General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe needed a Roosevelt, but we got an Obama
No shortage of reasons why 95% of Americans feel our Congress is a corrupt dysfunctional Jona hanging around the collective neck of the working class. Democrats in the House and Senate are applauding their political coo of extending the “Social Security Payroll Tax Cut” which may very well be the final nail in coffin of what once was our Social Safety Net.
With little surprise groups such as Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party have sprung up in reply to Washington’s Shenanigans. President Obama upon taking office immediately began surrounding himself with the same Wall St Banking insiders and CEOs that have plunged this country into the Great Recession. Even after former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan publically admitted in his testimony to a Congressional Hearing that the Failed Policies of Trickle Down Economics were directly to blame for the current Global Economic Collapse, we still have our Government and Washington insiders pushing the Top-Down Economics of the Wealthy Elite.
Today we herald Jobs Numbers that formerly would have a negative reaction as a much needed improvement. The SEC announced a Small Number of cases of Wall St. Fraud would no longer be allowed to plead “No Fault” and we consider that a significant breakthrough. The Administration announces a new plan to sell huge blocks of Foreclosed Homes to Wall St. Investment Firms, (the same firms that created the demise of our economy) so they can make room for MORE foreclosures, and it received barely a blurb in the News Cycle much less massive protest in the streets.
The Re-instatement of Glass-Steagall Act is bogged down in Committee. The Corporate Tax Code still provides financial incentives for Multinational Corporations to Outsource Jobs to China. The Wealthy Elite still pay a significantly lower percentage of income to taxes then the Working Class.
Mr Obama – to quote a famous American – “Lead, Follow, or Get the Fuck Out the Way”
Bonnie and Clyde were not the “sharpest tools in the shed” The fact they got away with what they did for as long as they did was really a lot of foreclosed upon Americans enjoyed watching the Banks who foreclosed upon their homes get a little “Pay-Back”
This time Mr Obama it is You, and our Corrupt Federal Governence that continues to look on ignoring the Bonnie and Clydes of Wall St
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Roosevelt had a compliant congress. I wish the emphasis would be placed on congress. That is where the largest part of the problem lies IMO.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)and if thery "Hummed and Hawed" about passage he immediately went to the air waves and caslled them out on it
In short - He Led the Country
boston bean
(36,221 posts)If the citizens were complacent and not giving a shit, FDR would not have been able to what he did.
His presidency and triumphs were brought on by the american people, not just by FDR or democratic congresspersons.
They were made to do what they did, or they would have had no power at all to weild.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)We are only 1/2 way through the Foreclosures.
People stopped walking away from bad loans a year ago. Folks just don't have the jobs to pay for a home any more. They had a couple on CNN last night describing just how difficult it has been for them loosing every thing since the economy started melting down
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)No.
Get more liberal and progressive Democrats elected to the Congress, then you will see action.
FDR's Congress vs Obama's Congress
Senate: 73/96 (76%) vs 53/100 (53%)
House: 322/435 (74%) vs 192/435 (44%)
And you think the situations are comparable? Please.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)made up of willing allies? That's the thing. He can, could and should speak his own mind clearly to the people, whining that the Congress is this or that is cute, it does not explain the lack of communications from the administration. The composition of the Congress does not trigger a 'Mealy Mouthed' requirement in the WH. Nothing is stopping him from leading with words ahead of the glorious day when Congress is perfected.
The legislation is one thing. The direction and communications are another. Congress can slow the one, only the President can slow the other. And he does.
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)This is the DU Catch-22. Many calls for the bully pulpit, followed by "just a speech" afterwards.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)"It's just a speech! It's just words!" When Obama gets something done, or when he keeps a promise from the campaign, the same people scream "He didn't really WANT to! He was only forced to!"
In other words, he can never win.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)I get it
He is just 1 man but he has to lead the country and stop following the advice of entrenched Long Time Democrats in the House and Senate. They are nothing more then the political operatives of the Wealthy Elite
boston bean
(36,221 posts)do the right thing.
In fact, most of them won't, unless we make them do the right thing. And that is what has brought on every social change in this country.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)afford could afford FAR more defections than Obama could.
