RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Gibson writes: "If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he'd be one of Barack Obama's biggest fans. In the six years he's been president, Obama has managed to turn the worst economy since the Great Depression into the greatest quarterly GDP growth in 11 years."

African American professor Cornel West once called Obama a
African American professor Cornel West once called Obama a "Rockefeller Republican." (photo: Mike Thieler-Pool/Getty)

If Obama Were a White Republican, He'd Be a Conservative Hero

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

26 December 14


f Ronald Reagan were alive today, he would be one of Barack Obama’s biggest fans. In the six years he’s been president, Obama has managed to turn our country’s economy, at its worst point since the Great Depression, into one booming along with the greatest quarterly GDP growth in 11 years. The Dow Jones closed above 18,000 this week – the highest ever. And yet, despite an apparently surging economy, 95 percent of income gains since 2009 have gone to the richest 1 percent. Not even Ronald Reagan’s economic policies created inequality on that scale.

Since his first inauguration, President Obama has masterfully steered the benefits of the recovery to only the wealthy, while the net worth of average working Americans has dropped by 40 percent since before the recession. Today’s middle class is actually poorer than it was in 1989, when Reagan left the White House. Even though the most recent unemployment rate is 5.8 percent, most of the new jobs that have been created since the recession have been in low-paying sectors, like retail and fast food. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, which most workers in those industries earn, has less buying power than the minimum wage in 1968.

According to a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, if the minimum wage had kept up with worker productivity since then, it would be $16.54 an hour today. This means Americans are working harder than ever, but aren’t getting a penny ahead. When you use that data to paint a picture with the most recent quarterly GDP growth surge and the new record-high closing on the Dow Jones, the image is actually quite ugly. The insane growth our economy is experiencing, combined with the fact that 99 percent of Americans aren’t seeing 95 percent of the income gains from that rapid economic surge, means that our hard work is simply feathering the nest of the ownership class. Income inequality hasn’t been this severe since right before the crash that caused the Great Depression.

President Obama could be pushing for the pitifully-low minimum wage for tipped workers to be increased from $2.13 an hour, where it has stayed since 1991. He could sign executive orders to pay all federal workers $15 an hour, to allow government contracts to go only to model employers who pay a living wage, and to allow all government workers to have the right to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions. He could be investing billions of tax dollars into in creating public sector jobs aimed at rejuvenating American infrastructure – which American engineers have given a D+ in their most recent assessment – rather than lowering the deficit with cruel austerity like the continued budget sequester.

At the very least, President Obama could have vetoed the federal budget “cromnibus” bill that was recently passed, sparing low-income women, infants, and children from another $93 million in cuts to their food assistance. But we’re talking about the president who already approved $8.7 billion in cuts to food stamps in the latest farm bill. Even the last lifelines of help for the most desperate Americans have been slashed to pieces and put on hold by the Obama administration. Even if Republicans are singlehandedly holding social safety nets like food stamps and unemployment extensions for the long-term jobless hostage, the fact that President Obama hasn’t even fought that hard for these programs speaks volumes. Republicans applauded Clinton when he cut welfare in the 1990s, but there’s been nothing but silence from today’s crop of Congressional Republicans for Obama’s cuts to the welfare state.

Instead of fortifying his legacy with economic populism, Obama has presided over an economic “recovery” where only the rich have benefited – the first “recovery” of its kind. If Obama were a Republican instead of a Democrat, Republicans would be singing his praises. Instead, liberals and partisan Democrats are celebrating the news of growth they don’t benefit from, and are the first to shout from mountaintops about lower deficit numbers. In terms of economic policy, Obama and his most diehard supporters are Reagan Republicans. But despite their similarities in economic policy, Reagan would be even more proud of Obama for his foreign policy.

