Mr President, do know how many people lived on ramen noodles to get you elected?

How many gave up savings? How many people gave up entertainment?
How many people sensing the collapse of our financial system literally threw you forward like a Hail Mary pass in hopes that you would act in our best interest; you know, the *people* people of the United States?

I'm now unemployed, uninsured, and foreclosed. All of these issues were addressed in your campaign promises. Do you think we as a group of evermore impoverished plain Americans we can preserver as long as the Democratic Asshole Senators can delay? The proof is in: 122 less voters will be available by tomorrow; 4K by the next election.

And I know that in the Democratic political strategist minds they are thinking; you're broke, so you really don't count anymore.

My employment prospects were sent to India and/or simply filled on site with an H1-B. Do you think we could get some relief on that. At least let us know that you're interested in the plight of the plain everyday Americans that sent those small donations?

Do you think the younger voters that were *so* hyped up about your election are still excited? I was once 18-25 yrs old and I can tell you they are seeing the same old politics of getting served scraps justified with more intellectual arguments. Yes, the crowds love to cheer you--you being a charismatic speaker can work a crowd. However, that glow isn't lasting nearly as long as it used to. There is no "force multiplier". Nobody is going out registering voters or calling their friends. The party is in fact in decline and it's your watch.

The time is at hand ... we need you to work for us now.

(Sry folks, I love that President, but I'm getting frustrated)

accomplished some good things in his term. But now that he is an insider and no longer a challenger...well things change don't they?

Msongs

We are chumps until 2012.

Enjoy the ride!

Who's going to challenge Obama, a sitting president? Nobody. And the Repubs will nominate some horror show of a candidate, just like they always have. You will have no choice to change things for the better.

The people spoke last year, like they always do- they love them corporatists, or at least they have been taught to.

I don't know what might break the cycle. A complete collapse is just as likely to lead to a totalitarian state as we are quite a ways there already.

connections in the current administration.

...to LEAD the 'recovery' is vile.

Obama is a fraud. And, his election took the momentum of real change, diffused it, and allowed the corporations to push through policies that would have caused a rebellion, if a Republican President has instituted them.

That leaves Kucinich. At least Kucinich is honest and has his divorces behind him, hopefully.

I re-registered as a Green shortly after he took office. I no longer believe in the "We can drive the party left" nonsense.

Buying Brand Obama
By Chris Hedges

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

more at link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/04

(even the good things are scraps/crumbs)

"hope and change" rhetoric.

He's a politician, same as any other. He'll care about your worries only to the extent that it will get him reelected. Otherwise he's beholden to his financial donors.

My feelings exactly. :thumbsup:

nt

What will they do if we just stay home in 2010...or in VA and NJ...this November? Get rid of Rahm and start working for the people and not the lobbyists.

NT

Apparently the man has been a big part of the "conscience" of this White House...

Oh, yeah. he's a SELF MADE millionaire, so if you're going to give the last 20 years of blame to him, at least get your fucking facts straight.

people who read books! and HOW DARE HE NOT hire a ghost writer!?! Guess he wanted all the profits for himself and his family...

were and are frustrated.

Since 11/25/08, when I first voiced my "concerns" about the Geithner appointment and got flamed for it here on DU, I have said that we the people were being ignored, and they the bankers were getting all the attention.

Damn it, thunder rising, I wish to hell this shit hadn't happened to you. I wish to hell it hadn't gone this way for you and so many more like you. It sucks. It just plain sucks.

Hang in there. I can't promise it'll get better, nor can I promise it won't get any worse, but hangin' on is about all we can do any more.

:thumbsup: and :hug:



Tansy Gold

Obama owns it! Many don't like to hear this, many keep saying he inherited ALL this and that may be true... but for me, I'm seeing some "selling out" going on! I DON'T LIKE IT and if people like Reid & Baucus and the Blue Dogs aren't reigned in... then WHAT'S THE USE???

Some people just need to be taken to the WOOD SHED and given a stern talking to!! Just how I'm seeing it! I posted something about Goldman Sachs the other day and several of the replies just blew me off because of my concern.

THIS isn't moving the ball forward for the America people, when this administration has so many of these people working on OUR behalf!

The same as the old boss

Exactly. Thank you.

We get a democrat for president and people here still bitch like Bush was still in office. Some people will never ever be satisfied. It must suck for you people to constantly live under a dark cloud.

As evidenced down below.

I was just calling out the assholes here.

By the (D) behind the name.

If Obama had an (R) behind his name, he would be absolutely lambasted for everything he's doing. But he has a (D) behind his name so it's A-OK.

You obviously need to get with the program.

then these are glory days for you, i guess.

they dont notice the difference. You live in comfort i assume. you speak like it.

I do live in comfort. I recognize that. It's not the insult that you think it is.

Also, you don't speak for the all of the homeless or all of the poor. I work a soup kitchen in Chicago and the vast majority people there are not nearly as angry at Obama as some of the people here on DU.

college campuses, who otherwise would not be able to get online to post thoughts.