If FDR had Obama's Congress, the Congressmen attacked by FDR would have laughed their asses off. Then they would have based their entire campaigns on running against his agenda, and won overwhelmingly. Why? Because the Congresspersons opposed to the President's agenda by and large were not members of the Democratic party, or were from states that Obama lost and where he was unpopular. The vast majority of the Democratic party in Congress voted for Obama's legislation and would have voted for more.
Do you seriously think voting for Obama's legislation was going to help a Senator from Nebraska?
eridani
(51,907 posts)However, I think Obama needs to be far more serious about ripping them new ones. He's really good at dressing people down in a cool, polite way. You don't have to be a screamer to hit them hard--which he needs to do way more often.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)if he wanted to. His problems are not all related to Republican obstructionism. His choices betray a loyalty to Wall Street that we need to challenge.
Not choosing as his Chief of Staff a banker who profited from the housing meltdown would be a nice start.
Prosecuting corrupt banksters instead of pressuring attorneys general for settlements that protect them from criminal prosecution would be another.
Most of all, he could lay out a bold progressive vision, including a bold economic plan, before the American people, and pound that message home, repeatedly, a la FDR's fireside chats. He has simply not done this, despite all protestations to the contrary. His last highly publicized press conferences were all about slashing the budget, something that over 300 economists warned him should not be done during an economy like this. His most recent media push was to support continuation of a payroll tax cut already in place, which has yielded weak results at best and threatens Social Security in the long run. There has been no clarion call for progressive economic policy, and we need one desperately.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Couldn't have said it better myself.
The Country is at a vital crux in time and failure to support the middle working class NOW would surely doom this country to generations of decline and a mediocre existence in history
T S Justly
(884 posts)We got something right-wing instead of the campaign mode Obama.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
Capitalocracy
(4,307 posts)the text says "what Barack Obama can learn from F.D.R.", not that Obama is like FDR. 
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And another manufactured outrage widget hits the shop floor.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Respect and common decency are not that hard to do. I hope you understand that this thing some here do, declaring that they are THE supporters and their style is THE way to be a Democrat is just a rhetorical game, it is not the actual truth. No segment of DU holds judgement rights on another.
I note that you failed to counter the points made in the OP, and instead simply launched an editorial trashing of the piece that could apply to anything you do not like, as it lacks specifics of any kind. A sort of mass produced slamming of opinion you don't like, without any actual discourse.
So empty. Shallow. Content free.
Robb
(39,665 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Well .... I'll use your words ... I find them ... "So empty. Shallow. Content free."
Obama didn't do something to create an actual outrage, so its time to manufacture some.
And that's my opinion. I hope you understand that.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)And each stamping defective due to the faulty die being used.
surfdog
(624 posts)Implying the gridlock in Congress is because the president isn't leading is completely absurd
Let's be honest now
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)and out the gate he pushed the "bipartisan" angle, I'd say he is at least a piece of the puzzle.
Also, gridlock my ass the flow of horrid bills never stops, when a Patriot Act extension is wanted, or an AUMF, or a NDAA, or a kill ACORN bill is out there you can bet your ass it will go straight through and quick as a flash.
Thank God for a little taste of gridlock, it has kept the wolves at bay on Social Security, for the most part despite repeated efforts fostered by the President, only the most absurd forms of obstruction have helped us.
surfdog
(624 posts)Like I said just stop already you're embarrassing yourself
ProSense
(116,464 posts)wouldn't have liked FDR either, and people would he holding up Ron Paul as an embarassment to him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100285511
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137381
On edit, President Obama did, in fact, re-regulate Wall Street and expanded the powers of the FDIC. He also created the first-ever consumer protection bureau. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002117460
jaxx
(9,236 posts)<..> Very progressive ideas, to be sure. But as I said, while FDR was advocating for the above, he was also smacking Hoover around for his “fiscal irresponsibility” in running such huge budget deficits. So, which is it? Was he a progressive, or was he not? By today’s standards, according to some quarters of the progressive movement, he should have been written off, because there simply can be no talk of deficits while the country is reeling, right?
