Obama: Right Of Nixon.



Many web sites just scavenge other people’s ideas, or, and, write short and superficial. The danger is that human brains degenerate into those of tweeting birdies: flashy, but all too light. I will appear to do this today, but not really. An article in The New York Times “G.O.P. Shift Moves Center Far to Right” exposes in concise form many of the themes I have rehashed for years. For example that Nixon, compared to Obama, was a leftist. So I will extensively quote the article (who invents the ideas first owns them).

All that article says can be found in essays of mine in the last 8 years, so I am quoting myself in a sense. I am not complaining: I wish the NYT, and the democratic party, had expressed themselves along these lines at the beginning of Obama’s residency.

Krugman had already done so a year ago (while quoting another pundit from the punditocracy, of course!). Krugman and company were all for mild measures when Obama was deciding and implementing such watered down measures, on their advice, while I was screaming that Obama was governing on the right of Nixon! Later, crude men and their kind admitted that they gave the wrong advice to Obama as they claim to have believed that there was time to correct things later… (As if they had never heard of elections, and throwing the incompetents out!)

My interpretation is much more cynical: they gave the wrong advice because they has interest to do so. After all, the chief of the democrats in Congress since 2006, is owner of a ski resort and her family in a famous political dynasty.

Obama has been a terrible disappointment, for an ardent supporter of change such as me. It happened in no small part because all too many were all too happy with the color of his skin, and other shallow, not to say racist, considerations. They forgot to look at what was really going on. If voters decide to throw out who does not matter, Obama, and replace him by someone else, who they may be led to believe (thanks to PACs, Super PACS, C4, etc.) may matter, they will have only themselves to blame.

So here is the business section of the New York Times, September 4, 2012:

To hear Republicans on the campaign trail, the United States could not have elected a more left-wing president than Barack Obama, one more hostile to business or more eager to expand government power. Left-wing Democrats, I’m sure, would disagree. If they had their druthers, they would probably make a more liberal, more pro-big government choice. Somebody, perhaps, like Richard Nixon.

That’s right. The Nixon administration not only supported the Clean Air Act and affirmative action, it also gave us the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the agencies the business community most detests, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to police working conditions. Herbert Stein, chief economic adviser during the administrations of Nixon and Gerald Ford, once remarked: “Probably more new regulation was imposed on the economy during the Nixon administration than in any other presidency since the New Deal.”

Nixon bolstered Social Security benefits. He introduced a minimum tax on the wealthy and championed a guaranteed minimum income for the poor. He even proposed health reform that would require employers to buy health insurance for all their employees and subsidize those who couldn’t afford it. That failed because of Democratic opposition. Today, Republicans would probably shoot it down.

So compare the achievements of Obama with those of Nixon (by the way, I used to dislike and despise Nixon). The New York Times’ Porter pursues:

The difference between then and now is that Nixon — like most mainstream Republicans — accepted that government had a role to play guaranteeing Americans’ economic well-being. That consensus cracked around the time of Ronald Reagan’s inaugural speech in 1981. “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem,” the president intoned. And the country’s political center set off on a long rightward migration.

Interestingly, Americans say their political ideology has changed little since the late 1970s. The share of voters who defined themselves as liberal was 20 percent in 2010, up slightly from 19 percent in 1980, according to polls by The New York Times and CBS News. The conservative share over the same time rose to 35 percent, from 30 percent.

But these polls ignore how much the meanings of the terms have changed. The rightward drift in economic thinking becomes apparent in surveys asking about specific issues. In surveys 25 years ago, 71 percent of Americans believed it was the government’s job to take care of those who couldn’t care for themselves, according the Pew Research Center. This year the share is down to 59 percent. And most of the shift reflects a decline among Republicans.