People can be upset with President Obama, and still support him enough to call him Mr. President.

Merely for the sentiment of the OP I rec it. The fact is very true, thousands of people gave up all they had to help get Senator Obama elected president. He should be reminded of that when anyone who did such sees him, and I would expect him to say thank you, because he's a good guy.

I dislike hysterical rants saying that Obama is the same as Bush. Not posts saying that he is the same as Bush on a specific issue (because on some issues, yes, he has kept Bush policies and he should be hammered for doing so) , but outright saying that he is the same as Bush period. I see people who have absolutely nothing. They line up an hour in advance to get a hot meal once a week. They don't get to go to college. They are kicked out of the libraries at night. And if THOSE people are joyful that Obama is president and that he is not Bush(and some of them are downright joyful) then why can't people who live in comfort accept the simple fact that Obama is not Bush?

This doesn't stop criticism of Obama or his policies. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to admit.

themselves or their children.

You don't have to match him exactly.

I'd wager, no one here thinks Bush and Obama are the same. I think you may be taking an argument to an extreme. That is why I wrote what I did.

I will borrow an argument even though it is somewhat inflammatory.

"The fundamental truth about the Obama administration is that it is the Bush administration run by slightly less incompetent, marginally less evil people:

* The Iraq occupation will end when Bush wanted it to.
* The Bush administration's campaign of eradication of fundamental civil liberties, including the gutting of the 4th amendment and holding people without trial, continues.
* The Afghan war continues, and is even being escalated.
* The signature issue of "health care reform" is a scheme which will force citizens to buy private insurance which, because of lack of effective controls, will increase in price faster than wages or inflation.
* Obama and Geithner have followed the Bush/Paulson financial policies, virtually to the letter, spending trillions bailing out Wall Street and creating a financial sector which has fewer, larger actors with more political power than before.
* Obama continues to exert pressure primarily on Progressives rather than on Blue Dogs in order to obtain relatively more conservative rather than liberal bills. (This is not an accident.) The most liberal bill always comes from the House, the conference committee bill is inevitably closer to the more conservative Senate bill. (This is not an accident.)
* Unlike Bush Jr, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Reagan, Obama has not replaced the prior administration's district attorneys wholesale, instead leaving in place the majority of the Bush administration DA's who had survived Rove's purges intended to make sure they were loyal Republican apparatchiks.
* Obama has not cleaned out the administration in general of Bush-era appointees and plants; indeed he has filled less spots than either Clinton or Bush II had by this point in their terms—and no, it's not because the Senate won't confirm them.
* Obama appointees will be forced to resign if the right wing (aka Beck) goes after them hard, but if progressives don't like them, tough luck.
* Obama's economic team is filled with people who created the framework which allowed the financial meltdown to occur, who didn't see it coming, and whose solution to it is to give money to their friends and colleagues and try and get another bubble started."

http://openleft.com/diary/15113/meet-the-new-boss

I don't entirely agree because of all the positive the President has done but he has also done some bad things. I am not saying throw the bum out. I am saying we need to get active and push back.

So, yeah, I stand by my earlier statement.

The world would pretty much look the same as it does right now.

:eyes:

If you think that Obama and McCain would be "about the same" you're beyond reason. This is not to say that Obama doesn't need to improve on certain areas or even that Obama isn't merely the lesser of two evils. But my god, Obama is the FAR lesser of two evils.

whether or not the evil is turned up to elevenses.

McCain would be drawing down troops in Iraq, ordered the closing of Gitmo, changed procedures to the FOIA, reversed Bush's ban on funding to foreign organizations that allow abortions, signed into law easing the federal requirements for filing employment discrimination and signed a law that increased the number of children covered uner SCHIP (which he voted against in the senate, IRRC). McCain would have reversed Bush's policy to use tax dollars for stem cell research, too.

Oh, and McCain would have nominated Sonya Sotomayer, too. And let us not forget that the rest of the world would have LOVED McCain almost as much as they hated Bush.

To top it off, McCain would have taken on health care reform, too.

Wow, I obviously voted for the wrong guy.

:sarcasm:

And he would be doing about the same things as Obama now.

and that is what the OP is referring to.

a President of Domestic Affairs, A president of Foreign Affairs, etc. etc. etc.

We get one person.

So you cannot say that Obama is the same as Bush or about the same as McCain and expect people to think you are only talking about economic affairs. The quality of a president incorporates all aspects of said presidency.

and I see the past 30 years of nonsense is preached and embraced by this administration. Although, at a slightly less shrill tone.

I'll agree this administrations approach to the empire, is much better than the last administration's.

instead of just the economy.

And Obama is the same as Bush because all things start with economics.

Carter did some good things (efforts in world peace, trying to be honest with Americans about the economic situation, etc). Barack Obama is doing some good things as well. However, on the big issues which will determine the fate of our nation 10 years out he has a very spotty record. On those issues, I see us going in a similar trajectory that we were going before albeit at a slower pace. I hope I'm wrong.