Even if you don’t think his railing about deficits during a depression disqualifies him from “good progressive” status on its own, you should know that Roosevelt campaigned on the Democratic platform in 1932, which, among other things called for "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures," (huge spending cuts), the abolishment of "useless commissions and offices” and the "[consolidation] of departments and bureaus (small government) and “eliminating extravagances" (again, huge spending cuts). He also campaigned on a balanced budget, although he fell short of calling for an amendment to the Constitution.
Okay, so what do we have so far? We have a guy who’s running as a deficit hawk during a depression, who advocates for a balanced budget and smaller government.
<..> FDR was a great president, not perfect, and his record is actually much like Obama’s. Therefore, when you trash Obama, you trash FDR. When you say Obama is just like Bush, you’re essentially saying that Bush is just like FDR, which is absurd.
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/09/obama-just-as-progressive-as-non-mythical-fdr-1.html
RC
(25,592 posts)"FDR was a great president, not perfect, and his record is actually much like Obama’s. Therefore, when you trash Obama, you trash FDR. When you say Obama is just like Bush, you’re essentially saying that Bush is just like FDR, which is absurd."
Obama, FDR and bu$h are three different people. Trashing Obama has nothing to do with FDR. FDR's record was nothing like Obama's record so far. Obama should be trashing bu$h for causing this economic mess, but is he? No, he has continued many of bu$h's policies, even to the point of installing cabinet heads from the very businesses that were complacent in driving this country into recession in the first place! FDR never did that.
jaxx
(9,236 posts)Much of FDR's works took years to reach full maturity. And if you listen to the President Obama's speeches, he has taken the Bush administration to task many, many times. Give the President a real majority in Congress and watch the liberal march forward.....remember FDR had a huge majority. Huge.
pampango
(24,692 posts)FDR entered the 1936 election with a strong, but not invincible, hand. The economy remained sluggish and eight million Americans still were without jobs. Critics from various points on the political spectrum—such as Father Coughlin and Dr. Francis Townsend—had spent much of the previous two years attacking the President. (They supported Representative William Lemke of the newly formed Union Party in the 1936 election.) Likewise, by 1936 FDR had lost most of the backing he once held in the business community because of his support for the Wagner Act and the Social Security Act.
Republicans, though, had few plausible candidates to challenge FDR in 1936. They settled on Alfred "Alf" Landon, a two-term governor of Kansas who was the only Republican governor to win reelection in 1934. Nominated on the first ballot at the Republican convention in Cleveland, Landon was a moderate conservative—and notoriously lackluster public speaker—who the party hoped could take votes from FDR in the rural Midwest. Unfortunately for Landon, his moderation was often drowned out during the campaign by the conservative clamor emanating from the Republican Party, as well as from his running mate, Chicago publisher Frank Knox.
Roosevelt seemed to relish the attacks of Republicans, maintaining that he and his New Deal protected the average American against the predations of the rich and powerful, Referring to "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking," FDR crowed, "Never before have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred." Roosevelt's supporters believed their candidate understood and sympathized with them. As one worker put it in 1936, Roosevelt "is the first man in the White House to understand that my boss is a son of a (expletive.)" FDR won the election in a walk, amassing huge majorities in the popular vote and in the Electoral College.
What the 1936 election made most clear was that because of FDR and the New Deal, the Democratic Party was now the majority party in the nation. Roosevelt had put together what came to be called the "New Deal Coalition," an alliance of voters from different regions of the country and from racial, religious and ethnic groups. The coalition combined southern Protestants, northern Jews, Catholics and blacks from urban areas, labor union members, small farmers in the middle west and Plains states, and liberals and radicals. This diverse group, with some minor alterations, would power the Democrats for the next thirty years—and it was Roosevelt who put it together.
http://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/essays/biography/3
Fr. Charles Coughlin
"After the 1936 election, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini as an antidote to Bolshevism. His weekly broadcasts became suffused with antisemitic themes. He blamed the Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers", and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution."
But before the 1936 election "Early in his career Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his early New Deal proposals, before later becoming a harsh critic of Roosevelt as too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he announced a new political organization called the National Union for Social Justice. He wrote a platform calling for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor. The membership ran into the millions, resembling the Populist movement of the 1890s."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
Dr. Francis Townsend
"Dr. Francis Everett Townsend (January 13, 1867–September 1, 1960) was an American physician who was best known for his revolving old-age pension proposal during the Great Depression. Known as the "Townsend Plan," this proposal influenced the establishment of the Roosevelt administration's Social Security system.