Republicans’ support for labor unions has fallen sharply since the late 1980s, according to Pew’s research, as has their support for protecting the environment. Their drift fits the position of Congressional Republicans, whose views on the economy have been shifting right for the last quarter-century while Democrats’ views have remained roughly still. And as Republicans have moved to the right, economic policy has followed. “

It’s all of course, about what I call plutocratic propaganda. But Mr. Porter, writing for the business section of the NYT, would not dare say such a thing. Instead he opts for the anything-but-plutocratic propaganda explanation:

Conservatives will say their ideas won simply because they are better. Social scientists have some alternative hypotheses of our great conservative shift.

The big government strategy from the 1940s through the 1970s produced a spectacular improvement in living standards. But many economists now say they believe the focus on full employment and income redistribution at the expense of everything else also contributed to the strategy’s demise, removing the fear of joblessness and encouraging excessive wage increases.

Combined with cheap money printed by the Federal Reserve, it produced a burst of high inflation and high unemployment that bedeviled the 1970s — discrediting government as an economic steward and letting a new belief take hold: the economy should be left to the market, which always knows best. The end of the cold war, which discredited central planning and other left-wing economic theories, probably helped solidify this stance.

I do not claim that what the factors Mr. Porter exhibits did not occur. They did. But the true full picture is much bigger, and not restricted to technicalities. First he forgot the giant waste of the Vietnam war, which exploded the entire economy. One can see that Mr. Porter does not believe that the picture he just drew is dominant, as he abstracts it in a completely different way, in a Freudian slip of sorts:

Economic philosophies could shift again, of course. Just as the big government policies of the New Deal emerged from the Great Depression and World War II, the financial crisis and recession just past might again persuade Americans of the perils of unfettered capitalism and cause the pendulum to swing back.

So, after all, it was all about the perils of unfettered capitalism, and not just the fact that living standards augmented spectacularly… Another problem has been “globalization“:

… a kinder, gentler economy in which American companies faced much less competition than they do today. Eastman Kodak could run a mini-welfare state through much of the 20th century —with profit-sharing, health benefits and pension plans — because it had fat monopoly-type profits. Detroit’s Big Three amounted to a cozy oligopoly.

Globalization and its attendant burst of competition put an end to the fairy tale. Companies squeezed costs to stay in the game, zeroing in on wages and working conditions. Unions, once politically powerful institutions fighting for workers’ share, became weaker and weaker.

Half a century ago, American employers might have accepted a higher minimum wage on the ground that they needed American consumers to be able to afford their products. They might have supported public education on the ground that they needed an educated American work force. They might have accepted financial oversight because they raised money from small investors in American markets.

But globalization freed businesses from the limitations of one nation and the clutches of the nation state. As businesses’ footprints extended around the world, these objectives became less important than assuring low taxes. Free to jump borders, businesses became much more difficult to tax or regulate. And in the current dismal economy, they don’t seem too eager for a return of the big government days.

The United States is in ideological flux. The Great Recession has given us both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movement, and produced perhaps the most polarized government of the modern era. Liberal-leaning Democrats, often disappointed at the president’s compromises, will pine for a more aggressive champion of workers’ rights. But they may want to count their blessings. Americans today might not elect somebody as liberal as Richard Nixon.

Well, and why would not “Americans today not elect somebody as liberal as Richard Nixon”? Because Americans enjoy the suffering of Americans? Or is it because a herd votes with its hoofs? Wherever the cow boys wants it to go?

Frightened little minds need to be led by masters. Led by the nose. This is how fascism works. Thus, the instinct says, force comes. The oldest instinct of social animals: E Pluribus Unum. Out of the many small frightened ones, one big monster.

Democracy is local, and has become a microbe. Can it become virulent enough to master the global plutocratic giant? Maybe, but that is ever less obvious as the USA succumbs to the Dark Side of secret political financing.

Notice that we have seen that movie before: as the tiny Greek city states kept on fighting with each other, a plutocratic giant rose in the north: Macedonia. Macedonia was led by an oligarchy of wealthy horse owners. Macedonia organized itself as a plutocracy of lords.