Time will only tell.

or
"He's about the same as McCain would have been"

However, those are just my key issues. The country isn't really ready to talk about those issues yet.

There are several issues of my own that fit there. I absolutely cannot stand people who say he's the same as the old boss or he's no better than McCain. That's just foolishness.

thanks for some level headedness

Saying he's like Bush or McCain is a prize-winning sort of idiocy.

--our country has ever known, with the possible exception of Adams, who went back and served in the House of Representatives.

...IS the BIGGEST Social Issue.
And Working Americans are not getting it.(Economic Justice)

to the economy, and the trend toward "downsizing" jobs, was well underway before Candidate Obama even decided to run for the Oval Office. The current "depression" started to snowball toward the end of 2007, and became a crisis by the middle of 2008 (just over a year ago). After decades of neoconservative deregulation and failure to enforce anti-monopoly laws, the American economy turned to shit, and took most of the world with it.

I seriously doubt that anyone, or any team of crackerjack economists, could have made much more progress at a recovery by this point than has President Obama and his administration. We have not completed the first part of any triage procedure: stopping the bleeding. Phase II will mainly consist of creating more jobs, and dealing with the millions of foreclosures that are still to come. Phase III will be tied to reinforcing the Dollar, and dealing with the permanent level of higher energy costs.

A single term will most likely not be enough time to complete Phase II, and two terms may not be enough time to even begin Phase III.

Bush just happened to be riding the deregulation/FreeMarkets horse when it collapsed.

but the erosion of Glass-Steagall began under Ronny Raygun's "trickle-down" madness in the 1980s, and by the time Slick Willy got his hands on it, it was already toothless:

http://news.briefing.com/GeneralContent/Investor/Active/ArticlePopup/ArticlePopup.aspx?ArticleId=NS20080918123245AheadOfTheCurve

Deregulation began with the Kristol/Raygun/Gingrich neoconservative movement (they fired Volker for not supporting deregulation), and the Bush/Rove/Gingrich/Delay neoconservatives showed their reverence to Raygun by continuing the policy at every opportunity. They have controlled the Congress, the Oval Office, or both, for the better part of the past three decades, and deregulation along with obscene tax cuts for the top 1% in this country, have been their stock-in-trade.

I also recognize that Bill Clinton's "triangulation," and the advent of the neoconservative wing of the Democratic Party, the DLC, was part and parcel of this treasonous movement to destroy the Labor Movement and the Middle Class in the USA.

:hi:

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz (economist) sums it up nicely:

"Paul Volcker, the previous Fed Chairman known for keeping inflation under control, was fired because the Reagan administration didn't believe he was an adequate de-regulator. Our country has thus suffered from the consequences of choosing as regulator-in-chief of the economy someone who didn't believe in regulation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker

:hi:

*sigh*

disagree with you. The neo-cons were/are a true threat.

THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE NOBEL COMMITTEE.

as if they're a large body, and not just five white guys from Norwegia, apointed by the Norwegian Parliament and closely matching its political and ideological makeup.

And yes, I know it's Norway.

If people do not know anything about Nobel Prizes, then I suppose they may think it's a large governing body or maybe even citizens of a country called Nobel. But the poster obviously assumed that people were semi-educated.

--right now we need BOLD things on health care, financial regulation and climate change, and we aren't getting them.

Did you say something?

but that sets the bar awfully low, don't you think?

But for the millions out of work, hungry, and foreclosed, cant get much worse.

There's a vague memory of having heard their names before, but I don't think I can place them.

This argument is so old that it needs the dust blown off of it every time people like you trot it out.

And ever since they have been buying teabags like crazy to de-rail Obama's Marxist Plan To Destroy America.

How could you forget?

Besides, McCain is on TV every day, and Palin has a 400 page autobiography that is "#1 at AMAZON!!!!!!"

How can we forget them when they won't go away?

People, children living in cars and tents. Ask them if it would be worse under McPalin.

one doesn't have to back the opposition to be disappointed in who we elected. No, of course McCain/ Palin wouldn't be BETTER, but for so many of us NOTHING is GETTING BETTER right now. Keeping the status quo isn't helping. We need real change and immediate action.We need what we voted for. Lives depend on it.

The "he could suck worse" argument isn't a great one.

Look, Obama made promise he chooses not to keep.

(Help me here - what did I miss?)

Oh, also the one about turning around a really, really, really big ship.

And you neglected to accuse anyone of poutrage.

I think that about covers it.

That's my favorite.

Does anything say kool kiddie quite like comparing basic human rights to a bratty child's demand for an impossible Christmas present?

:evilgrin: :thumbsup:

did NOT buy that 9/11 was Clinton's fault since it happened nine months into Bush's term. And Clinton did NOT try to blame Mogadishu on Poppy Bush even though it happened right after he took office and Poppy had sent the troops in very late in his term.

