Clinton Would Be Another Obama to Nowhere:
Contrarily to legend, countries such as France, its scion, Britain, and their children, among them the USA, have been highly successful not in spite, but because of a succession of beautifully executed revolutions.
The level of inequalities of the planet has become so drastic, the economy is sputtering, the biosphere collapsing. Yet, the West’s leading grandiosely self-described “liberal with a conscience”, Krugman is in full Kliton, Clinton-for-president campaign. Not a day passes without another blast against Sanders. Oh, well, it was so good last time Clinton was president, the friends Krugman comes across all the time in New York, the financial plutocrats, got to seize the levers of the world, and fed Krugman lots of caviar and champagne, besides paying for 100,000 dollars a year to send the kids here Krugman and the like teach their erroneous discourses. (I am not saying Krugman is the worst; quite the opposite, he is the sweetest.)
So give me a break with Bush… Obama was Bush’s Third and Fourth term. Or shall we call it Clinton’s Sixth term? The point is that since the ex-chair of Goldman-Sachs, Robert Rubin, officially Secretary of the Treasury, started to tell a (swearing) Bill Clinton was he was going during his presidency, we have never looked back: the financial plutocrats, the sneakiest, sleekest, slickest and sickest of them all, have been in command. That command, they would lose if Senator Sanders became president (and, as far as they are concerned the arrogant Trump, a builder of real things, is as scary, he could do a Roosevelt on them…)
Says Krugman “How To Make Donald Trump President Step 1: Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders. I don’t think Sanders is unelectable, but…” The Krugman class, highly paid pseudo-intellectuals ambling the rich carpets of Davos and plutocratic academia, is aghast from the prominence of leading candidates who have been railing against Wall Street and for a dramatic overhaul of health care in the USA.
Krugman deliberately ignores the possibility that Ted Cruz, not Trump, is the real Republican nominee. Why? Ted Cruz is the Goldman-Sachs candidate, like Obama and Clinton before him.
The day before claiming Sanders would make Trump president, in the New York Times editorial, Krugman in “How Change Happens”, revived the old John Lennon’s spite for revolution: …”there are some currents in our political life that do run through both parties. And one of them is the persistent delusion that a hidden majority of American voters either supports or can be persuaded to support radical policies, if only the right person were to make the case with sufficient fervor.”
Real weird a statement for a country which was founded in a revolution, and saw the most violent Civil War, this side of Rwanda.
Of course, nothing significant happened during the Obama presidency. (With the one single exception that, now, health insurance companies cannot just refuse to insure people, based on pre-existing conditions. To compensate, “Obama” instituted a color scheme for health insurance, where colored (“bronze”) plan is basically worthless. Is it a Freudian slip?)
Krugman, I love Krugman. Krugman is highly intelligent (many things are relative), so he can be used as a test bed of devious, not to say vicious, sophisticated logic. In particular Krugman presents us with the opportunity to dissect disinformative twisted logic: radical policies have happened many times in the history of the USA. FDR was a case in point. But so was LBJ. More to the point, Paul Krugman served in the REAGAN White House, and Reagan (counter-) revolution was pretty much approved by voters. So was G.W. Bush let’s-go-invade-the-world, either-you-are-with-us-or-against-us, policies, which were also very radical (and not in a good way).
Krugman: “… on the left there is always a contingent of idealistic voters eager to believe that a sufficiently high-minded leader can conjure up the better angels of America’s nature and persuade the broad public to support a radical overhaul of our institutions. In 2008 that contingent rallied behind Mr. Obama; now they’re backing Mr. Sanders…
But as Mr. Obama himself found out as soon as he took office, transformational rhetoric isn’t how change happens. That’s not to say that he’s a failure…
Yet his achievements have depended at every stage on accepting half loaves as being better than none: health reform that leaves the system largely private, financial reform that seriously restricts Wall Street’s abuses without fully breaking its power, higher taxes on the rich but no full-scale assault on inequality… who can claim to be Mr. Obama’s true heir — Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton? But the answer is obvious: Mr. Sanders is the heir to candidate Obama, but Mrs. Clinton is the heir to President Obama. (In fact, the health reform we got was basically her proposal, not his.)
Could Mr. Obama have been more transformational? Maybe he could have done more at the margins. But the truth is that he was elected under the most favorable circumstances possible, a financial crisis that utterly discredited his predecessor — and still faced scorched-earth opposition from Day 1.”
Here is again a piece of disinformation, which, actually, originated with Obama himself. Obama (for whichever reasons inside himself, probably greed) did not want to disappoint the powers-that-be (his considerable future income will depend upon them), nor his power base (60 million gullible voters, and your truly). So Obama pretended that the “rancor” (as he put it) of republicans prevented him to act. Parrot Krugman, following the choir of millions of pseudo-leftists, claims that “scorched earth” from the opposition stood in the way. Don’t worry: no luxury carpet burned at the White House.
We have heard this argument since day one of the Obama presidency: Obama could not do anything, because he did not control Congress (where the democrats had a majority), nor the Senate (where the democrats had a supermajority, more than 60 votes out of 100). So Obama, handicapped by his DEMOCRATIC majority and supermajority, had to kill time until he lost control of Congress, and lost his supermajority in the Senate?
Or is it that Obama was isolated among partisans of the status quo, immensely rich “democrats” such as D. Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, who are extremely happy with the system as it is, and just want to tinker with it, to give the appearance of changing what they truly profit from and do not want really to be changed?
Using “Medicare For All” as a fundamental health system with private insurance add-ons is basically the way the French healthcare system works. The present healthcare system in the USA could be morphed towards such a French like system, without wrenching changes (whereas going abruptly to socialized medicine as in Britain, Sweden, or single payer as in Canada, Germany would be too brutal to be pragmatic, indeed).
In finance, Obama had a great crisis, thus a great opportunity to cut out all the abuse. The Roosevelt, FDR and Teddy made drastic reforms: on day one, FDR closed all banks. Instead, under Obama’s first term, the New York Times found that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers’ tax rates went down 20%… relative to Bush.
Obama is caviar left, Clinton is caviar left. But the biosphere was much warmer in 2015 than in 2014. Meanwhile giant amount of unhindered, plotting and conspiring “Dark Pools of Money” are sloshing around the world, constituting most of the world’s trades.
In the latest funny twist, the cost of a barrel of oil full of oil has become cheaper than the cost of the same barrel, once emptied of oil. I told you oil was dirty!
In Canada, said barrel, with the oil inside, cost less than five cauliflowers. Agriculture has been despised too long.
The rise of sustainable energy (including nuclear in India, China) has much to do with it. This, and fracking in the USA, and the lift of the embargo against Iran, broke the camel’s back. Revolutions may be unleashed in several countries (Venezuela, Arab oil producers, Algeria, Russia, etc.). If you add Trump and Sanders to the mix, many plutocrats are starting to seriously worry.
All the more as their old semi-enemy, the European Union, is at the crossroads between strength and weakness, between further crackdowns in all sorts of ways and further degeneracy.
So resist Krugman’s siren songs. Clinton is a plutocrat singing plutophile songs. Vote for real change, vote Sanders. Differently from Obama or Clinton I, Sanders has a very long track record, we know who he is. Differently from Clinton, although initially a genuine New Yorker, he is not on the take, something Hillary clearly is.