Start A Petition

Ghost of the New Deal Haunts Democrats' Agenda, But It's Time to Summon FDR

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: abuse, americans, candidates, congress, corruption, crime, democrats, dishonesty, economy, elections, ethics, freedoms, government, Govtfearmongering, healthcare, housing, lies, media, military, obama, politics, propaganda, republicans, SupremeCourt, soci )

- 2017 days ago -
Obama and most Democrats are so dependent on contributions and support from business and the rich that they dare not discuss, let alone implement, the kinds of policies Roosevelt employed the last time US capitalism crashed.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 3:09 pm
President Roosevelt signs Social Security Act, at approximately 3:30 pm EST on August 14, 1935. (Photo: Social Security Online)

While Bush's absence was obvious at the 2012 Republican convention, so was another president's absence at the Democratic convention. Romney banished Bush because his last year, 2008, linked Republicans in office with economic crisis and big bank bailouts: not a vote-getting association. The Democrats banished President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but for a different reason, and in a different way. They feared reminding people of what FDR did the last time US capitalism crashed. Obama and most Democrats are so dependent on contributions and support from business and the rich that they dare not discuss, let alone implement, Roosevelt-type policies. Obama's convention speech passingly referred to FDR's "bold, persistent experimentation." Obama said nothing about what FDR actually did in the last great collapse of capitalism, nothing about his policies' achievements or their shortcomings.

What FDR accomplished needs rescue from banishment by Obama and Democratic leaders. In the deep 1930s Depression, FDR massively assisted average Americans. He created the Social Security and unemployment compensation systems that directly helped tens of millions. His federal jobs programs provided jobs and incomes for additional tens of millions from 1934 to 1941. These "stimulus plans" helped average citizens with financial supports, jobs and paychecks. Those citizens then spent on goods and services that realized profits trickling up for businesses. FDR's trickle-up economics worked: far from perfectly, but better for most Americans than Bush's or Obama's policies.

Leading Democrats today lack the courage even to propose what FDR did. Obama keeps offering incentives for the private sector to hire more, but that policy failed over the last five years to return employment to pre-crisis levels. Obama refuses to expand Social Security as an anti-crisis policy. Instead, Obama and the Democrats pursue chiefly trickle-down policies: bail out banks and select mega-corporations, boost credit and stock markets with infusions of cheap money, and hope something trickles down to lift average peoples' incomes. Despite five years of failed trickle-down economics, Democrats today still fear to consider FDR's alternatives, acting as if they never happened.

Powerfully organized worker demands caused FDR's conversion to trickle-up economics. Stunningly successful Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) unionization campaigns in the 1930s coordinated with rising memberships, activities, and influences of socialist and communist parties. These forces demanded and obtained direct help for the mass of people, while some among them also advocated basic social change as the best crisis solution. Today, Obama and most Democrats try to repress emerging parallel forces such as Occupy Wall Street. They simultaneously excuse their weak, so-called "moderate" policies by blaming the supposed lack of public support for more progressive policies.

FDR leveraged and channeled organized worker pressures into a grand social compromise, his New Deal. It pleased majorities of the American public and of capitalists and the richest 5 percent. That won him repeated re-election. The New Deal got corporations and the wealthy to finance Washington's provision of help to average Americans in exchange for the CIO, socialists and communists muting demands within their ranks for system change. By warning capitalists and the rich that his New Deal was their only alternative to revolution along Soviet lines, FDR split their ranks and won support from many. He likewise got most in the CIO, socialist and communist parties to marginalize their anti-capitalism in return for a real social safety net. FDR never persuaded all capitalists and all the rich; serious, determined opposition arose. Likewise, dissenting socialists and communists persisted in fighting for basic economic and political changes. However, FDR's New Deal social compromise prevailed.

Corporations and the rich thus paid high taxes and made large loans to finance Social Security, unemployment compensation and federal jobs programs. From the 1940s to the 1960s, corporate income tax rates and tax rates on high-income individuals were much higher than today. FDR took the money his policies needed from corporations and the rich. That's where the money was then, and that's where it is now. But unlike FDR, today's Democrats have no plan or program to get it. So, discussing what FDR actually did got banished from their convention.

Choosing trickle-up economics to cope with capitalism's crash was key to FDR being re-elected four consecutive times. No other president in US history had such success. After FDR's death, Republicans moved to limit presidents to a maximum of two consecutive terms. Like FDR, Obama rode a capitalist crash into power, but Obama risks being ridden out because of failed economic policies. Yet Democrats dare not offend their financial backers to follow FDR's way or even acknowledge its relevance.