As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, President Obama has extended George W. Bush’s War on Terror from just Iraq and Afghanistan to Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, and even the Philippines. The U.S. military has more of a presence than ever in the Middle East since Obama took office, with the Iraq War alone costing as much as $4 trillion. Obama has been just as steadfast a supporter of Israel as any of his predecessors – standing by them even as they bombed civilian targets in Gaza earlier this year. He recently signed off on supplying the Israeli weapons stockpile with another $200 million infusion; this is the same stockpile that Israel used to bomb Gaza. And thanks to Obama’s signature, Israel will now have the capability to refuel fighter jets in mid-air, which would be necessary if Israel wanted to launch airstrikes in Iran.

It speaks volumes that President Obama agreed to cut food stamps by $8.7 billion and WIC by $93 million, but committed to spending $1 trillion over the next 30 years to upgrade our nuclear weapons stockpile. Even while Obama has supported the idea of equipping police officers with body cameras, his defense department stands by the Pentagon’s 1033 program that allows military equipment like grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and apache helicopters to flow to local and county police departments. And despite his historic move to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba, Obama is still stuck in a cold war mentality of the U.S. having to command the widest array of nuclear weapons. Obama’s record on foreign policy and the military-industrial complex puts Reagan’s to shame. The ludicrous “Star Wars” program and the 1983 invasion of Grenada don’t hold a candle to the current administration’s imperialist worldview.

From a policy standpoint, it makes no logical sense for Republicans to hate Obama as much as they do. He’s simultaneously expanded the worst economic policies we saw under Reagan and the worst foreign policy we saw under George W. Bush. The rich are richer than ever before, the middle class is becoming poorer, and the poor have had their already razor-thin social safety nets cut to the barest of margins. On top of all of that, the U.S. military is engaged in permanent wars all over the Middle East, and the cold war mentality that drove Reagan and George H.W. Bush is still very much alive in the current White House. The only reasonable explanation left for Republicans’ fervent opposition to everything Obama says and does is that he’s black.

Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+107 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-12-26 13:54
By continually keeping the American public "divided", making it appear that Democrats and Republicans can't get along, we can't see that Corporations/Ba nks/the rich are running the governments worldwide. Remember, Obama took $375 million dollars from Wall Street in 2008 to run. Big oil spent $750 million to get their reps elected in 2014. The neocons and their corporate sponsors make money off of war. WE PAY. Wake up America. Your enemy is not the political parties, but rather their corporate sponsors.
-31 # Anonymot 2014-12-26 14:50
And everyone wants to forget that when Obama said in August 2011 that he would have a billion dollars available for the 2012 campaign, HE, not the Republicans or the Koch brothers set the big money race in motion. It was an unheard of sum at the time.
+59 # Corvette-Bob 2014-12-26 17:28
Sorry, it was neither the Republicans nor Koch brothers they merely followed the decision of the Supreme Court. Let see if the Republicans, when they control both the House and Senate, craft a bill to put limits on campaign contributions. Of course, they never will, since they were elected under the current law.
+20 # poetmarinerray 2014-12-26 21:51
Let's also see when the Republicans take control of both Senate and Congress in 2015 what kind of appropriations bill they come up with in 2016 when the 2015 CRominbus Bill is over? Does anyone , even Carl Gibson, know what the new leaders Joni Ernst, Ted Cruz, Jim Inhofe , Mitch 'Coal is King, McConnell will propose in THEIR CRominbus Bill when Democrats will have a lot less power to shape it? Think about that --President Obama will be the only veto power left to a Paul Ryan- Mitch McConnell CRominbus .
+10 # Barbara K 2014-12-27 10:34
I hope the Dems put Holds on the nasty bills that the Rs will come up with. That blocks it until that senator removes the Hold. Also, the Dems can filibuster and block everything the Rs come up with just like they did to the Dems. Karma can be such a bitch.

+7 # Radscal 2014-12-27 14:23
Barbara, I posted the Senate Rule on "Holds" to a comment you'd made on Obamacare. I'll post it again. It is a NONBINDING "Gentlemen's Agreement" that the Majority Leader has no obligation to follow:

Here's the Senate Rule on a "Hold."

"hold - An informal practice by which a senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The majority leader need not follow the senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure."

While it's true that Senator Reid decided not to allow a vote on Single Payer because of a "Hold," there is no reason to expect the Republicans to do the same.