Every president inherits problems. Obama made a big deal about all he would do early in his term. What happened to all those promises? So far he's enriched the bankers and is trying to pass a health care bill that would raise premiums and fine people who are uninsured. Those who can't afford insurance damned sure can't afford to pay a fine. Will we have debtors' prisons? Or indentured servitude?

We sure as hell won't have ponies. YES WE CAN. . . DO WITHOUT.

"change we could believe in", for "the audacity of hope", and "the fierce urgency of now"
And a lot of us worked our asses off to make that happen, and guess what..... it isn't.
The issue isn't is he better then McCain and Palin would have been, the issue is there
is not a hell of a lot of transparency in his government, the war he spoke out against
is getting more involved, and it's an un-winnable war that is plundering our national treasure.
Rendition is still going on, Gitmo is still open, and in all likelihood will stay open for a
while. There has been no action taken for verified voting, Glass Steagal has not been put
back into place, the banks are still too big to fail, and are not lending money. So tell
me my good friend, isn't it wonderful that he's going to repeal Don't ask don't tell, wow
change I can believe in, I'm sooooo thrilled I sent him money and had my kids go door to
door in Nevada for him. Talk is cheap, actions speak. If you're going to inspire and lead
then you damn well better deliver or you're going to raise another generation of cynics
who won't vote

no, i actually don't think it would be worse were mccain in office.

nope, i don't.

for votes. and going to the wrong side looking for them.
the DC beltway crowd is out of touch.

We can't get a Dem in the White House AND expect them to uphold
core Democratic principles.

It has alot to do with that "electable" meme we always swallow
hook line and stinker.

My imaginary dog could have beat McSame.

with some crappy, tired replies to it. But good op.

It's not his fault the financial wizards blew up the economy.

the election.

as sandandsea points out, Obama has done that too to help.

There's all kinds of safety nets for people who can't find work and they've all been increased and extended.

There's new money for local government, schools, highways, construction, etc.

There's more money for college.

There's new money for sustainable energy training.

Between all the various programs, there's around a trillion dollars in money and tax cuts for "the followers".

Does that mean life will instantaneously become utopia? No. Lots of people are suffering because of what was done. Why don't you help keep the laser on those who committed these horrific acts instead of helping the right attack Obama?

good question.

I want those who broke out economy punished not rewarded for their activity.
Where is all that tarp money, where did it go to and where is all interest for the back that was promised when we loaned it out.
Where are the indictments of some of these CEO responsible for this theft.
Why haven't we seen some banking legislation to prevent this. A simple thing like reinstating the Stegall Glass amendment.
Fire Geitner, He is a Goldman Sacs mole. Use talent like Elizabeth Warren. Not only does she have a better handle on it -she is an outsider.
Fire Summers-he is an idiot and another pig at the trough and part of the problem.
Our infrastructure is crumbling around us and we have unemployed that can use work.
No more money for TARP (which went for bonuses) for bank. Capitalism should not reward failures.

Get out of foreign entanglements ASAP.
End illegal wire tapping and restore habeas corpus-repeal all laws written by the Bush administration.
Prosecute the criminals of the previous administration and not give them a free pass-it is not revenge, it is called justice.
Get control of your party, you are the leader Tell those reluctant Democrats that you will not support them in their re-election efforts and call them out.
Pass real health care reform. (although why you let Dean go and not use his talent is beyond me),
We gave you a majority, now use it.

Once you appointed Bernanke the economy was yours. Jobs are being shipped out at an alarming rate and people are truly suffering. We worked hard for you and had such high hopes for you. To whom much is given, much is expected. We voted for a real change, not just for the fact that you were not a Republican.. I expect you to be a Democrat, not a Dem-lite. I wanted FDR and all I got was a Hoover. I have a right and a duty to question your policies because I voted for you and you are suppose to be working for me-not the lobbyists.


Rising Thunder,,,,this is for you

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqgOvzUeiAA&feature=related

:applause:

Well done!

Well Said!
:patriot:

That is after that money was paid back.

Banking regulation is in the works, Geithner is the one who exposed this mess.

We have invested more in the infrastructure than ever, it is the thing that is keeping this from becoming a depression.

As for the rest of your solutions, most of them are in the works. Holder just appointed a prosecutor to investigate torture. We had a terrific health care bill from Kennedy, and the left attacked it too.

You would have been one of those attacking FDR. Most of DU would have been. He wasn't far left enough for the liberals of that time either.

Got news for ya......
most of the big banks are still in deep trouble-their books are nothing but a shell game and they can't figure out how to get that bad debt off their books. Four billion in profits after the banks pay it back???? :rofl: You'll have better luck collecting that 4 billion from the tooth fairy!

Geitner exposing the mess. :rofl: Remember the banks started going under during the Bush Admin. Tarp money was voted on by Congress in the waning days of the Bush administration--so it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that there was fiduciary malfeasance going on. I wouldn't give Geitner too much credit. He basically told us what we already knew. What Geitner did do:

http://www.forexhound.com/article/Stocks/Stocks/All_of_Tim_Geithners_Wall_Street_Men/164703#

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/04/summers/

I liked most of his cabinet selections but the economic ones made me flinch.