In 1935, partly in response to the continued growth of the Townsend Plan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed his own old-age policy, which was less generous than Townsend and Clement's proposal. The president's policy included a program for poor older people with matching payments from the federal government, known as Old Age Assistance, and a national old-age annuity program that later was called by all Social Security. The president's programs were included in the Social Security Act, which passed in August 1935.
The Townsend Plan continued to agitate for higher benefits after the Social Security Act's passage and reached its peak of support in the months after it was enacted. The Townsend organization could plausibly claim that the benefits were far less than what the American public wanted. The average Old Age Assistance benefit was about $20 per month as late as 1939, and the program known as Social Security was not due to take effect until 1942, despite the fact that opinion polls indicated that the American public thought that $40 per month was fair for the elderly.
Although the Townsend Plan was hampered by Dr. Townsend's personal control over his organization and his vendetta against Roosevelt, by continued political pressure, augmented by other pension organizations, such as California's Ham and Eggs, the Townsend Plan helped to induce amendments to the Social Security Act in 1939. These amendments greatly upgraded old-age benefits for both programs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Townsend
Huey Long
Aware that Roosevelt had no intention to radically redistribute the country's wealth, Long became one of the few national politicians to oppose Roosevelt's New Deal policies from the left. He considered them inadequate in the face of the escalating economic crisis. Long sometimes supported Roosevelt's programs in the Senate, saying that "[W]henever this administration has gone to the left I have voted with it, and whenever it has gone to the right I have voted against it." He opposed the National Recovery Act, calling it a sellout to big business. In 1933, he was a leader of a three-week Senate filibuster against the Glass banking bill for favoring the interests of national banks over state banks.
In terms of foreign policy, Long was a firm isolationist. He argued that America's involvement in the Spanish-American War and the First World War had been deadly mistakes conducted on behalf of Wall Street. He also opposed American entry into the World Court.
In March 1933, Long offered a series of bills collectively known as "the Long plan" for the redistribution of wealth. The first bill proposed a new progressive tax code designed to cap personal fortunes at $100 million. Fortunes above $1 million would be taxed at 1 percent; fortunes above $2 million would be taxed at 2 percent, and so forth, up to a 100 percent tax on fortunes greater than $100 million. The second bill limited annual income to $1 million, and the third bill capped individual inheritances at $5 million.
With the Senate unwilling to support his proposals, in February 1934 Long formed a national political organization, the Share Our Wealth Society. A network of local clubs led by national organizer Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, the Share Our Wealth Society was intended to operate outside of and in opposition to the Democratic Party and the Roosevelt administration. By 1935, the society had over 7.5 million members in 27,000 clubs across the country. Long's Senate office received an average of 60,000 letters a week. Some historians believe that pressure from Long and his organization contributed to Roosevelt's "turn to the left" in 1935. He enacted the Second New Deal, including the Social Security Act, the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, Aid to Dependent Children, the National Youth Administration, and the Wealth Tax Act of 1935. In private, Roosevelt candidly admitted to trying to "steal Long's thunder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long#Long_in_the_Senate_.281932.E2.80.931935.29
During his first term many on the left thought that FDR was "Obama" rather than the FDR that we remember today.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And now we already see the barrage of vitriolic, content-free replies designed to prevent actual discussion of said content and instead distract this thread into a flamefest.
This is wholly predictable on the new DU, perpetrated by some who would shut down any discussion beyond party-approved talking points. It drives away those who would actually discuss, and it threatens to turn DU into an echo chamber of propaganda, in which any deviation from the party line is met with hounding and baiting until the offender gives up or leaves. It is unfathomable why some believe that behavior like that is good for the site or helpful to this administration. Don't take the bait. Label this behavior when you see it, and move on to discuss.
Everything you write in this OP is true. In addition, we now have a new Chief of Staff coming in, with the same bankster credentials as the last two, who profited from the housing collapse. We have a President who not only has pressured for settlements to protect corrupt banks from criminal prosecutions, but hires from them for his own staff.
