two choices. Scott Brown walks with people who put the economy in the toilet and votes against issues important to women, more than half the population of the electorate.
I saw a clip this AM of well known Wall Streeter John Mack arriving at a Romney fundraiser and he said “I was behind Obama in 08 but now I’m backing Romney.” What does that say about Obama in 08? He has lost most of his WS support, but in 2008 Obama was walking with them.
You remind me of the all the people that were worked up about Ayers and Rev Wright.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 22 May 4:54 AM