The New Deal also had flaws that enabled it to be destroyed. Those capitalists and rich individuals who never welcomed the New Deal were determined to undo it once the war ended in 1945. Because FDR's compromise had preserved the capitalist system, shareholders and the boards of directors they selected kept their positions inside the structure of corporations. There, they retained the incentives and accumulated the power and resources to undermine the New Deal and its major supports. Sometimes these enemies of the New Deal shaped government policies: for example, to eradicate communist and socialist parties (McCarthyism, etcetera) or to weaken unions (Taft-Hartley, etcetera). Sometimes, corporate owners and leaders directly funded foundations, think tanks and organizations molding public opinion. As dissenting socialists and communists had warned about FDR's grand compromise: by leaving enterprises in the hands of major shareholders and their boards of directors, the New Deal had signed its own death warrant.

By the 1980s, corporations and the rich had sufficiently weakened labor and the left to more openly dismantle what remained of the New Deal. Market deregulation, tax cuts, neoliberalism, neo-conservatism and privatization were the new era's processes and watchwords - with Reagan as mascot. Because they developed no effective counterstrategy to affirmatively defend what the business community and the rich assaulted, Democrats lost parts of their electoral base and, thus, strengthened the Republicans. Keeping FDR's achievements away from their 2012 convention marked another step in the Democrats' decline.

By Richard D Wolff, Truthout | News Analysis

JL A (281)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 5:11 pm
If we do not remember history and learn from both mistakes and successes, we are doomed to keep on repeating our mistakes. Thanks Kit for posting this article that summarizes all the most salient points of this parallel period of history to better inform us of the unstated patterns affecting today's actions and inactions.

Kit B (276)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 6:18 pm

It seems we will continue to make the same mistakes over and over. History is not kind enough to present with the same face, it's up to us to pay attention to current situations, and than dissect it and look for comparisons to the past. The media once did this very well, not as much any longer. There is a fear in DC of appearing to do any thing that might be called socialist, though that does not extend to corporate socialism. I'm not too fond of the corporate socialism, but I doubt many would be happy with the results of ending the OIL subsidies, the price at the pump would, of course increase. Maybe Americans would then begin to actually use public transportation.

Judy C (97)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 6:26 pm
I hope this ghost haunts the hell out of Obama. He so clearly has a trailblazer to follow into some bold actions to save our country from being the pathetic, corrupt, moneygrubbing cesspool it has become. He could use FDR's example to restore the dignity and security of American workers, to improve the sorry state of our infrastructure, and to restore the economy from dysfunction. It's so obvious that about the only thing that will get this consumer-driven economy going, is to use what Wolf refers to as "trickle up" tactics. When the poorer ones among us get money, we spend it all, buying goods and services, immediately boosting the economy. When you keep giving more to the rich, they tend to park it offshore. I'm a fan of the writings of Richard C. Wolf, and this is a great article, Kit.

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 6:47 pm
Yes, thanks, "inactions" is more accurate for this matter. Although the Obama administration did NOT what they should have done, the rethugs are still calling him "socialist", some even a comminist, now imagine what war would have broken loose if he had introduced such stimulus plans. Let's hope for the coming term, if they can win the house and have less fighting off to fear, perhaps they will come to better sense. It's still time to warn his rich democrat friends of another revolution which they will not be able to suppress in the long run. Americans are fed up and determined to occupy against all odds.

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 6:57 pm
What ever happened to the Buffett rule? I recall there were such plans by Obama, what happened?

Kit B (276)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 7:26 pm

The Buffet Rule died the same death as the JOBs plan. No action in Congress.

I'm too am fond of Richard C Wolf, I admire his writing skills and historical accuracy when he writes. This was not an easy path for FDR, he had to fight up hill battles all through the depression years. He was called every name in the book, and still persevered. He had complete faith in the American people, he believed that people just needed a fair playing field, an opportunity to work and given time and patience things would turn around. He believed in careful investment into the infrastructure that did create jobs, adjustments by the government to prevent any more machinations by run away business practices, and most important that the government must have a safety net. We are fighting same battles today.

Judy C (97)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 7:55 pm
I'm hoping Obama will take more courageous actions when he is not worrying about getting elected to a second term. If the 1% don't like it, they can leave.

Kit B (276)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 8:02 pm

They sure didn't like when FDR did it, but we have always had those of the 1%, they just never owned so much of the whole economy before. I don't expect Obama to be much different than he is, Obama is not as portrayed by the right wing. In another time, Obama would be considered a moderate republican. He is not a leftist nor a socialist, he couldn't be more middle of the road, just not the road we see before us. Should he be re-elected, he will follow much the same path as we have seen.

JL A (281)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 8:46 pm
The House GOP created something new they officially called the Buffet Rule in Congressional documents that doesn't do anything like the original--why we haven't heard that name of late. However there are rumors hitting the press that letting the Bush tax breaks expire for the high income brackets is something the GOP is apparently actively talking about giving way on...

Giana Peranio-paz (398)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 1:31 am
I am learning a little about American politics here. I know almost nothing about it and care2 have really given me the opportunity to be exposed to all this talk, which is quite complicated. Kit, you are really something! Thanks.

Past Member (0)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 2:59 am
Who mean what the supreme court declare unconstitutional?

Sonja M (8)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 9:05 am
I think when President Obama is re elected and the the democrats let the bush tax cuts expire or go off the cliff as they say, then the do nothing, obstructive congress will have no choice but to cooperate with the president and the democrats in the house and the senate.

Robert S (111)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 10:14 am

Robert S (111)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 10:28 am

Robert S (111)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 10:51 am
The title of this program is called The Choice 2012. What's the choice?

Between a president that will fight for the middle class and the president who's never met them or a nominee who's never met them.

Romney's never met the middle class?

No. And I think the middle class will tell you up front. They know that their experiences, their day-to-day challenges are not part of his worldview and not something he's ever been exposed to. It's not. And I said, versus a president who has -- look, let me put it this way: Mitt Romney wanted the auto industry to go bankrupt because that's the world he deals with. He looks at a bunch of financial numbers. Now, you can ridicule a president who's spent time as a community organizer, who worked on the South Side [of Chicago] and saw steel industry after steel industry close and what it meant to an individual, their family and the community, which is why when people are advocating bankruptcy, he remembered the eyes, the voices and the fear in people's eyes when they saw bankruptcy.

And that auto industry, because of his courage to finally do what the executives of those industries never did, and the union leadership that never did, and the bankers that never did, and the suppliers that never did, and the dealership that never did, made them change. And they're today a different industry, much stronger, and for the first time in a long time in American history, creating jobs here. And that's the difference in the choice between somebody who's not heard the voices of the middle class and somebody who's been eye to eye with it and their challenges.


Angelika R (143)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 11:19 am
Thx Robert for the vid presenting O-tune, but I doubt we will ever hear such words from any other president again.("I welcome their hatred") What a strong expression!

Kit B (276)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 12:30 pm

The cars are making money, the workers are making money. The government did what government's are supposed to do, not just talk a good game. Take action. There is so much talk about Christianity, so just remember this is what a good Samaritan does, not leave people in peril, but take action.

Kit B (276)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 12:40 pm

Speech at Madison Square Garden (October 31, 1936)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Senator Wagner, Governor Lehman, ladies and gentlemen:

On the eve of a national election, it is well for us to stop for a moment and analyze calmly and without prejudice the effect on our Nation of a victory by either of the major political parties.

The problem of the electorate is far deeper, far more vital than the continuance in the Presidency of any individual. For the greater issue goes beyond units of humanity—it goes to humanity itself.

In 1932 the issue was the restoration of American democracy; and the American people were in a mood to win. They did win. In 1936 the issue is the preservation of their victory. Again they are in a mood to win. Again they will win.

More than four years ago in accepting the Democratic nomination in Chicago, I said: “Give me your help not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people.”

The banners of that crusade still fly in the van of a Nation that is on the march.

It is needless to repeat the details of the program which this Administration has been hammering out on the anvils of experience. No amount of misrepresentation or statistical contortion can conceal or blur or smear that record. Neither the attacks of unscrupulous enemies nor the exaggerations of over-zealous friends will serve to mislead the American people.

What was our hope in 1932? Above all other things the American people wanted peace. They wanted peace of mind instead of gnawing fear.

First, they sought escape from the personal terror which had stalked them for three years. They wanted the peace that comes from security in their homes: safety for their savings, permanence in their jobs, a fair profit from their enterprise.

Next, they wanted peace in the community, the peace that springs from the ability to meet the needs of community life: schools, playgrounds, parks, sanitation, highways—those things which are expected of solvent local government. They sought escape from disintegration and bankruptcy in local and state affairs.

They also sought peace within the Nation: protection of their currency, fairer wages, the ending of long hours of toil, the abolition of child labor, the elimination of wild-cat speculation, the safety of their children from kidnappers.

And, finally, they sought peace with other Nations—peace in a world of unrest. The Nation knows that I hate war, and I know that the Nation hates war.

I submit to you a record of peace; and on that record a well-founded expectation for future peace—peace for the individual, peace for the community, peace for the Nation, and peace with the world.

Tonight I call the roll—the roll of honor of those who stood with us in 1932 and still stand with us today.

Written on it are the names of millions who never had a chance—men at starvation wages, women in sweatshops, children at looms.

Written on it are the names of those who despaired, young men and young women for whom opportunity had become a will-o’-the-wisp.

Written on it are the names of farmers whose acres yielded only bitterness, business men whose books were portents of disaster, home owners who were faced with eviction, frugal citizens whose savings were insecure.

Written there in large letters are the names of countless other Americans of all parties and all faiths, Americans who had eyes to see and hearts to understand, whose consciences were burdened because too many of their fellows were burdened, who looked on these things four years ago and said, “This can be changed. We will change it.”

We still lead that army in 1936. They stood with us then because in 1932 they believed. They stand with us today because in 1936 they know. And with them stand millions of new recruits who have come to know.

Their hopes have become our record.

We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history 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.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House—by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.

Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate. Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America’s working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

Every message in a pay envelope, even if it is the truth, is a command to vote according to the will of the employer. But this propaganda is worse—it is deceit.

They tell the worker his wage will be reduced by a contribution to some vague form of old-age insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar of premium he pays for that insurance, the employer pays another dollar. That omission is deceit.

They carefully conceal from him the fact that under the federal law, he receives another insurance policy to help him if he loses his job, and that the premium of that policy is paid 100 percent by the employer and not one cent by the worker. They do not tell him that the insurance policy that is bought for him is far more favorable to him than any policy that any private insurance company could afford to issue. That omission is deceit.

They imply to him that he pays all the cost of both forms of insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar put up by him his employer puts up three dollars three for one. And that omission is deceit.

But they are guilty of more than deceit. When they imply that the reserves thus created against both these policies will be stolen by some future Congress, diverted to some wholly foreign purpose, they attack the integrity and honor of American Government itself. Those who suggest that, are already aliens to the spirit of American democracy. Let them emigrate and try their lot under some foreign flag in which they have more confidence.

The fraudulent nature of this attempt is well shown by the record of votes on the passage of the Social Security Act. In addition to an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both Houses, seventy-seven Republican Representatives voted for it and only eighteen against it and fifteen Republican Senators voted for it and only five against it. Where does this last-minute drive of the Republican leadership leave these Republican Representatives and Senators who helped enact this law?

I am sure the vast majority of law-abiding businessmen who are not parties to this propaganda fully appreciate the extent of the threat to honest business contained in this coercion.

I have expressed indignation at this form of campaigning and I am confident that the overwhelming majority of employers, workers and the general public share that indignation and will show it at the polls on Tuesday next.

Aside from this phase of it, I prefer to remember this campaign not as bitter but only as hard-fought. There should be no bitterness or hate where the sole thought is the welfare of the United States of America. No man can occupy the office of President without realizing that he is President of all the people.

It is because I have sought to think in terms of the whole Nation that I am confident that today, just as four years ago, the people want more than promises.

Our vision for the future contains more than promises.

This is our answer to those who, silent about their own plans, ask us to state our objectives.

Of course we will continue to seek to improve working conditions for the workers of America—to reduce hours over-long, to increase wages that spell starvation, to end the labor of children, to wipe out sweatshops. Of course we will continue every effort to end monopoly in business, to support collective bargaining, to stop unfair competition, to abolish dishonorable trade practices. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will continue to work for cheaper electricity in the homes and on the farms of America, for better and cheaper transportation, for low interest rates, for sounder home financing, for better banking, for the regulation of security issues, for reciprocal trade among nations, for the wiping out of slums. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will continue our efforts in behalf of the farmers of America. With their continued cooperation we will do all in our power to end the piling up of huge surpluses which spelled ruinous prices for their crops. We will persist in successful action for better land use, for reforestation, for the conservation of water all the way from its source to the sea, for drought and flood control, for better marketing facilities for farm commodities, for a definite reduction of farm tenancy, for encouragement of farmer cooperatives, for crop insurance and a stable food supply. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will provide useful work for the needy unemployed; we prefer useful work to the pauperism of a dole.

Here and now I want to make myself clear about those who disparage their fellow citizens on the relief rolls. They say that those on relief are not merely jobless—that they are worthless. Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief—to purge the rolls by starvation. To use the language of the stock broker, our needy unemployed would be cared for when, as, and if some fairy godmother should happen on the scene.

You and I will continue to refuse to accept that estimate of our unemployed fellow Americans. Your Government is still on the same side of the street with the Good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side.