No Republican is making President Obama do these things. This has nothing to do with Republican obstructionism. These are the choices of a President who is supported by Wall Street.
We need to do what he told us to do--hold his feet to the fire. We need to speak out about them. We need to challenge them. Most of all, we need to occupy.
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)Especially the part about the Tea Party being sick of "Washington's Shenanigans".
Well, the last picture I kinda agree with. If I just ignore their vile racism, sexism, homophobia and complete idiocy the Tea Party isn't so bad. Why aren't more Democrats for bringing back Crystal Pepsi and asking tough questions about ball shaving? I'm starting to understand the "Progressive for Paul" cultists' point of view.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Just sayin...
Due to Presidential Nostalgia, they forget he had problems too and critics from the left.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)He interred American citizens in camps. Caved to Stalin. Was a member of the 1%. Smoked. Cheated on his wife. And deliberately misled the American people as to the degree of his disability.
You need more of that?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
bonzotex
(865 posts)Obama is doing alright. We are going to need a much more liberal electorate to get more liberal laws and lawmakers.
Quit complaining via bad historical comparisons and do something to get more liberals elected.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)just whoever Walnuts dreamed up, or Palin convinced him to appoint. Boy, would this be a great country, or what?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)and compromising for you. However, how would you have liked it if the unthinkable would have happened and we got McCain/Palin in the White House instead?
I agree with a lot that you say, but I don't think things would have been that different with Hillary Clinton. They belong to the same DLC wing of the Democratic Party. I say Hillary as the only other choice because the contest was always between him and her. That gob smacked me across the head during the debates.
If you want real change, we need election reform in the form of publicly funded campaigns, instant run off voting and hand counted paper ballots. Otherwise we will always have the same Wall Street backed candidates running for office in both parties.
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)He is Priceless...
Able to leap a single Issue anytime 24/7
Able to Solve with a Smile...and Positivity
He inspires us to the Nations Needs...
He is the Best of the Lot
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)and deny social security benefits to domestics and Farmers (read Black people).....
Yep, too bad we can't just relive the 1930s! 
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)FDR took office at a time after 12 years of republican rule so people knew who to blame for their problems. Also the system he inherited was completely ruined while Obama's was still in the falling apart stage so Obama had to hold things together while FDR had the luxury to create a new system and try new things. FDR could experiment because he won a huge landslide Obama really just had a healthy win. FDR didn't have the press climate Obama faces and could talk directly to the public yia the radio and reach 99% of the people including people who opposed him. Obama is lucky to reach 60% of people on tv. FDR's agenda focused solely on jobs from the start while Obama at least tried to get liberals' dream of HCR accomplished. FDR controlled the southern dems because the repubs weren't really a credible threat to them Obama's southern dems were vulnerable to tea party. My point is that they're similar but not the samething. It seems like on the surface that Obama would have an easier time but he really doesn't.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)I loved how you equated them with Occupy. "With little surprise groups such as Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party have sprung up in reply to Washington’s Shenanigans."
That tricky Obama and his Washington Shenanigans installing Socialism almost immediately after being sworn in.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)The Head of the Ohio Tea Party originally became involved in "Foreclosure Fraud" and was 1 of the leading advocates against "Robo-Signing"
I don't dispute the FUX News morphe that has corrupted the movement into what it is now, but the original reasons were valid
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)So you're saying the Tea Party started because of "Foreclosure Fraud" and "Robo-signing"? Care to cite a link to corroborate that. How about a link to where the phrase "Robo-signing" started? While your spinning your wheels looking for that my next question is, why would you try to whitewash the origins of the Tea Party?
unkachuck
(6,295 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Really this is ridiculous.
And why should Obama be like any past Presidents? Especially one serving nearly 80 years ago now?
The Presidency is the same as it ever was. Except for the filibuster being used 100% of the time in the Senate.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)the DEMs had a MAJORITY in the House and Senate
- I agree its not all Obama's fault
But they couldn't do 1 fucking thing about the Structural Economic problems that will diminish opportunity for Middle Class Americans for decades to come
They had the Bill to Close the Corporate Tax Loop Holes that Outsource American Jobs twice, and they couldn’t pass that but they can pass numerous bills to enrich corporations
