"So, anyone who disagrees with whatever Barack Obama does is not a 'Democrat' in your opinion, and should not be on DU. You also believe that anyone who does not bow down to kiss the Obama Way is complaining "way too much"."
I didn't say that. What I did say was essentially that people who do nothing but make hyperbolic and uninformed comments about what he is doing complain way too much. I believe such comments do not add to the discourse and should not be on DU--as opposed to measured, well-informed constructive criticism, which I rarely see. "Obama is a corporate sellout" is about as meaningful as "Obama is a socialist" and does nothing but annoy people."Perhaps you need to compare giveaways to corporations (particularly financial institutions and auto companies) with what was 'given to the people in the form of the stimulus package'. Hell, even GW gave 'money back' - only he returned it in one lump sum rather than over the course of a year. And, I'm grateful for BOTH, but the fact remains, that compared to what a FEW companies got, the total amount returned to the American electorate was anemic."
While there is room to disagree about the wisdom of the bailouts, I should point out that the banks are the foundation of a healthy economy. without the ability to lend and borrow money, the economy cannot function properly because businesses cannot get needed capital. Whether businesses can get the money they need affects you and me and everyone. Same with the auto industry. If the auto industry goes down, that puts untold numbers of Americans out of work, and such a large glut of unemployed would have an effect on everyone. I agree that no company should ever get too big to fail, and I agree that we need more regulations governing financial institutions. But you'd have to agree that not doing something would have had huge implications not just for thoese industries, but for all of us. "For many of the 'wary and skeptical of Obama' crowd on this board, crumbs don't cut it. The fact is, single payer was never on the table. Had Obama been the chess genius many think him to be, he'd have started at that and 'let' the opposition whittle him down to a 'public option'. Instead, the Presidential Candidate who was anti 'mandates' is now promoting mandates. And, the 'hard lefties' (aka hand wringing, do nothing progressives) are trying to hold him to HIS promise of no mandates."
Our government is designed to crank out crumbs of change--get over it. Crumbs add up over time; keep fighting. Single payer was not on the table because the political will does not exist in Congress to pass it and Obama knew that from the start. If you want to change that, elect dems who are pro single payer, or run yourself. Also, the public option is far from dead, so I'm not sure why he needed to start with SP and then compromise it (which you would have lambasted him for). The PO is in 4 of the 5 bills, and in all four that have passed (with a chance to be in bill #5, the much maligned but yet to be passed Baucus Bill). I agree with you on mandates. He flipped on it. However, if there is a public option, then I will grudgingly accept a mandate, but if not, I will be very unhappy with a mandate."Let's discuss these 'hard lefties (hand wringing, do nothing progressives)' of whom you are so derogative. They've been out there. They've been getting arrested in defense of their views. Simply because the MSM isn't covering them as assiduously as they are the Right Wing Crazies, you think they're doing nothing? That's like saying if the MSM hadn't covered Obama's inauguration, almost 2 million people weren't really there, because you didn't see a picture of it on your television."
The fact is they have not been out there NEARLY to the degree the right has. Blaming the media is a cop out. For example, if the left had been at the town halls with the same presence as the right, it would be nearly impossible to NOT cover them as well."The fact is that with polls showing more Americans want a public option on health care reform than not, Obama is still hesitant to come out and explicitly state that he supports a public option. He alludes to it, he implies it, but does NOT explicitly state his desire and support."
more delusion. He's done so A MILLION TIMES, he even said so in his speech to congress! He even used the words Public Option. This statement shows how little attention you are paying.
"But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html. I will respond more later. I have to go to work.