Invest more in infrastructure??? Considering how much has been cut since Reagan-that's a very low bar to set. But I think we need far more and he only asked for shovel ready projects which meant that you have to have reports submitted. Some counties are so small and poor that they can't afford to submit that paperwork (reports and studies can be so expensive). Obama will impress me when he spends the depression Dollar equivalent to our rebuilding program. Or how about a government grant program for internships to hire our newly graduated college students.

We have some good health care bills but unless they have a public option and reign in the Pharmacy and Insurance Industry-it will not be true health care reform (Disclaimer: I am a School Nurse and have lobbied hard and often for CHIPS and other insurance for children).

Yes I would have disagreed with some of FDR's programs-but very few (like packing the SCOTUS). But FDR did more in his first 100 days than Obama has in his. I know Bush left a nastier mess than Hoover ever dreamed of, but just by measuring the economy.....FDR 'got it' and for all his smarts, Obama has been clueless. He has picked the wrong advisers and some of us loyal DEM'S in the field are trying to warn him. There is much seething resentment that does not bode well for DEM's to keep a majority.

Why didn't he hire some instead of the same old shitstains that caused the problem?

He had been working since the beginning of the default swaps to get banks to be more responsible. He clearly failed and admits he failed. There are few people who understand all the ins and outs of the NY banking system more than he does. No, not even Krugman or Reich. Geithner is the one who exposed it all last year. He's one of the good guys, even though he still trusts these people too much.

And I wasn't even alive then. So as you can imagine, I'm BEYOND livid at Obama.

Bank Holiday (which we didn't need), Federal Emergency Relief Administration (we got huge increases in relief), the Civilian Conservation Corps (increase in college and jobs programs), the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (don't know what that is), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (new energy bill and investments). Congress also gave the Federal Trade Commission broad new regulatory powers (some done, others in process), and provided mortgage relief to millions of farmers and homeowners (also done).

No it's not working perfectly, but neither did FDR's policies. My grandmother's family lost everything and never did get it back. Lots of people did. And things aren't even as bad now as they were then.

Sure, they both go "bang".

90% stock market loss and total bank failure.

Not in the same universe.

But he didn't, he came in to office in the equivalent of 1929, and thank the fucking lord he did. If McCain had been elected we might be looking at a 2012 economy as bad as 1932's was.

The correct policies to implement at the beginning of a depression are necessarily going to be different than those you implement in the middle of a depression.

And Hoover sat idly by as the banking system imploded. Emulating Hoover would have been the preferred course of many on DU as evidenced by their opposition to the bailouts.

Huey long going after his tail

FDR did what he did to save capitalism from the threat of socialism.

remains, "WHERE ARE THE JOBS GOING TO COME FROM??"

:sarcasm:

that a lot of people who have never been interested in politics in their life, jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon and now they're upset that someone pissed in their cornflakes when they had no fucking clue what real politics looked like. Time and time and time again, I read one of these 'disillusioned' posts and see that the person joined DU in the last year or so. Where the fuck were you for the last 10 years?

I'm disappointed, and I didn't even expect much from a Centrist.

I think you have it completely backwards.
The long term Issues Oriented Political Activists with a history of involvement and a historical sense of Policy and Direction are the ones expressing disappointment.

The superficial Parade Followers are still in a Happy Bubble.
They are impossible to engage on a Policy level discussion, even on DU.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

you can understand why I might see it differently. In the last week, every whining post I have read has been made by a poster who joined less than a year ago. YMMV.

unless you are deluded that all criticism is whining, and only relentless cheering is courageous. Gee, Martin Luther King must be an historical whiner in your book. And Elizabeth Cady Stanton. And the early labor organizers of coal mines and sweatshops. I mean all their whining about 60-hour weeks and unsafe conditions.

As for "whiners" critical of a Democratic President, I guess the anti-VietNam war protesters during Johnson's term should really have "manned" up, and gone and killed some nationalistic Vietnamese peasants instead of protesting.

Yeah, the OP here certainly rates in the same category of courage as MLK. And you think I'm deluded?

are getting..one of the following words..

racists, whinners, haters

right out of word book of Frank Luntz's playbook!!

Whiners complaining about whining immediately above you.

Some have NO sense of irony or shame.

One of Obama's accomplishments has been the ability to bring politics back to a broader public discourse, nationally and internationally. That includes people who may have been out of the discourse for a while or uninterested in it all, for whatever reason. :hi:

You are aware people can be involved in politics without being members of this particular website, yeah?
Some of us have been trying to get progressives elected for years.
So where the fuck we were was out donating time instead of bitching at people that don't march in lockstep on a message board.
What about you?

Sorry to rain on your parade.

You haven't rained on my parade at all. We've did just as much as you to get democrats elected.

to the political in crowd.

In fact, it *should* have been we.

Wutchyoo lookin' at ..... ?

It's more like 44K fewer.