The same is true with the filibuster. The Senate Leader can cancel the Rule allowing filibusters, as Reid finally did regarding Appointments. Or, the Republicans could require Democrats to actually filibuster instead of just threaten to, as the Republicans did during the last 6 years.

"Karma" would only come into play if the Republicans choose to play by the same neutering Rules the Democrats followed.
+1 # RLF 2014-12-29 07:16
The dems actually want the same things as the repubs., they just don't want to take the blame so don't expect any balls to be shown by the Dems. They should hold up every single bill the same way the repubs. did but...they won't.

The country needs to have a complete melt down or it will never wake up. Put lawyers in the fields and then things will change.
+1 # MidwesTom 2014-12-29 12:32
Remember that 60% of Wall Streets donations in the last election went to Democrats, not Republicans.

The bankers are in TOTAL control. John Corzine, who stole over one billion is still walking the street, and Obama has considered him for a high appointment. The Ruling Class roles on.
+2 # politicfix 2014-12-30 00:12
Nah, the Dems will vote for them because they have no guts and they can play the victim by saying they had no choice or they wouldn't have gotten anything. It's this cute little game they play. The GOP says no to all the Dems bills for the people and the people get nothing. Then the Dems say they can do nothing for the people because the GOP has the majority. So, the Dems might as well go home, without pay, and just let the GOP dictators do whatever they want to do. They wouldn't be missed at this point and the results would be the same: the people 0 corporations everything.
+4 # economagic 2014-12-26 18:47
Of course: It's opposite day!
-4 # Anonymot 2014-12-26 22:38
To the 10 negatives so far, I'm stating a fact, not an opinion. Please stop being knee-jerk opinionated and listen to what you don't want to hear as well as blind opinions.

+2 # CAMUS1111 2014-12-27 08:48
+2 # pbbrodie 2014-12-29 10:30
Although it may be a fact that Obama had or even spent a billion dollars on his 2012 campaign, you are getting the thumbs down for your assertion that he, Obama, set forth the money explosion in political spending, which is NOT a fact but your opinion and simply not true. I did not originally give you a thumbs down but after this absurd comment, I went back and did.
+11 # brux 2014-12-27 10:14
Good point, but our enemy is really both. The parties are institutions owned by the corporate sponsors who provide indirection and release from identification and liability of the very wealthy and powerful. There are a few good people left in the Legislative branch, but they on the way out, we all see the trend.
+7 # ritawalpoleague 2014-12-27 15:17
Yep, PABLO DIABLO, keeping the American public not only "divided". but also crippled with MSD - manipulation, spin, distraction - is karlroving style dirty trickery at its best.

Still living in Colorado Springs, the super fusion center of the nation's now over seventy fusion centers, I will never forget the '03 brutalizing of peaceful peace demonstrators, including little kids, via tear gassing by cops who got their orders from anything but patriotic Patriot Act based Homeland Security agents.

Then, in '06, came the throwing me out of the Clerk and Recorders office, by the C and R himself, for accidentally wearing a small 'Grandmothers for Peace' button as I went to cast an early ballot. Pull up: Colorado Independent, Grandmother for Peace. Following that came the C and R banning voting by vast numbers (approx. 200) of Colorado College students. Was he investigated and penalized? Hell no. Instead, he easily jumped into being the county treasurer.

Next came torture/trial of the St. Paddy's Day Seven.

Then there were the endless calls for help came my way from the Occupy Wall Streeters - ill young OWS man I was assisting being brutally beaten on his back with a club by militarized cop, young(17 year old) woman being Tasered close up on her cop exposed bare flesh, while handcuffed by cops as she lay on her bed in a motel room (no reason given, no citation or advisement of rights provided).
+11 # wrknight 2014-12-26 13:58
I'm not sure we would know the difference.
+14 # wantrealdemocracy 2014-12-26 15:12
What difference do you mean? The difference between the Dimocraps and the Rupukelicans?