Again—what of our objectives?

Of course we will continue our efforts for young men and women so that they may obtain an education and an opportunity to put it to use. Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers, our insurance for the unemployed, our security for the aged. Of course we will continue to protect the consumer against unnecessary price spreads, against the costs that are added by monopoly and speculation. We will continue our successful efforts to increase his purchasing power and to keep it constant.

For these things, too, and for a multitude of others like them, we have only just begun to fight.

All this—all these objectives—spell peace at home. All our actions, all our ideals, spell also peace with other nations.

Today there is war and rumor of war. We want none of it. But while we guard our shores against threats of war, we will continue to remove the causes of unrest and antagonism at home which might make our people easier victims to those for whom foreign war is profitable. You know well that those who stand to profit by war are not on our side in this campaign.

“Peace on earth, good will toward men”—democracy must cling to that message. For it is my deep conviction that democracy cannot live without that true religion which gives a nation a sense of justice and of moral purpose. Above our political forums, above our market places stand the altars of our faith—altars on which burn the fires of devotion that maintain all that is best in us and all that is best in our Nation.

We have need of that devotion today. It is that which makes it possible for government to persuade those who are mentally prepared to fight each other to go on instead, to work for and to sacrifice for each other. That is why we need to say with the Prophet: “What doth the Lord require of thee—but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” That is why the recovery we seek, the recovery we are winning, is more than economic. In it are included justice and love and humility, not for ourselves as individuals alone, but for our Nation.

That is the road to peace.

paul m (93)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 2:04 pm


Robert S (111)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 2:14 pm
History will show that Obama came into office with a sincere desire to solve problems using idea's from both sides. Republicans wanted it all their way and when they didn't get it, they pointed to his not getting things done...and smiled.

Yvonne White (229)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 3:10 pm
"There is a fear in DC of appearing to do any thing that might be called socialist, though that does not extend to corporate socialism." Right on Kit. But I think we should push even Corporate Socialism into the fire by Nationalizing Public Utilities!:) EVERYTHING citizens Depend on - from water to heating oil, electricity, etc. should be taken over by the government...yeah, Threaten those damn Oil Companies with That & see how Quickly they back off the price gouging!

Yvonne White (229)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 3:12 pm
Hugo Chavez got re-elected by the poor - ALL Democrats should realize there are SO many more of us than the 1%ers!

Kit B (276)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 3:23 pm

In the not so distant future, we will not be using any fossil fuel. The OIL and GAS and COAL companies will scramble to find new and assorted ways of trying to charge for use of the sun and wind. This was attempted in California (late 60's early 70's) by PG and E, and the people gave a resounding, "no". Retired executives from even (yuck) BP have said that we have already reached peak oil, and that is supported by science. The point is, the sun is free, the wind is free so sure charge a nominal fee to recoup the investment for building the solar panels or wind mills and ocean generators, unless the government builds them, that would be with our tax money. Build things that do make our life better, build things we need, build them for a fair price and we will buy them. Business has gone to far, prices are not in line with wages. No one on earth desires to be a slave to corporate money machines.

Lin Penrose (92)
Friday October 12, 2012, 1:48 pm
Thanks Kit. My comment doesn't present the political details but comparisons to other similar activities.

The 'trickle up actions - osmosis' certainly works for trees, most plants and in the food cycles. I wonder if FDR's "trickle up" worked too well, with results of we citizens of the U.S.A's ability to consume more than is good for us (over fertilization, extremely rapid growth) and others. Just taking a look at cause and effects aspect patterns. The trickle down activity (gravity, plus others) requires the decomposition of the upper levels of food (energy, money, people, etc.)to be recycled back to be used. Over simplifications of course.

I don't see we humans (or governments, politics) as being a part from the natural cycles, patterns, pressures of life on this planet. Regardless of how special(a part From and protected by mysterious forces) we think we are. A snack for thought outside the politics box. Hope I didn't bore.

Lois Jordan (63)
Saturday October 13, 2012, 6:50 pm
I believe this is one reason why Obama suffered during the 1st debate. The House Blue Dogs took a Corporate stance with their fellow Republicans between 2008 and 2010. We must elect a new Congress, pushing out as many Teabaggers as possible. Getting Big Money out of politics is absolutely necessary for Obama to carry out his campaign promises. Commodity speculation is only benefiting the wealthiest and needs to be curbed.

Robert S (111)
Saturday October 13, 2012, 7:24 pm
"We must elect a new Congress, pushing out as many Teabaggers as possible"

Right on. Hope it happens.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.