Macedonia spoke Greek, and understood many of Greece’s greatest ideas (or at least Aristotle and his student Alexander did). But some of Alexander’s generals, who succeeded him, missed the biggest ethical ideas. Or, at least so did Antipater (who came to crush and rule Greece). In Egypt, it was different as Ptolemy, another senior general of the rebellious Alexander youth, made himself Pharaoh, and went for the promotion of thinking.    

Overall, ethics is there to allow the weakest thing, the mind, to triumph above force, including the force of the multitude.

Obama did not understand that the minds had to be fed. Or, he was unable to feed with what he did not have. More probably, as someone who knew him well 40 years told me: “You know, Barry was just a regular guy.” Regular guys don’t lead the minds of the many up the right road.

And the pathetic comparison with that rabid anti-communist, Nixon, makes it all the clearer.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: ,

28 Responses to “Obama: Right Of Nixon.”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    There is no question in my mind that speculating on the next President of the USA is of deep interest, and your post reveals much that is fascinating. I write as one who a) is not eligible to vote (Green card holder), and b) finds the American political scene beyond comprehension.

    But whether Obama or Romney comes to the White House as the 45th President of the United States of America, the issue, neither right nor left, that will dominate Americans before the election of the 46th President will be this planet that Americans and all of humanity live on and depend on.

    We live in very interesting times!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: Nobody understands USA politics, and the most ignorant are the citizens of the USA themselves. With all the officially secret financing, that’s the least one can say!
      There is got to be something like all too interesting times, I am afraid!


  2. Old Geezer Says:

    Let’s not get too crazy here.

    Nixon was no liberal. He was merely the signature on the bills produced by a functional congress with strong Democratic majorities in both houses. He never asked Congress for those bills either. And, had he vetoed them, Congress had the cross-aisle cooperation to have over-riden him.

    Let’s rejoice that we got those bills when we did. There is NO CHANCE whatsoever of such legislation passing in the present environment.

    When Ted Kennedy was dying, one of his biggest regrets was that he didn’t compromise with Nixon on Health Care. Had he done so, we would have had a good single payer plan.

    And we would have had it 40 years ago.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Old Geezer: Nixon was president around 5 years, at most. True the democratic Congress came up with the bills.

      Unfavorably comparing Obama and Nixon, one of my perverse past times, works all the way. Nevertheless. Suppose Nixon had tripled the troops in Vietnam. OK, impossible. Why? Why could Obama do it in Afghanistan, without protests? You call that pudically “the environment”. (OK, Nixon did the B52 Xmass bombing of hanoi, I know… But that was part of a weird negotiation.)

      “The environment” is in the democratic party itself. Although I liked a lot the fact Pelosi was a woman (reverse sexism), I initially did not like her. She was just a plutocratic coordinator (namely she put the “philanthropists” in contact with the pols). After more than 20 years doing that, reigning behind the scenes of the SF bay Area, she ran for Congress herself from Marin County, and was automatically elected. Fact remains though, that the left’s firebrand owns a ski resort.

      I should rewrite this: Fact remains though, that the pseudo-left’s pseudo-firebrand owns an all too real plush ski resort.(I have skied there more than once, even most excitedly getting myself between extremely steep forest and definitively vertical cliff… I guess staying within bounds has a silver lining…)

      So I don’t accuse so much Obama as “the environment”. Of course, Obama could have changed “the environment”. But for that he had to be a bit like FDR. Like believe in what he said.

      Instead we got the pathetic spectacle of Obama on both knees, a supplicant begging for the republicans to love him and be bipartisan with him. Two years on his knees, desperately waiting for a republican Congress to have the excuse at last to do nothing. He may have had a sort of sexual need to do so, a bi-sexual (was it what he was alluding to?), but certainly there was no political need. Ted Kennedy, courageous when he swam for himself, could have told him so, had been courageous in battle.