+29 # Corvette-Bob 2014-12-26 17:31
The American people get the government they deserve. Selling a candidate is like selling soap. People do not even know the names of who represent them in Congress.
+9 # backwards_cinderella 2014-12-27 05:21
some of us do.
+10 # Henry 2014-12-27 08:24
Quoting Corvette-Bob:
The American people get the government they deserve.

After the 60s, I've never gotten the government I deserve, and neither have the rest of the American people!
+55 # harleysch 2014-12-26 14:07
Carl, thank you for this. While it has been obvious for a long time that the real beneficiaries of Obama's presidency have been those in the upper 1%, and those in the "military-indus trial complex", there are still many posters to RSN who take offense when one tells the truth about what a disaster for the nation Obama has been.

Instead of surrendering, now is the time for those Democrats who see themselves in the FDR tradition to come forward, and define a new agenda. Start with Glass Steagall, and a national credit policy (not a "stimulus" bill); and look for collaboration with Russia, China and the other BRICS nations, on economic development and a serious anti-terror campaign, instead of provoking them, to provide an excuse for a military defense buildup and, God forbid, war.

It's clear the Republicans have nothing to offer. As long as Democrats feel the need to rally round Obama, there will be no alternative to war and austerity.
+10 # lorenbliss 2014-12-26 23:02
I second your thanks to Mr. Gibson. This is superb reporting, undoubtedly his best to-date.
+2 # Eric Zuesse 2014-12-27 09:59
I third it: This article is a masterpiece. I have long been intending to write it but now don't need to. THANK YOU, Carl Gibson! I discovered you article at opednews, and I hope that in the future you will post there too, because that site has a terrifically high overall level of quality in its news reports and commentaries.
+10 # ehrhornp 2014-12-27 11:51
How can anyone say Obama has been a disaster for America? The country was already a disaster when he became president. He should not be penalized for the stupidity of the American public who also voted in republicans during the mid term elections. How stupid can one be. The public generally agreed with many proposals that were proposed across the country like increasing minimum wage. They then voted for people who would oppose such measures? Pretty stupid.
-4 # EzrasCloset1 2014-12-27 13:01
+12 # HenryS1 2014-12-26 14:29
Entertaining, and a very interesting collection of points with which to see how far the corporate lobbyists have gotten their way and controlled the narrative, but to pretend that the Republicans would give any credit to a standing Democratic president, white or black, is silly. Or maybe I'm just taking a finishing joke too seriously.

Whereever he stands, or has been maneuvered, he must be reviled, the goalposts have to be removed, and he has to be painted as a dangerous socialist, if that is the the most convenient negative stereotype available. Race matters to the public, and it can increase personal rancor among the powerful, but power politics and control of public opinion is a professional game these days, and from that persepctive, race is but a tool, not a driving motivation.
-2 # HenryS1 2014-12-26 14:31
Entertaining, and a very interesting collection of points with which to see how far the corporate lobbyists have gotten their way and controlled the narrative, but to pretend that the Republicans would give any credit to a standing Democratic president, white or black, is silly. Or maybe I'm just taking a finishing joke too seriously.

Wherever he stands, or has been maneuvered, Obama must be reviled and vilified, the goalposts have to be shifted after victories, and he has to be painted as a dangerous socialist, if that is the the most convenient negative stereotype available. Race matters to the public, and it can increase personal rancor among the powerful, but power politics and control of public opinion is a professional game these days, and from that persepctive, race is but a tool, not a driving motivation.
+21 # loraine 2014-12-26 21:20
Whenever I see "socialist," or "communist" in a post about President Obama, I QUIT READING! That's nonsense. My complaint about him is that he is REPUBLICAN LITE, as indicated in this article.
+3 # Henry 2014-12-27 08:26
Hilarious, HenryS1 – you've gotten two sets of votes! 10 FOR and 4 AGAINST.
+17 # Anonymot 2014-12-26 15:01
Good article well said.

Henry stutters. I don't know where he's from, but race is an emotion that drives millions of voters - both FOR & AGAINST. Of course the pros use it as a tool, but for what if not to stir up votes?

