What do you think you are? You think Obama is "the most liberal member of the US senate....or....you believe he is "the candidate for change".
Quote:
|
"[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." -Gore Vidal
|
Quote:
David Sirota: What Biden Means
What Biden Means
Posted August 23, 2008 | 02:24 PM (EST)
If you don't want to watch the clip, let me summarize my thoughts with a quick rundown of the good, bad and ugly of Biden's nomination.
The Good: As the Drum Major Institute shows, Biden has a fairly progressive record on basic economic issues, and has gotten more progressive on specific issues like trade. He's also been a strong voice opposing unilateral war against Iran. And rhetorically, he seems comfortable painting a stark contrast between Democrats and Republicans on issues.
The Bad: He is one of the most arrogant and conceited people in Washington - one of the jokes in D.C. when I was there is that Biden uses the term "I" more than anyone else. Because of this self-importance, he consequently shoots his mouth off in ways that can undermine progressives. For example, he has made insulting racial comments about African Americans and Indians. This might not only be dredged up by Republicans, but Biden may commit additional errors in his new platform as VP nominee. Additionally, Biden is an insider's insider, having spent most of his life in Washington, D.C. That doesn't exactly underscore Obama's message of change.
The Ugly: He was one of the most ardent supporters of the credit card-industry written Bankrupty Bill of 2005, which was one of the most regressive pieces of economic legislation in the last generation. And though he cites his foreign policy experience as an asset, he used his position as one of Democrats' top foreign policy voices to support the Iraq War.
So, all in all, the Biden choice is a shade on the good side of mediocre, though Obama's willingness to anoint a senator who voted for two landmark travesties - the Bankruptcy Bill and Iraq War - gives us some disturbing clues about the Illinois senator's attitude toward the economic progressive movement and the antiwar movement. It also shows how much work those movements have in front of them - and how, in particular, the antiwar movement's strategy of focusing all attention on Republicans has actually helped create the situation whereby the Democratic Party feels perfectly comfortable rewarding supposed Serious Foreign Policy Voics like Biden even after they voted for the war.
|
Obama stated that household income above $250,000, is wealthy, yet in the NYC metro area, one of the wealthiest in the US, only 5 percent of households even have income above $200,000.....and the average household income there....above average compared to the national average, is less than $47,000.
$250,000 annual income is "enjoyed" by less than the top 5 percent of US households, indeed, the 2006 census shows 3,020,284 households in the
"New York city, NY, New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area", with only about 5 percent of those households.... 156,621, with income above $200,000.
If you think Obama is "too liberal", or that he will "bring change".....consider what he says.....consider his choice for his running mate, and consider that you might be right of center in your political leanings, and not even realize it yet.
Is it unreasonable to think that your view is out of touch? The
2007 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances release is delayed....until after the election, because the
2004 survey showed that the top ten percent owned 70 percent of all US wealth, and the bottom 50 percent owned just 2-1/2 percent. The latest survey will show an even wider disparity between haves and have nots. Hence, it is better to conceal the 2007 SCF stats until after a candidate for NO CHANGE, either Obiden or McSame, wins in November.
People....the GINI coefficient wasn't much higher in Venezuala when Hugo Chavez gained the backing of the poor, than it is now, in the US. In some countries the elite are pragmatic enough and less corrupted by greed to know enough that, at some point, the sheeple will discover that they are sheeple, and then they get angry and sometimes, even violent.