      Nixon was, rightly, hated by progressives. One thing history shows, though, in this sort of descent to hell, is that there is no bottom until the past has becomes a legend. Today’s Obama is not even a Nixon.


    • Old Geezer Says:

      Obama is not the environment I meant – CONGRESS is the environment I meant.

      In Nixon’s day, the word “Republican” meant Jack Javits, Howard Baker, Edward Brooke, Clifford Case…

      These people were centrists from a wing of the party that has all but disappeared.

      The party has been captured by the extreme right wing. No Compromises.

      No prisoners.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear OGP: My point is that it’s the same with the Dems; massive shift to the right. Obama intervened to re-establish God in the Democratic platform, yesterday. It had somehow disappeared, thus inconveniently demonstrating its lack of power. (Obama also intervened for:”Jerusalem is and will be the capital of Israel.”)

        Part of the plutocratization process is precisely to create a mental ecology where only the semantics of plutocracy are found. Then the only thinking possible is in the service of plutocracy. To believe the Universe has a boss, owner, and creator (of said business), that the boss is crazy, but that the boss is always right, this is basically Xtianism in a nutshell, and thus primordial to the plutocratic ideal.


  3. Andy Outis Says:

    Nixon was 50 years ago. Get over it. Context is king. You are but a philosopher.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Andy: I guess history was 40 years ago. No context, no logic, indeed. Point is, it’s not just the republicans who have become right wingers, to the right of Goldwater (that was 50 years ago!).


  4. Andy Outis Says:

    True enough. I don’t deny the general shift to the right in general, but I’m increasingly losing patience with people on the left who complain that Obama is not left enough. IMO, it’s not so much Obama, as it is the Republican Congress which blocks everything he tries to do. And you’re right, they are far to the right of Goldwater.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, right, Andy. Right. Fact is, though, when the left was in command, it did nothing. Obama was arrogantly kneeling, face in the mud, begging the republicans to love him. The sad spectacle of the supplicant-in-chief. He clearly wanted to be one of them. Once again, not Obama’s fault, he is truly a babe in the woods, agreed. He did not know what to do, so he was looking for daddy (as I explained at the time: dreams of his non existent father!)

      It’s rather I-own-Sugar-Bowl Pelosi, and the likes of Krugman and the whole left intelligentsia (including Clintons) who are at fault. All those knew what they were doing, as they had caviar toasts. And the fault of the countless pseudo left web sites who called ME a right wing racist troll, because I protested Obama was doing only Goldwater stuff.

      At this point, true, the republicans are blocking. But the average Dem politician was just waiting for that. So was the babe in the woods. To some extent, the republicans have a project (“back to the jungle!”). The dems’ entire project is to say: not so fast. Back to the jungle, but just slow, like one cooks the frog: just right. Right, right.
      I may be just a philosopher, but philosophy is what is needed, at the grass roots. Not in the upper reaches of the Obamas, Krugmans and Pelosi, multi millionaires all, baby Romneys in drags… Whoever becomes president in November, it’s their man.


  5. Andy Outis Says:

    I probably shouldn’t be dangling a lamb in front of a Tyranosopher…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Andy: I beg to differ, I love the dangling action… I am fascinated by dangling, especially when it involves juicy flesh. I was writing something about the rise of Rome. Did not finish it, probably too ambitious. Throughout the republic there was a fight to death between the People and the plutocratic phenomenon. The latter, propped by Hannibal, ultimately won. So it is entirely possible Romney will become president, and then Ryan, etc. Everything points in that direction.
      I must recognize my culpability: I believed that Obama was a cynical revolutionary, whereas he has turned out in a cynical self promoting opportunist, just as Clinton was before him (an accusation I would not make towards slightly crazed, bunny scared Carter, or even Gerald Ford).

      Nixon, of course was a piece of trash. He was the second in command during the Mc Carthy witch hunt. (More than once I was called a “fellow traveller“… to the commies! Like when the Tyranosaur accompanies the sauropods, through the plains, i guess…)

      But that Nixon could do so much, so much positive stuff, with an adversarial Congress, and Obama so little with a cooperative Congress? An explanation is in order, especially since the same Congress people (Pelosi, etc.) are POSING as the opposition now.


  6. Andrej Dekleva Says:


    Sometimes your writing reflects inspiring awe of love & novelty, but when present context is involved you’re aggressively dispensing hateful disdain. USA was never a democracy, so what are you so angry about – you are blessed to be a white male (with your Nazi hang-ups, its strange you drive BMWs) that preaches openness but hates the mess of democracy. Isn’t the fact that Republicans are trying to limit voting by minorities enough to make Democrats worth electing in order to protect ‘democracy’? You always praise democracy in concept, but dislike in its manifestation as the freaky ‘all too human’ apparition… we all know leaders are morally corrupt – as you point out nothing new there since Greece/Rome. Why so much hate, do you think adults still believe in revolutions(?) – what do you propose instead of voting for Obama?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Andrej: OK, my computer crashed as I was posting my answer to you, and I had not saved anything, stupidly enough. So I am going to be shorter, and less fun. It’s my spouse who drives the BMW. Something about looking good professionally, and an irresistible deal from BMW. I drive a familial Ford, to carry all the baby stuff… Still the BMW has much better mileage… And I am not anti-Bavarian (although they have crucifices in schools, and Adolf boy was roughly from there, not exactly an accident, but so was the Neuschwanstein pseudo crazy king, not an accident either).

      “Hateful disdain”? “Nazi hang-ups”? Well, as far as the Nazis are concerned, true lots of stuff is still hanging up in the air, such as the present structure of the worldwide plutocracy, the same, strangely enough, as the one that brought Hitler. But they constitute also the example that keeps on giving, about the fact old humanistic theories are wrong.

      Let’s be clear: I will, and advocate, to vote for democrats locally, state wide, and presidentially. It’s like cleaning the bathroom: somebody has to do it. The main failure has been in not developing an ideology counter balancing the crash towards the right side of the road. No wonder: the higher ups in the democratic party or intelligentsia are all multi-millionaires, and actually work for the other side. There are no Gracchi around. Last time there were some, JFK, Robert Kennedy, we know what happened.

      So I advocate to vote for the lesser evil, while holding one’s nose, and in increasing awareness of what a conceptual mess the vision of the road has become. Everybody, including Obama, has been advocating that this, or the other trajectory on the right is best. When actually what is needed is to swerve hard to the left. Not a question of revolution, either.
      The world wide web, the part not been fully controlled by the MSM, the CIA (Daily Kos was founded by a CIA employee), etc. is the only hope.
      That nobody believes in revolution anymore is a strange notion, as more than 100 million people are actively involved in revolutions… In the Middle East alone. And more if one counts more broadly.

      Also, speaking of swerving left, France passed a number of anti-plutocratic laws in the last few weeks. Passing the exact same in the USA is what is needed.


      • Andrej Dekleva Says:

        Thanks for your typically thoughtful response – I was a bit harsh in my initial comment re: preaching and driving BMW… Good you saw my intent without being offended – and I agree fully about unresolved Nazi issues and structures of power, etc. As usual I’m in agreement with the thrust of your post, but it’s hard to imagine this country waking up now as the crisis has passed (officially). And the violent revolution of 100 million people hasn’t changed much as they have no (economic) power in the world we see, and there’s 7 billion of us right? It took decades of near starvation, decades of maniacal tyrants, decades of Israeli occupation, etc for this to happen. Here we sit in our beautiful California, exercising and driving good cars, freaking out about plutocrats… you are right, the world might be getting too interesting. BTW, any time I hear people complaining about computer crashing (more then once) it’s always Windows – just saying. I mean some people might pay for their BMW, I find Macs & bicycles are the real value.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          dear Andrej: I was bending the truth. It’s my baby who pushed the escape key, after arming herself with a tool to act at a distance… Agreed about windows, and, well, I have a Mac Air, too, and it’s amazingly nice, but I don’t know how to use it well… And as far as bikes being real value, that works until one gets hit by a VW car frontally, at speed, because he just did not see you, and cutting corners is a no-brainer. That happened to me, and I am lucky to have just kept one more handicap in my left arm, part of my improvised landing apparatus.