44,000 Americans dead each year. Preventable deaths. We're not talking "potential life" ... we're not talking about fertilized embryos in liquid nitrogen (my God, what a wonder it would be if Conservatives struggled so hard for the birthed and breathing). Nope. We're talking about citizens. Kids. Adults. Teenagers and grand mothers. Actual people.

Were some foreign power to achieve such a death toll among the citizenry, there would be no end of bucks delivered up for the righteous purpose of defending our folk from their bloody aggression. Morally, is there a difference, though? What is it called when you allow 44,000 people a year to die so you can line your pockets more deeply with money?

Aye, friend. Frustrated and dismayed. I feel ya. But we cannot surrender, and we must accept that before we succeed, it is likely we and our numbers are going to have to take the streets. A couple of hundred thousand folk bearing 44,000 cardboard caskets down the length of the Mall ought to make the point.

Trav

line your pockets more deeply with money?"

That, my friend, is called the American Way.

3000+ killed on 9/11? That's a boondoggle for Halliburton/KBR, and a host of other well-connected companies in the form of a bogus War on Terror. Wall Street/banking industry collapse? That yielded the big players a HUGE payout from the taxpayers. 44,000 dying because they're uninsured, underinsured or denied coverage? No biggie. That just means it's the health insurance companies turn. They have been waiting patiently on the sidelines while KBR and Wall Street fed at the public trough. It's only fair they get their share of taxpayer dollars like everyone else with friends in the WH has. After all, that's how the system works. For them anyway.

:applause:

:(


And, along with all other things, I'm supposed to be a cheerleader? I'm supposed to defend the same things I protested against under another person/president/regime?
I think not.

He's done some good things just recently, for which I'm grateful and I hope he keeps it up; but in the main it's been too little, far too late especially in health care. As for gay rights, I knew from before the election he'd do little to nothing for us, his late promises to the LBGTQ community notwithstanding... that still didn't stop me from volunteering on his campaign, hoping against hope he'd see the light, at least recognize the need for equal rights.

But what he's seen fit to do is to demean and ostracize what he calls "far left" Democrats, which in his book include all gay people. He hasn't stopped this 'State's Rights' shit... I wonder how he'd feel if states were able to legislate on the legal premise of Loving vs. Virginia?

It's sad, but I can promise I won't vote party line anymore, I'll exclusively support whoever supports me
and nobody else.

DAILY KOS RESEARCH 2000 WEEKLY POLL OCT 12- 15, 2008

http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypoll/2009/10/15

---

age 18-29

FAVORABLE 79%
UNFAVORABLE 14%
NO OPINION 7%

----

"Bye-bye"!

bill is going nowhere.

The other two bills--House and Senate HELP committee--have privatized public options in them. The HELP committee bill has an employer mandate for private insurance which can't help the job situation in the U.S. (Sorry union backers. It's a bad idea.)

And H.R.3200 includes an individual mandate for private insurance, as there is no gov't run program included. Look it up.

The House Democrats keep using the term "government run Public Option" in reference to HR3200, but there is NO provision in The Bill to fund it, or establish a department to administer it, only a provision for the HHS to hire private Corporations to administer the "Public Option".

The "Public Option" has already been "Privatized".

for everyone except the private insurers. Yet they want more gravy.

Should Walmart have to pay for coverage so their employees don't end up on Medicaid or their kids on SCHIP?

but that was before current high premium health insurance. It's not a ruse for fledling small businesses and others hard-hit by the recession to claim they can't afford current private health insurance premiums, much less prices inflated by the mandate--that demanding they do so pushes many into failure.

At this time, we are competing w/ other industrialized countries who finance health care w/o insurance via income taxes including much higher taxes on the top bracket. How much Walmart would contract if forced to buy private insurance for its workers is unknown. In fact if we get the privatized public option being proposed, Walmart's serfs being paid minimum will likely be the first to get taxpayer subsidized overpriced private insurance (and most likely bare minimum policies) from the exchange. Slightly better paid employees of small businesses will in one bill be mandated to buy their own, and in another the struggling small businesses will have to pay.

Your question is a straw dog argument because it is tens of 1000's of other employers who will be hit hardest, and Walmart will suffer the least impact. Ultimately all of us will suffer as the economy continues to contract.

I'm tired of being a Cassandra. Along w/ a minority of others, I called what would happen by passing the bank bailout as proposed, and I'm calling what will happen w/ employer mandates. I wish with all my being I weren't saying this, but mark my words.

So why are you misrepresenting the legislation.

And I am doing my best to be accurate.

There are tax benefits for the others.

And on the one hand you say it will strangle business to have to pay for health insurance - but ignore the costs of allowing employees to choose any plan they want and require the business to manage all of that paperwork.

I haven't seen as much inaccuracy since 2003 and we all know how that ended up. When will people learn.