But our problems are deeper than Rs and Ds. Both have demonstrated their inability to run the monster machine we have become. It's time tpo think of a non-fascist form of democracy. I've tried promoting one for 3 decades, but not many people can imagine leaving this sinking ship. We are all Berliners with the terrible implications of that easy phrase. It carried an unexpected time stamp. We're also all passengers on the U.S.S. Titanic.
+12 # economagic 2014-12-26 19:10
There are plenty of people exploring various democratic ways of avoiding going down with the ship--more than ever. The movement has been growing exponentially for forty years, and goes back to the days of the enclosure movement in Britain, at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution. There are more web sites with this orientation than I even know about, but check out Schumacher society, new economy coalition, and transition towns, and national association of cooperatives, then broaden your search from there. Not only will this revolution not be televised, it will not proceed from the top down. It is creating itself in the only way that democracy can, which is from the bottom up.
+13 # lorenbliss 2014-12-26 22:21
And as soon as this "revolution" of which you speak reaches the point it threatens the status quo, it will will be crushed. Or, like feminism and environmentalis m and so many other potentially revolutionary movements in the history of this nation, it will be co-opted beyond recognition into yet another tool for the perpetuation of plutocracy as capitalism completes its inevitable transformation into fascism and outright Nazism.
+4 # EzrasCloset1 2014-12-27 13:09
fresh food gardens in urban areas that unplug us from the agriculture corporate machine is one of the solutions. Localized economies with local distribution of goods and services is another, bartering is another, reclaiming "waste" and recycling is another, using mass transit is another, reducing, reusing, recycling is another, alternative energy usage is another and slowing way down in our daily lives is another, a shortened work week is another, business guilds are another. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Unplug and get dirty. We don't have to protest in the streets all of the time. There is a time/place for that but honestly, every single time you get into your car and give your time, energy and dollars to buying more corporate crappola, I don't get it.
+18 # RMDC 2014-12-26 15:14
Carl -- you are right about this and no one is saying it. There are still Obamanites out there who think he is the messiah who has come to lead them out of the wilderness and into the promise land. But he is really just a neo-con. All of his policies have been neo-con. This is especially true in foreign policy and the endless war on terror. In his six years, Obama could have wound down the GWOT to nothing, but he did not do that. It is still going just as if Bush/Cheney had held power for another two terms. Obama has expsnded it into Africa and he has turned American violence toward Asia.

Obama is just a copy of Bill Clinton, a true sell out who did whatever Newt Gingrich told him to do.
+1 # lorenbliss 2014-12-26 22:36
Actually Obama is infinitely worse than Bill Clinton. By peddling us fascism disguised as "change we can believe in," Obama has proven himself the most malicious Big Liar ever to win the presidency.

By the magnitude of his dishonesty -- by his bought-and-paid -for moral imbecility, really -- he has not only taught us the extent of our abject powerlessness; he has methodically ensured -- as no other president in U.S. history has ever done -- the near-total, unquestionably permanent alienation of the citizenry from the political process. Why bother to participate when the fix is always in, when every time you vote for a humanitarian, you get an Ayn Rand fascist instead?

And in the course of schooling us in that bitter lesson, Obama has also forever discredited the aspirations of African-America ns -- thereby permanently neutralizing the one genuinely radical polity in the U.S. population.

Indeed he should go down in history as the nation's worst president ever. But since the victors write the history books, he will undoubtedly be lionized as as the first U.S. emperor -- the man who fulfilled the dreams of all the Nazi war criminals who were given haven here after World War Two; the man who made the global Fourth Reich the final human reality.
+31 # Blackjack 2014-12-26 15:49
The last two Democratic presidents have been gifts wrapped with a big bow to Republican causes. In their wildest dreams, Republicans couldn't have caused this monumental shift in wealth without the help of the Democrats. I've been saying for the last 4 years that Obama isn't a Democrat and never was, but most Dems don't want to hear it. Mr. Gibson exposes it with factual information that anyone can clearly see--if they pull their heads out of the sand long enough!
+24 # Terry Allen 2014-12-26 17:09
It never ceases to amaze me how my conservative friends insist that Obama is a socialist...... I explain based on the facts that Obama is a feudalist....he 's the best friend they could ever hope for.

