Hard to interpret this any other way than a tacit admission by our President that he’s completely in the back pocket of the plutocrats and couldn’t care less about you, your families or anyone else not in a position of power. Also, he’s a whiny little baby with a fragile ego:

Yesterday, Obama was reportedly “testy” when congressional Democrats begged him to be be more forceful with the Republicans, snapping “I know how to negotiate.” But then he said this:

“He said, ‘There’s a difference between me and a member of Congress,’” another lawmaker said, paraphrasing the president as saying: “When I say something the markets react, all of society reacts, other countries react. I’ve got to be careful with what I say. I can’t just say it for brinkmanship. I’ve got to say it in a way so that I get what I want said, but I don’t upset markets and so on.”

…

Obama responded that he has to be more careful and more considered than that, and that he is executing an existing plan.

An existing plan? A plan for *what*? Unless it’s a plan for utterly destroying America it’s failing miserably:

Employers pulled back sharply on job creation in May, and the unemployment rate took a surprising jump, according to new data Friday, confirming worries that the economy is losing momentum — and fast.

Employers added only 54,000 jobs in May, down from a revised 232,000 in April and the weakest since September, the Labor Department said Friday morning. The unemployment rate rose to 9.1 percent last month, from 9 percent.

So: there’s an existing plan, Obama is executing it, and the nation’s mired in a deep Depression, yes, depression, not recession, and has been for years. Don’t question him or you’ll make him angry.

Keep in mind: millions being out of work doesn’t seem to make him angry. A generation of homeless kids doesn’t seem to make him angry. A nationwide epidemic of fraud and thieving from our financial institutions doesn’t make him angry.

But watch out if you question his negotiating strategy; THAT will make him angry.

Brother. How precisely does America keep electing narcissistic sociopaths?

It wasn’t always like this. We had for a time Presidents who, while of course deeply flawed, did care both about what worked in reality, as opposed to the fantasies of libertarian lunatics, and who also wanted to alleviate suffering and protect the achievements of the middle class:

Doubt me? Dial the clock back to the Eisenhower era. The highest marginal income tax rate was 91%. Ike, a Republican, was firmly of the view that New Deal programs were a permanent feature of the political landscape. From a 1954 letter to his brother Ed:

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental function….But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

No longer; while they are still stupid, their number is legion. And as part of Obama’s ‘existing plan’ he trades away at each ‘negotiation’ a piece of the New Deal, sits back and watches the carnage ensue.