‘Marches’ would be fine if they actually achieved reasonable outcomes. I don’t see that they accomplish all that much, when all is said and done.

Yes, we have to do the other things you’re talking about but we can’t stop with them. That’s the problem; substituting on-line actions (petitions, emails, calls to reps) for old fashioned physical presence. I’ve been told that personal letters carry more weight with politicians than emails. Why? Because emails are easy, whereas to write a letter you have to be motivated to write it, put it an envelope and address the envelope, attach a stamp, etc. If that’s true, the politicians have to give even more value to the extra effort it takes to organize and attend a big rally.

On the subject of the effectiveness of demonstrations: Don’t know how old you are, but marches have been effective when big enough and carried out for long enough in support of the proper causes. Seesm to me MLK uses marches as a big leverage tool. Something about the Vietnam War eventually ending because of pressure from demonstrations. More recently, seems that everybody paid big attention to all those immigration reform rallies a few years ago.

I submit that if politicians get scared shitless by a couple of hundred angry folks at a town hall, then the sight of a million or so besieging capitol hill will have an effect. As will thousands outside their local district offices and in front of their homes.

I also disagree that marchers today would be characterized as DFH’s. Why? Many anti-Vietnam war marchers did look like hippies, with beards, long hair, peace symbols, American flag jeans, and Grateful Dead t-shirts. That was then, this is now. Most marchers today would tend to be 40+, probably even 50+ years old, well dreassed, or at least cleanly dressed, bathed and groomed. (In short, they’d probably look a lot like tea partiers without the racist signs and dumb-ass teabags hanging of their hats.) And any young people that joined in would also not appear very hippie-ish. Tattooed maybe, hippie-ish, no.

If he hadn’t allowed the CFC, he’d have been pilloried by the Pete Peterson types.

You mean they would have said mean things about the President! OMFG! No President, especially such a wonderful annointed beautific one as Obama should have to endure criticism. It’s praise and praise only.

Gimme a fuckin’ break.

As others here did, Obama appointed this commission and stacked it with SS rapists because that’s the outcome he and his moneybags bosses want.

Not sure if I understand you. Pete Peterson, Bob Rubin and others like them were early supporters of Obama and were people that he respected and still respects. Larry Summers and Tim Geithner also fall into this general category. I know much less than most who comment here, so please point out where I am mistaken. Also, Obama did not allow the CFC. After Congress voted down such a commission, Obama created his own by executive order and appointed the members himself.

Thanks for FUCKING NOTHING Mr. obama

But I agree with you; agreeing to hold it in this way does seem like a self-inflicted wound.

But the CFC exists.
Personally, I say we all enjoy the hell out of mocking and ridiculing their dumb assumptions and their failure to deal with REAL problems.

These guys always go after the low hanging fruit, and the SS money is their idea of ‘low hanging fruit’. They don’t have the fortitude to do the more fundamental economic rethinking and retooling. And IMVHO, this is a chance to point that out over, and over, and over, and over….

These guys do 1982 pretty well. But 2020, not so much.