Barack “just kidding” Obama.

I don’t know why I’m bogging myself down even discussing this. It’s not as though I voted for Obama, or ever genuinely extended any sort of hope confidence in the notion of him being a progressive candidate. I think the words “democrat” and “progressive” are mutually exclusive terms in our democracy-for-sale. But, regardless, I find myself increasingly infuriated by his back-peddling.

A few days ago I was irked to discover Hillary would be his Secretary of State. Then, I looked over the list of his other appointees; a long list of pro-free market Clintonian warhawks

In the words of Vice President-Elect Joe Biden, “that’s not change, that’s more of the same.”

Then, this evening I read about how Obama has stated he will not be repealing Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% (at least right away), due to the financial crisis. Huh? As far as I can gather, the offered “logic” for this seems to be that, due to the financial crisis, expected incomes have decreased (duh) so revenue will not be as high (duh), so there won’t be as much to tax, so the government won’t get enough money to cover the tax cuts Obama has promised to the middle and lower-class. I’m not sure who’s teaching these fellows math, but from experience I think most people can tell you some money is better than no money. 

Obama has also expressed that despite promises to withdraw troops from Iraq he now intends to keep some forces there to counter terrorism, which is not at all surprising. 


“Changes and progress very rarely are gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below.” -Noam Chomsky 

I have this rant categorized as “in progress” because I’m sure over the next 4-8 years I will find plenty more to add.


3 Responses to “Barack “just kidding” Obama.”

  1. 1 Justin O.
    November 25, 2008 at 1.40am

    To be fair, I’m pretty sure Obama has always said he plans on leaving some troops in the ground in Iraq; he just didn’t advertise that fact as much as his push for withdrawal for obvious political reasons.

    On economics, I usually bow to those who know more about the subject than me (yes, that’s how oppression works, and I buy into it, I know). But the article says he’s still going to deliver the tax cuts to lower and middle class families. Isn’t that the most important part? Granted, I don’t understand the nuts and bolts of how exactly he’ll do that, but saying he won’t raise taxes on the rich doesn’t necessarily say he won’t lower taxes on the poor. I’m not saying I’m optimistic…just hopeful. There’s a difference. 🙂

    I dunno, there’s a lot to be nervous about, for sure. But I have to try to find the positives in the situation. And granted, it helps that I’m not nearly as radical in my thinking on most political things as I am on queer things. It’s definitely important to keep criticizing Obama, though. I think there are people out there who think we can rest easy now that Bush is out of office, but the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance.

    Sorry if this was incoherent, it’s past my bedtime. 🙂

  2. 2 dccoulombe
    December 27, 2008 at 3.37am

    the thing about the tax cuts, is that frankly, I don’t really want tax cuts for the middle class and the poor. tax cuts (for anyone) translates into less money for social services. which is the exact opposite of what we need right now. hence my frustration for continued tax cuts for the rich. those tax cuts are withholding millions of dollars that should be going towards social programs, like healthcare, childcare, education, transportation, ect. I mean, tax cuts to ease the plight of working folk are all well and good, but that’s not really my priority. my issue is that millions of dollars the upper crust hoards for themselves (something they’ve been enabled to do by Bush’s outrageous tax cuts) could allow for tremendous, quantifiable improvements in the lives of every American and Obama is not only failing to make a stand (not surprising), but he’s blatantly going back on one of the platforms he got elected on.

    basically, Obama ran a campaign on a slogan of “change”, and where he has a profound opportunity to begin creating the conditions for quantifiable changes, he has suspended action.

  3. 3 james
    January 21, 2009 at 1.58am

    The other thing barack would have to do, if he were interested in achieving some grand change, would be to completely restructure the American government’s priorities. If the government exists to punish poor and brown people for being poor and/or brown, then raising taxes won’t do them very much good. If the government cared anything about the people (or people generally) nobody would go without food and we wouldn’t build fighter jets and bombers and there’d be hospitals for everybody.

    I always feel stupid being the radical trying to discuss policy. “Well, what if we stop being imperialist and capitalist and racist? wouldn’t that fix everything?” Apparently that doesn’t amount to sound political policy. hum-d-dum.

Leave a Reply

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: