Obama campaign goes ‘all in’: casts its lot with Occupy movement

Hot Air ^ | October 16, 2011 | Howard Portnoy

[2ndDivisionVet]

Having failed abysmally in his day job, Barack Obama has rediscovered his community organizer roots. The day after the Democrat-controlled Senate voted down his jobs bill, he told an audience:

We will keep organizing and we will keep pressuring and we will keep voting until this Congress finally meets its responsibilities and actually does something to put people back to work and improve the economy.

How convenient then that a loosely knit and malleable agglomeration of angry protesters has suddenly emerged on the scene in the persons of Occupy Wall Street movement. Protesters’ demands, which vary depending on whom you ask, make them easy pickings for an experienced community organizer like Obama.

Which is why, after voicing lukewarm approval of the protest movement, Team Obama has gone “all in,” to borrow a term from the game of poker. Senior campaign adviser David Plouffe said in an interview:

We intend to make [the anti-Wall Street anger] one of the central elements of the campaign next year. One of the main elements of the contrast will be that the president passed Wall Street reform and our opponent and the other party want to repeal it.

I’m pretty confident 12 months from now, as people make the decision about who to go vote for, the gut check is going to be about, ‘Who would make decisions more about helping my life than Wall Street?’

Plouffe acknowledges that there is a risk in attempting to channel this anger, but it is clearly one that Obama is willing to take, considering the “lousy cards” he is currently holding.

But there is a risk as well for Republicans, who are counting on the Occupy movement to collapse of its own weight. If it doesn’t and the masses come to accept Obama as their savior, he could be swept into office for a second term, and for the same messianic reasons as in 2008—just by a different electoral demographic.

[monocle]

Many of these protesters are imposing themselves on their parents and are protesting for higher allowances whether it’s from their parents or their sugar daddy government.

[CivilWarguy]

I assume from reading “TruConservative” that “Tru” needs a history lesson.... Two howlers: his/her claim that the national debt during the Eisenhower administration was “about the same” as it is today; and his citing of a poll on “Congress” (which, last I heard, includes both the Dem-led Senate and the GOP-run House. See Art 1, Section 1 of the Constitution if you doubt this) to say that the Republican House is unpopular.

[Signalman]

Remember, Obama and OWS forget one thing, about the NEW “silent majority” that is putting up with this garbage come next November. I do think history is about to repeat itself and NOT sweep Obama back in.

Exactly. The Silent Majorities of 1968 and 1972 put Nixon into office and got him re-elected, notwithstanding the fact that back then, the MSM had virtual absolute control of the press and TV news.

When the current crop of street rabble start throwing bottles and set cars on fire, the "new" Silent Majority will say to themselves, "enough is enough" and remove Obama from office.

[Joe Boucher]

“come to accept Obama as their savior”?
Not gonna happen, That would be Jesus.

[Raycpa]

http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

So, let’s get more complicated. When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone’s entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that’s still taxable income, not earned income.

In 1944, you could deduct business meals, all business travel, all forms of interest payments, and much more. You could even deduct spousal travel expenses on a business trip! (Why travel alone?) Companies could also “loan” or “provide” almost anything to an employee, from an apartment to standard benefits. It was possible to shelter tens of thousands of dollars from taxable income. Three-martini lunches and expense accounts were important realities, skewing tax calculations.

[Thorliveshere]

Personally, I think it's about time for another giant tea-party rally . . . just to remind the press where the majority of Americans live.

AMEN, BROTHER!!

[Biggirl]

In this will too, will, with confidence, shall pass. Obama is finished. These protests will not last.

[Biggirl]

This time around the new “silent majority” with the help of the new media will throw Obama OUT

[Biggirl]

Opps! Forgot this for previous posting: .

[TruConservative]

“I assume from reading “TruConservative” that “Tru” needs a history lesson.... Two howlers: his/her claim that the national debt during the Eisenhower administration was “about the same” as it is today;”

What? I said about the same as percent GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms We had a huge national debt back then due to WW2. I’m not sure if you think it was bigger or smaller than today, but in either case, Eisenhower saw the national debt fall from 71% of GDP to 55% using good old fashion conservative values like paying your bills. Truman had seen the national debt fall from 93% to 71% the previous term. Obama has seen the debt rise from 84% to 93%. Our current debt crisis is about the same as the post WW2 debt crisis.

And while you are right that the Senate is also disliked, I think you’d have to be an idiot to not figure out that the Republican-led house is disliked. And in any case - that’s current events, not history.

[TruConservative]

"When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone’s entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million."

That's fine. So the salary cap was about $2.5 million. That sounds reasonable to me. But here are the facts. Look how the top 1%'s income soared after 1980. This is at the root of our current economic problems. Doubt that at your peril. The top 1% is a terrible burden on us all, far worse than the cost of government, worse than the cost of welfare. So long as we ignore that, we run the risk of seeing another FDR from the Democrats step in and radically change our society like occurred in the 1930s.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Also remember that this ragtag bunch of miscreats was always going to vote for Obama.

[LetMarch]

I was just wondering, are these Occupy participants:

Substitized by the government (us taxpayers). Do they get minimum wages? Any overtime pay? Are there any retirement benefits? Are they members of a good union?

Like the “A” Team: I just love it when a good plan is completed!