The only "tax benefits" I've heard of are to not be forced to pay into a fund to cover the uninsured. In other words not getting a tax penalty. I've been following this pretty closely, and I've never seen any business tax reduction offered to help offset the cost of premiums. I don't believe any of the three major bills offers that. What is also being considered is additional taxation of either the employer or individual on a portion of the value of better, higher-cost policies. In other words a tax increase.

Then you've only been following what the left has told you and I mean the wsws socialist left. They lie as much as the right.

This is in the HELP Bill, for starters. They all have help for small business.

Small Business Credits - employers with 50 or fewer full-time workers who pay 60 percent or more of their employees’ health insurance premiums will be permitted to receive tax credits for subsidizing coverage. Credit amounts are based on the type of employee coverage, the size of the employer, and the proportion of time the employer paid employee health insurance expenses, and are available for up to 3 consecutive years.

http://www.obama-mamas.com/health-care.html

And businesses employing 90 employees are "big" and not endangered by premium costs? I'm not even sure it's still in the bill as so many former progressive provisions have been compromised away, but I'll try to find out.

Absolutely NOT.
Health Care should be completely de-coupled from employment, like it is in every other civilized country in the World.
I can NOT understand WHY the Democratic Party INSISTS that the Employer Based Health Insurance system be protected.

"A Uniquely American System"?
Forced LABOR?

Employers pay half of SSI and Medicare.

Why shouldn't they be required to pay at least half of every employees health care benefit?

coverage system has worked very well for the past 35 years, and the costs are well below the national average:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&em

As the article points out, most people in Hawaii wonder what all the fuss is about, and can't imagine not having health care coverage unless they become unemployed (which is becoming more of a problem).

Kyl needs to read it. Apparently health care = healthy people who don't die. Whoda thunk it.

I just don't care how people get the health care, as long as they get it.

You cant afford health insurance? Well, our solution is to make you buy health insurance.

Not a good plan, and its going to cause a lot of real pain out in the country, if we follow path of least resistance.

it's going to be called health care, at last.

will get a subsidy, because lacking price controls it will be ruinously expensive so the authorized expenditure will be rapidly used up. Why are you misrepresenting the "public" (privatized) option?

They'll want to keep it. They'll support whatever plan that allows them to keep it, including single payer. You've got to get the people affordable health coverage first.

And isn't the argument for single payer that once everybody is in, the costs will go down? If insurance premiums will be regulated, and both the cost and the payout will be, then why won't that affect costs as well. There are plenty of nonprofit insurance companies, so profit isn't the entire answer. The CBO says a public option would be about 10% cheaper, so aren't the subsidies going to be "ruinously expensive" for that as well?

How am *I* misrepresenting the public option?

It's that once you have only one government entity responsible for paying the providers, without a multiplicity of forms to prove elegibility, and not involved in creating profit, the costs plummet allowing us all to be covered well for the same total cost we pay now for covering only some, with insurers denying needed treatments and procedures. Single payer would also place our businesses on a level playing field w/ the other industrialized nations. The few economists who have studied the likely impact say it would expand the economy.

As for what is misleading in your description of the "public" option: For one, the payout to providers isn't regulated in the bills. They only recommend that providers accept Medicare rates, not mandate it. The premiums don't have caps in either bill. The only regulation seems to be that the plans offer a certain (unspecified) minimum coverage and can't discriminate against pre-existing conditions or high-risk groups. For another, the CBO's estimate assumes that premiums won't inflate in response to instituting mandates, a highly dubious assumption. Also, the bills only allow those slated to get the subsidies to even enter the "exchange(s)". (Whether it's one or more exchange depends on which bill you refer to.)

The President has said over and over that we will only be able to subsidize a small fraction of the uninsured. What would be the benefit in lying about that?

Quote please, on the subsidy. There are subsidies for people up to 3-400% of poverty, depending on the bill and that'sabout 75% of the country. There is also nothing that says only people with subsidies can enter the exchange.

Yes, there are payout regulations in the bills that require a percentage of premium to go directly to paying providers.

Yes, there are premium caps, a variety of them. The 2:1 and 3:1 age ratio is a cap. Combine that with the premium payout regulation, and the pre-existing condition regulation, and you've tightened down the premium amount quite a bit.

The premise of single payer is removing profit and overhead costs, true. But it also relies on the reduction that preventive care would bring, as well as everyone paying in. Regardless, my point is the same. It is still going to cost money and the same people who can't afford several hundred in premiums now aren't going to be able to afford several hundred in taxes for single payer. Those same people will still need subsidies, a public plan is still going to cost people money. I don't know why people keep pretending it won't.

"Both bills authorize subsidies for the relatively small number of Americans who will be eligible to shop within the exchange. These subsidies will be given to eligible individuals regardless of whether they use the subsidy to buy insurance from the “option” or from an insurance company." http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/09/13/sullivan-publicoptionin3200unlikemedicare/

Please read the above cited article, and you will find that the most of what you think are in the bills have been since compromised away. Mr. Sullivan, the highly expert author, also wrote another article pointing out the gaping holes in the CBO's contention that the costs of the proposed public options will be 10% of the average current premium. http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/02/kip-sullivan-letter/

Harvard public health researchers have estimated that full single payer coverage for all of us would cost ~$4K for each taxpayer if it were distributed equally regardless of size of family or income. Of course if it were distributed more progressively as most taxes are, people w/ lower incomes would pay less or none, as would people w/ more dependents. And high income people would pay more. And that would be for a ONE TIER PROGRAM, w/ excellent coverage for all and no denials of medically necessitated claims at today's level of technology. The experts do expect that in future some highly expensive hi-tech procedures might be created which would force a choice between raising expenditure or denying certain expensive procedures. Regardless of distribution, do you know of any available private insurane w/o punitive co-pays, exemptions, and a reputation for denial of claims, that costs only $4K/yr for an individual, much less for a family?

I don't even talk to anybody who quotes them anymore. I used to advocate donating money to them. They are so stuck on single payer they don't care what they say or how many people die when nothing passes.

I posted the bills themselves. I posted the facts. Read them or stay ignorant. Your choice.

You either believe the legislation itself - or belief the distortion of it. Again, Your Choice. I can't force you to read it.

its going to be called a crock, and its going to turn a whole generation away from the democratic party.

Do you know where the subsidy kicks in for a single male, or young couple with no kids? How about one with 2 kids. With a family of 4, its only 66k, last I heard. In my peer group, I don't know many making that much, and most don't yet have more than one child. Which means we wont be seeing any subsidy, despite the fact we cannot afford what we already owe, much less adding the uncontrolled cost of mandated private health insurance.

Look at the bright side: They'll be able to pay more for it because of their bailout.

rather than being pushed. We dont need a change in 12. We need the change now, and I still think Obama is the man who can do it. I just think he is listening to the wrong people. He has said he wants a newway, but he is listening to the old politicians.

And how would it help me to send letters and make phone calls to my elected representatives regarding my wishes for the future of my country any more than I already do?

And what does organizing have to do with whether the president will be in the trenches pushing, or sitting back saying "make me"? If we have to organize to "make" him do the peoples will, then my sentiments were exactly on line. I wish he was pushing, not waiting to be pushed.

Exactly how long do they think it takes to undo the last 8yrs..

:eyes:

Unfortunately, its not a matter of how long it will take. The more immediate question is how long do we have?

Imagine being scuba diving. Now imagine that you are running out of oxygen in your tank. You have a choice. Hurry up and face the bends, or go up the proscribed way and die of lack of oxygen. One sucks and may kill you. The other will kill you. That seems to be where we are. Take your pick.

nwmhtt

YMMV

Chicken is for cup o noodle, when you get swanky and rich and can afford that luxury

If I don't see change, then I will vote for the (R) myself just to make it harder for him to get elected again.

crimes and torture. Either that or he is going to be considered complicit. That rule of law he touts needs to be applied to the criminals at the top of the food chain.

"Throughout 2009, Mohamed's lawyers, as well as various international newspapers, repeatedly petitioned the British High Court to re-visit its decision on the ground that the Obama administration had replaced the Bush administration, and surely the anti-torture Obama would never embrace or maintain the same threat. But, obviously in conjunction with British officials, the Obama administration took numerous steps to convey to the British High Court that they were indeed re-iterating the same Bush threats, including:


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

OK, I've never lived on just Ramen noodles. But I have eaten a lot of them, and if you throw away the "flavor packets" and supplement with onions they are not that godawful. Well, they are certainly better than the "bullion zip" of Orwellian fame.

OK, I was a judge in 2008, and therefore precluded from making political contributions--but back in 2004 and 2006 I gave in excess of 10% of my net worth to Democrats.

OK, you have a good point, and, indeed, I believe that President Obama, while a vast improvement is a bit out of touch with the the real financial conditions of most of his supporters.

Still, I think that most of those supporters--as with most of the population generally is out of touch with financial reality.
And I think the complaint about the supposed awfulness of Ramen noodles illustrates the point. I've eaten them. I have at times lived 90% off rice, potatoes, Ramen noodles, and vegetables from my own garden--and it was healthier than a lot of the crap I eat now.

No need to apologize for stating the honest truth.

:thumbsup:

But in the end it doesn't matter. Both would be playing for the same team owner.

No one else really matters.

Way to show everyone here that you don't get it. My guess is you never will. You're probably rich, too. And you probably have a full set of teeth which are perfectly aligned, white and bright. And you're just waiting for the right time to switch over to the dark side. Please do it now. Your parsimonious attitude is not welcome here.

Do you mean the Democratic Party, who has handed those republican fucks their asses the last two elections is in decline?

I'm sorry the President hasn't the ended the wars, fixed the economy, revamped health care, eliminated poverty, ended discrimination based on sex, race or orientation and made the House and Senate Democrats act and vote like Democrats.

To an 18 yr old 12 months, where in effect we will be shortly with the holidays, is a long time.

99 times out of 100 you will be severely disappointed.

Thanks for commenting. Good night.