I guess Fox is dropping the ball.
+10 # Corvette-Bob 2014-12-26 17:34
Obama is fairly conservative. About like Ike. He goes the safe route. The only problem is that he is black and when people realize that they freak out and say oh my god who did that happen. He is not one of us, but one of those people. He even plays basketball.
0 # RLF 2014-12-29 07:25
Obama is basically just another Harvard lawyer asshole who has made himself rich.

It really doesn't matter what color he is!
+15 # Wally Jasper 2014-12-26 17:41
Republicans are simply playing the race card to win votes in our extremely racist society. They may love his policy but it's their vehement expressions of hate that win them votes in racist America.
PS And is it not the emotional reactivity of biases and prejudices, rather than policy, that drive the majority of American voters? Why else would die-hard middle American Republicans keep voting for candidates who consistently work contrary to these voters' best interests?
-2 # EzrasCloset1 2014-12-27 13:13
This is an interesting blog.
+2 # Radscal 2014-12-27 14:41
Cool blog. Thanks.
0 # Radscal 2014-12-27 14:37
I have no doubt that racism plays a significant role in the criticism many Republicans wield against Obama.

In the bigger picture though, I think the Republican outrage is mostly Kabuki Theater. Obama is getting away with policies that Republicans could only dream of, and that Liberals should be livid over, but since the Republican "greater evils" cluck-cluck about them, the Democratic Partisans defend them.
+7 # Robbee 2014-12-26 17:58
so true, it is not within the repug playbook to find anything but fault in a dem president. don't forget what happened when a white war hero candidate ran against two draft dodgers, kerry got swift-boated. meanwhile there is no way a war hero repug would have faced the same vicious attack from ex-military warheads

the repug mission is to win elective offices anyway it takes, tricky if your policies only economically benefit 1% of the voting public. repugs appeal to white workers by maintaining their relative economic advantages over minorities, class warfare within the worker class, pit worker against worker, works for them and will continue to work unless and until white folks get tired of being the least-poor poor folks in their neighborhoods
+3 # EzrasCloset1 2014-12-27 12:38
The times we live in..similar to colonial New Orleans with a hierarchical class system firmly in place, or any colonized society for that matter....the darkest-skinned people are typically at the "bottom" of the class structure, next mixed race, (or anyone of lighter skin) and then the conquered colonizers followed by the conquering colonizers at the top. That process has its rewards and penalties. Those with the most economic mobility also benefit more than those with the least economical mobility who have the least chance of moving up the class pyramid. What we ALL can agree on is this: overall wealth is concentrated at the top and is becoming more and more concentrated with wealth increasing exponentially. This article, in my mind, is about THAT, not so much about the two parties that are less and less indistinct. The "left" is drifting "right" and the "right" is drifting "far right", but honestly, even that example is becoming irrelevant. We view social programs as waste, and those who really, I mean, really need those social programs as deficient and problematic. All systems of governmentality view populations and their needs as problematic.... so let's back up and view social programs differently, what they are intended for are ways for people to exist, to eat, sleep and have a sense of safety and well-being.
+8 # Aliazer 2014-12-26 18:08
President Obama, along with President Clinton have literally been stealing from the poor and the middle class while giving it to the rich.

As a senior citizen who initially depended on some of the savings that had been set aside to earn a modest interest, we are now collecting a measly 0.3% interest,while turning over nearly interest-free money to speculate on the stock market, derivatives and other securities.

Mr. Obama, in particular,in addition of being a superb BS artist, is a first class kleptocrat, who, unfortunately, with his numerous partners in Capitol Hill,are all destroying our Democracy.
0 # ericlipps 2014-12-26 19:48
[qiuote]"If Obama Were a White Republican, He'd Be a Conservative Hero"

Gee, d'ya think? If he were Barry O'Bama,looked like a middle-aged Jimmy Olsen and had the politics of Archie Bunker, conservatives would love him.
+4 # poetmarinerray 2014-12-26 21:36
@Carl Gibson, "If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he would be one of Barack Obama’s biggest fans." Really, Carl? President Barack Obama scrapped Ronald Reagan's favorite 'Star Wars--nuclear missile defense systems in space programs from the Defense budget --every cent. Obama also made some of the deepest reductions in nuclear weapons ever negotiated with the Russians. As for the widening gap in income inequality between rich and poor under Obama, it hasn't been because of Obama 's economic policies , but the Reaganomics that has been firmly institutionaliz ed into our economic system since Reagan--under the two Bush Administrations . Analyze that ,Carl and ask why the Congress and Supreme Court has allowed it to happen?
+3 # Radscal 2014-12-27 14:48
And here I thought Obama just signed a $1 trillion program to upgrade our Nuclear Weapons Program.
-7 # Rain17 2014-12-26 21:50
Here we go again. The far left is at it again. I guess that, come 2016, Gibson and other RSN columnists will be writing articles repeating the BS that "there is no difference between the two parties." I fully expect Gibson to then say why he is "voting his conscience" and helping give the White House to the Republicans because whomever the Democratic nominee is will have likely fallen short of the impossible litmus tests he and other purity trolls have. Looks like 2016 could very well be another 2000.
+6 # Radscal 2014-12-27 14:53
I expect that once again, most of those liberals who are dismayed at the Obama Administration will line up behind whatever even more right-wing corporatist/mil itarist/Wall St. sycophant the Democrats run and vote for what they naively believe is the "lesser evil."

I've been seeing that scenario play out for 1/2 century now, as the Democratic Party evolved into a more "conservative" group than the Nixon-era Republicans.
+4 # ehrhornp 2014-12-27 18:23
You are probably correct but those Nixon era republicans were pinko commie compared to today's republicans. Nixon after all did introduce Obama care to the nation. Osha was passed under Nixon. The sad fact is though is that today's republicans are no longer conservative but just far right wackos only interested in protecting the top 2%
+4 # Radscal 2014-12-27 18:43
Yep. By voting for ever more right-leaning politicians, we allow the duopoly to become ever more rightwing. When "liberal" comes to mean slashing the "safety net," funneling the wealth of labor to the elite, mass surveillance, sponsoring "regime change" and "targeted assassinations, " then "conservative" can become even more rightwing.

Nixon did radically increase Medicare, but that was a LBJ "Great Society" program. And it has nothing in common with ObamaCare. Medicare is a true "Single Payer" plan while ObamaCare is taxpayer subsidies for private health insurance companies.
0 # Rain17 2014-12-29 12:37
Radscal, given what is at stake with the Supreme Court and other issues, I'm not going to vote third party. But I suspect that these articles are all about inevitably setting stage for columnists here to self-righteousl y wax on about "voting their conscience" in 2016.
+5 # Rain17 2014-12-26 21:55
What the link on the food stamp article says:

"When House Republicans originally argued for a food stamp cut of between $20.5 billion and $39 billion, the White House threatened to veto both of those proposals. During his Friday speech, the president did not say whether he was satisfied with the final $8.7 billion figure, or even mention the cuts at all. Instead, he praised the food stamp program and said that the final Farm Bill preserved much-needed benefits."

Unfortunately elections have consequences, Carl. Maybe if the voters hadn't elected a Republican House in 2010 these cuts wouldn't have happened. But you and the other people here have never said how Obama could have prevented the cuts from happening at all, given the partisan makeup of the House when the bill was debated. Elections do have consequences. It looks like the worst of the of the cuts were prevented.

But your article is intentionally dishonest because it makes it look like Obama aggressively sought those cuts. And it's clear that he didn't.
+8 # lorenbliss 2014-12-26 22:59
To claim a $8.7 billion cut "preserved much-needed benefits" is a classic Big Lie, rather like claiming (as in fact the Nazis did), that the murder of six million Jews preserved much-needed resources for the German population.

The one big difference is we now know how many Jews, other minorities and conquered peoples the Nazis murdered. The total was about 12 million, which we know because -- largely thanks to the Red Army -- the Nazis lost the war.

But we don't know how many "surplus" U.S. citizens are being murdered by food-stamp cuts and other expressions of USian "austerity" -- which is, after all, merely capitalism's newest euphemism for deliberate genocide. Nor will we ever know, because the USian global empire is forever -- that is, until our species is extinct.
+1 # Rain17 2014-12-29 12:39
Due to Godwin's Law, once you bring up up Hitler, you've automatically lost the argument. But that ignores all of the points I made here.

Again elections have consequences. The voters decided in 2010 to elect a Republican Congress. And that's why those cuts were proposed to begin with.

I guess that, given who controlled the House, I'm not sure how Obama could have magically prevented all the cuts. The lesson here is that elections have consequences.
-3 # FDRva 2014-12-27 04:28
Only a fool could deny that Barry Obama was always Wall Street's preferred presidential candidate in 2008. Follow the money.

And only a fool in the Obama entourage would take personal credit for the effect of those Wall Street millions on the election result.

Moral of the Story--Barry Obama is more FBI man, gay Edgar Hoover--than MLK
+7 # Wally Jasper 2014-12-27 09:13
It may be true that Obama is an FBI man, but why slur gays by linking them with the likes of Edgar Hoover?
+2 # jdd 2014-12-27 07:00
If Obama were a white Republican he would never have been elected.
+2 # RSNmarko 2014-12-27 07:52
Obama's strategy was from the beginning to work across the aisle and build consensus. It's why he ran on ObamaCare (= RomneyCare a free market concept for healthcare coverage, and the IM the brainchild of the Heritage Foundstion).

This also had him "lead from the center" at the inset. It also forced his GOP opponents to shift to the right, which also helped give birth to the Tea Party. Yes it's made a few Republicans act outright nuts to most Americans, but it's easy to see how the general shift in policy has gone to the right, even with a black socialist Muslim in the White House. :)

It's hard to say who played who here. Certainly corporate donors have had the most time in the wheelhouse and where we're headed.

It's hard to make true progress when one side has been pushed so far into the corner - and they easily let themselves be backed into this cozy zone. Faced with an obstructionist opponent, many of whom don't understand Climate Change or the economic opportunities of green tech, nor the benefits of investing in education or infrastructure (decent high speed rail service anyone?) well we get what we deserve.
0 # EzrasCloset1 2014-12-27 11:52
Well-written and intelligent read. Thank you, Carl~ of Amazing email address as well.
+6 # LaurenfromLA 2014-12-27 21:37
You forgot to mention that he has been a greater president for the fossil fuel industry than even George Bush with his all of the above energy strategy that has exploded fracking in this country. And his Race to the Top is a continuation of No Child Left Behind that only advances the corporate "education reform" agenda that is code for the privatization of public education.
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2014-12-28 11:24
North Korea is almost totally isolated. Most of the leaders also speak little English. Sun Myu'ng Moon's Moonies has given lavishly to North Korea as they try to gain control of that country,
ttp://www.theat rnational/archi ve/2012/09/sun- myung-moons-gro undbreaking-cam paign-to-open-n orth-korea/2620 57/

The Moonies could have sorted not dropped em masse Sony email. The US would do well to take up North Korea's offer to a joint investigation.

The movie “The Innocence of Muslims” was an attempt to get Romney elected President. If Jewish Philanthropists or even right wing Americans had been killed they could have cheered Romney's efforts to campaign on the movie riots and the Benghazi attacks. We got closer to the War Between Civilizations that extremists on both sides crave, then we realize.

The North Korea offer for a joint investigation is an opportunity.
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2014-12-28 11:31
We don't know what could make the North Koreans do something stupid with a nuke. But we do know the leader has an inferiority complex, all this belittling of him is like shouting to someone standing on a ledge to jump. Blocking internet use conceivable even sanctions is less provocative than returning insults. The movie involves dreaming of extra legal means of solving problems. Almost no one criticized Bill Cosby before he was knocked off his pedestal. Knocking Kim off his pedestal is threatening his life.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.