          The crisis has not passed. Human Right Watch just made accusations against Bush and Blair which I have long known to be true (my dad negotiated oil research contracts in Libya, a thoroughly corrupt regime; a million dollar personal check on a Western account would start conversations with the PM). Those accusations are extremely grave. Let’s not forget that Caesar crossed the Rubicon because the Senate (hypocritically) wanted to charge him of “unjust war” in Gallia Comida (non previously Roman controlled Gaul).

          It’s crucial that the republic be clean. Right now, it’s so dirty, it could well stop functioning pretty soon (look at the officially secret financing by plutocrats of the pols).

          Human Right Watch has accused Bush and Blair to have given explicit orders to the Anglo-Saxon secret services to torture opponents to Qaddafi through the “rendition” program.


  7. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Hi Patrice

    1) Mandelson was an EU Commissioner who RESIGNED to become a British Lord.
    2) His income of 104,000 GBP (Don’t ask me what use a British Lord is) was 60,000 LESS than as an EU Commissioner.

    …3) The EU paid him this difference for FOUR YEARS even though he RESIGNED and NO LONGER worked for the EU. I resigned from my job in France to go and work in Africa at a lower salary. NO BASTARD PAID ME THE DIFFERENCE, and NOR WOULD I EXPECT THEM TO.

    This is INSTITUTIONALISED, LEGALIZED THEFT; the political elite of Europe rewarding failed party hacks and cronies with public money – and LOTS OF IT.

    I absolutely detest and hate these scum. I DO NOT trust ANY Tax they impose. I would like to start a mass movement of NON-TAX-PAYING voters. Perhaps they would respect us more if we cut off their money.

    As for balancing the budget, states should be LEGALLY OBLIGED to do so. NO PERSON or INSTITUTION can spend more than it earns, especially for four decades. The French political elite is all mouth and zero competence. They have left France massively endebted and enfeebled. It is a CATASTROPHE and we have NOT seen the worst of it, including massive civil disturbance, most likely in the New Year. Humans are really pretty pathetic. Chirac was at teh centre of this utter shambles for years, yet popular as a “good bloke”. Now he sits in his state-funded renovated chateau on a pension of 20,000€ a year while his country sinks into the mire. AND he was a CROOK who will NEVER FACE JUSTICE.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Chris: Well, I never liked Chirac, for the reasons you said. This being said, he is a temple of virtue relative to Clinton, or Blair, or Bush. I also think that a tax strike would be a very good idea. But that does not remove the merit of the carbon tax. A carbon tax would diminish the present worldwide CORRUPTION THROUGH GLOBALIZATION.


  8. Paul Handover Says:

    Just spent the last twenty minutes catching up on the above – left me with the feeling of wanting to slit my wrists! 😉


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Paul: Remember: “interesting times!” Chris’ rage is justified, but he does not even know how extensively corrupt the system is. He just talks about what he knows. And that’s not that much, hahaha… Corruption is about billions, just for one, not simple six figures stuff…


  9. Old Geezer Says:

    1. Why is it better to drive a Ford than a BMW?

    2. Yes, the USA has moved to the right in the past 40 years.

    WHY is that? Because the Right are better propagandists. They work hard at it. They have since Barry Goldwater took a beating in 1964.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      OGP: I agree completely with your point 2). I even pretend that this is happening because the upper left types are actually double agents from birth (Pelosi, and other pluto-philanthropists) or then are characters selected for their greediness and egocentrism helped by a generous layer of naivety and comedy (that would be my description of Clinton, although I confess I did not listen to his speech yesterday; fact is, last I look he had understood nothing to the financial sector, beyond the fact that it makes the Clintons rich and influencial).

