President Obama may simply be another President Carter if he really pushed for the middle-class and working poor. He may be a one term president without much support from the middle. The push seems to be toward reelection. The administration has long pushed for political power. After all, the arena is politics and the name of this game is power. The question is how it is maneuvered. The upper-middle, those who were included in the Bush tax cut extensions, has to be secured as well as those "Reagan Democrats" if Obama is to retain the White House. This is undoubtedly why President Clinton did not change many of the policies of President Reagan and this is probably why President Obama has done the same with regards to those of President Bush. Billy Preston's song comes to mind, "Will it Go 'Round in Circles."
Economic policies go 'round in circles, about every seven years since the push for deregulation championed by Reagan and continued by Clinton. But if they are broken down, they will probably reveal that there are no real left/right positions. There is only positions of power, the state of the economy, powered by small business but controlled by big business subsided by the government -- the people.
The reoccurring banking and savings and loans crises clearly show this. Even health care can be largely broken down in this matter. All of this talk of health care repeal and whether Speaker Boehner goes or not to this or that presidential function is rather silly. The goal seems to be to produce fodder while damnable polices remain. Consider the extension of the Bush tax cuts and Afghanistan. Obama has veto power and it will likely not get passed the Senate.
So, the health care repeal is simply an empty gesture. The question is for whom? Who will it benefit? I don't think that it's only the far right. It feels like a ruse that benefits the powerful. Insurance companies, for whom Republicans openly speak and Democrats quietly benefit, are silent. Why wouldn't they be? They have many millions more of mandatory new enrollees. But there are advantages of the health care bill. Perhaps political power paid off here? Perhaps those policies put in place will benefit us economically? You be the judge.
Considering the abuse that Obama took over health care, I wonder if the same can be said about what Clinton took. But there is something a bit strange here. While Obama was being bashed by Republicans, many policies were left in place from the previous administration. It begs the question of abuse? What is it in this regard? Perhaps Clinton was simply lying on his sword because it was a necessary political evil, that of retaining policy. Not much changed. Clinton continues to ride high while his list of library donors remains private (that's his prerogative -- of course), and one speech nets hundreds of thousands. I wonder how much Carter gets. There is no glory in speaking out on behalf of the middle class and working poor. Scripture tells us that "the rich has many friends." Did you by chance get to see the parade of Wall Street executives, including Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, at the State Dinner with President Hu of China last night?
Republicans seem to have just wanted complete power during the Clinton era, including the puppetry of the president in bodily form controlled by corporations. I have always thought that the position did not have much power, even when Bush was in office. There seemed to be things that he simply had no control of. Now, I am more convinced of it. The power that I refer to is not political power but that of policy. Perhaps some would say that political power controls policy, and I suppose that could be true. Maybe in politics, this is the only kind of real power, that of political power. Its logical conclusion would then be the next question, to what end and for whom? What policies have been passed (dollar amount policies not moral ones such as DADT) for the middle class and working poor that produce jobs come close to those that have been given to Wall St over the last four years of the Bush and Obama administrations? I kindly await your reply.
It might also be said that the middle class and working poor do not produce anything and propping up the irresponsibility of big banks is essential to growth--after all the economy is improving and Obama's approval rate is increasing. Then the question becomes what kind of society do we want? Do we want a society where there are no industry jobs for the middle class -- you know, the ones that secure the middle? Do we want a society where the working poor are at the sole behest of the ruling class? History shows us what this looks like: "Let them eat cake." This begs the question, "Will it Go 'Round in Circles?"