      As far as 1), BMW are supposed to be rich people’s cars. So as I bellow against the rich…But, actually BMW has been propping up its sale numbers, and one can pay a BMW cheaper than a Ford, everything else being equivalent, with a bit of care and luck… And, fact is too, those who think belong to the .1% in a most exacting way. If Montaigne had not had the means for his “Ivory Tower”, his “letters” a kind of web site of the times, would have never happened. To think thinkers need to have time, and time is… This being said, there is a leisure class at both extremities of the social spectrum…

      Apparently Andrej assimilates driving BMWs to unreconstructed Nazism, and I must admit that I was myself mightily irritated by what I heard in Germany up to a few weeks ago. (Now it’s abating as merkel is manning up…) Bottom line, Germany allowed Greece to convert Drachma at twice its value. And it was deliberate, so the Greek upper classes could all buy Porsches, and BMWs, and Daimler… So Greek Euro crisis was made in Germany in that sense. The Bundesbank could, and ought, to have vetoed that.

      Now the Bundesbank chief is still raising (unclear) objections, last one on the ECB board to do so.


  10. Old Geezer Says:

    There is nothing wrong with rich people. There is nothing wrong with being rich, getting rich, buying expensive BMWs, etc.

    The MOST CERTAINLY IS something wrong with Romney having a lower tax rate on money made by financial shenanigans that some worker on the Ford line.

    That is the legacy of Ray-Gun.

    That is what needs fixing.

    If we restored the tax structure of the 1960s, the rest would take care of itself.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear OGP: As I said many times before, but it’s never repeated enough, president Ike, Eisenhower, brought the upper margin tax bracket, which was already above 90%, higher, because he said the national debt had to be reimbursed.
      What is going on is not really a debt problem, but a determined plutocratization of society by the oligarchies on top.
      It’s clearer in Europe, where the plutocratic French law of 1973 passed by Rothschild banker in chief Pompidou (then president), was integrated in the making of the Euro by French socialists, with the result that Europe has relinquished money creation fully to plutocrats.
      Draghi is trying to revert that. (Off mandate, naturlich!)


  11. Paul Handover Says:

    President Obama Says The “C” Word

    From the Blog 350 or bust, see http://350orbust.com/2012/09/07/president-obama-says-the-c-word/

    “Every climate activist I know is disappointed in Barrack Obama’s lack of action on climate change during his nearly 4 years in office, but – after being mocked by Mitt Romney for his big promises to act on this issue – President Obama did finally mention climate change on national television yesterday during his address to the Democratic National Convention. Let’s hope this signals an end to his allergy to both the term “climate change”, as well as the urgent need to act on it.”



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: well, a few of my thoughts about the “democratic” circus in Charlotte are coming in a 3,000 + words essay. Some will call it a rant. Indeed my contempt for those burying civilization shines through. All Obama is worried about is whether the plutocrats have not decided upon a better horse, one of their own, long established that way. Obama has accomplished his role, that of a vaccine against change. Plutocracy can change medicine now. Something stronger.

      Between us, it’s not clear who will be less friendly to plutocracy, between Romney and Obama. Obama claims it’s a choice between two very different paths, but he could not even prosecute one bankster, whereas Reagan and Bush Sr prosecuted more than 10,000 in an enormous fraud one hundred times smaller than the one Obama was supposed to fix.

      Obama does not worry about the climate. Or, at least, did not worry about the climate, until Romney revealed some of his true colors, and said that the climate change was a serious problem that scientists should seriously study until they can come up with clear solutions, as they do not so far. (Indeed pseudo solutions, such as ethanol from corn, have made the situation worse: agricultural prices are exploding up, and corn is emminently catastrophic for the ecology.)

      Well I could say more. Having seen things from inside, I know the hypocrisy is colossal.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: