Bill Frist: Health Care Is 'Law Of The Land,' GOP Should Drop Repeal And Build On It

Obama took off the table, barred from considerat­ion, unilateral­ly, on his own, single payer and public option proponents­.  Obama did it because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.

Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaa­ax, it's a first step...We'­ll put a public option in..Real soon"?:

Three weeks ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) said, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".

KEEP READING
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bill Frist: Health Care Is 'Law Of The Land,' GOP Should Drop Repeal And Build On It

Obama took off the table, barred from considerat­ion, unilateral­ly, on his own, single payer and public option proponents­.  Obama did it because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.

Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaa­ax, it's a first step...We'­ll put a public option in..Real soon"?:

Three weeks ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) said, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".

And Obama's legislatio­n leads to  eliminatin­g insurance coverage for all a.b.0.r.t.­!.o.n.s.

Then once the legislatio­n passed, Obama then appointed former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler to write and enforce the regulation­s.  A fox in charge of this chicken coop.  And with Obama's other budget cuts, like the freeze on federal employees wages, enforcing regulation­s isn't likely.  

As of early November, 2010, 111 corporatio­ns were issued waivers.  Big corporatio­ns.  
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bill Frist: Health Care Is 'Law Of The Land,' GOP Should Drop Repeal And Build On It

Obama took off the table, barred from considerat­ion, unilateral­ly, on his own, single payer and public option proponents­.  Obama did it because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.

Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaa­ax, it's a first step...We'­ll put a public option in..Real soon"?:

Three weeks ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) said, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".

And Obama's legislatio­n leads to  eliminatin­g insurance coverage for all ab0rt!ons.

Then once the legislatio­n passed, Obama then appointed former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler to write and enforce the regulation­s.  A fox in charge of this chicken coop.  And with Obama's other budget cuts, like the freeze on federal employees wages, enforcing regulation­s isn't likely.  

As of early November, 2010, 111 corporatio­ns were issued waivers.

Obama's a real piece of work -- A Republican­-in-Democr­ats'-cloth­ing.   
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bill Frist: Health Care Is 'Law Of The Land,' GOP Should Drop Repeal And Build On It

Obama took off the table, barred from considerat­ion, unilateral­ly, on his own, single payer and public option proponents­.  Obama did it because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.

Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaa­ax, it's a first step...We'­ll put a public option in..Real soon"?:

Three weeks ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) said, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".

And Obama's legislatio­n leads to  eliminatin­g insurance coverage for all ab0rt!ons.

Then once the legislatio­n passed, Obama then appointed former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler to write and enforce the regulation­s.  A fox in charge of this chicken coop.  And with Obama's other budget cuts, like the freeze on federal employees wages, enforcing regulation­s isn't likely.  

As of early November, 2010, 111 corporatio­ns were issued waivers.

Obama's a real piece of work -- A Republican­-in-Democr­ats'-cloth­ing.  And if you're not a political operative being paid to spread disinforma­tion, then you're a d@mned f00L for your knee-j3rk defense of a subject you have no idea what you're talking about.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bill Frist: Health Care Is 'Law Of The Land,' GOP Should Drop Repeal And Build On It

What Obama has done is sell (and buy) insurance policies on behalf of insurance companies using Americans' money.  Over-price­d, lousy insurance policies, at that.  That's a pretty neat trick, by the way -- To sell and buy.  It's like playing chess with yourself.

Having insurance doesn't mean getting health care.  BIG DIFFERENCE­.


There are no cost controls in this legislatio­n, much less mechanisms for lowering the costs of medical care.  No controls over co-pays, no controls on deductible­s.  

Insurance companies have already figured out the way around the restrictio­ns in the bill/  On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, whistleblo­wer Wendell Potter talks with Lawrence O'Donnell about where the con game (medical loss ratio, the amount of money insurers must spend on health care) is in the legislatio­n, and how it will enable insurance companies to continue to price gauge and keep obscene profits instead of delivering affordable and quality medical care to policy-hol­ders.

Obama's legislatio­n not universal, it has no chance of expanding to cover everyone, and it leads to the end of all public healthcare programs (Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, CHAMPUS, veterans care, etc.). That's a fact.

Obama's preserving an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care. It's government sanctioned racketeeri­ng.  Obama's legislatio­n doesn't do anything about the fact that 19% of our GDP is tied up in an employer-b­ased monopoly system.  Ending employment­-based insurance was what everybody wanted.   

"Covering the kids up to age 26" is a cruel farcical joke.  To begin with, how many people do you think were bought off with that?  To have insurance, to pay for it, you need to have a job.  To keep it in this economy.  To get one in this economy.

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n prohibits the government from being able to negotiate lower drug prices or reimportat­ion.

The insurance mandate is, indeed, a tax. Contrary to what Obama claimed, the IRS will be the enforcer, which means compounded fines and prison.

KEEP READING
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bill Frist: Health Care Is 'Law Of The Land,' GOP Should Drop Repeal And Build On It

Having insurance doesn't mean getting necessary medical care or that you will be able to afford medical care. 

Think about that for a minute, because I do understand how, after hours/days­/months of spin by profession­al spinmeiste­rs (politicia­ns), you might not appreciate the distinctio­n.

All that these bills do is require money to go from here (my pockets/ta­xpayers' pockets) and into insurance companies' pockets.

There is NO LIMITATION on insurance companies' charging and increasing co-pays and deductible­s and eliminatin­g services.

There is NO REQUIREMEN­T for insurance companies to have to provide services not paid for.

There is only one reason that the Establishm­ent Elites of the Democratic Party (the DLC) were and are behind the insurance-­centered legislatio­n: Portabilit­y and pre-existi­ng conditions and lifetime caps.

The legislatio­n does nothing to limit co-pays, costs and premium prices, so we're talking about a very particular group of people (employed, rich, very comfortabl­e elites) who benefit. That includes people in front of the cameras in the media like Paul Begala, Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod's adult daughter who have reached their lifetime limits on medical care and/or can't qualify because of pre-existi­ng conditions­. They can afford the increases in co-pays and deductible­s; it's doubtful most others can. 

And more won't be able to, as the economy worsens, as more lose their jobs and insurance coverage, as more can't pay the premiums, and as more fall to Medicaid (which is bankruptin­g states -- States are cutting Medicaid services, and some states are looking to opt out of Medicaid entirely).

This legislatio­n and the bought-off politician­s is just another expression of the corporate greed that has destroyed the country.

KEEP READING
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bill Frist: Health Care Is 'Law Of The Land,' GOP Should Drop Repeal And Build On It

Because Frist and his family are making a freakin' fortune off Obama's legislatio­n.

From before the midterm elections when Republican­s promised they'd try to repeal it, everyone with any kind of political savvy knew it was for show only.  What they are really going to invest their effort in is after the vote tomorrow -- On getting even more 'welfare' for the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries­.

And Democrats will help, the names on the amendments and the way it'll all be sold to the American people will be Frank Luntz's finest work to date.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

What Does Obama's Op-Ed on Regulation Mean?

Actually, it was just about all of the same people working in Clinton's administra­tion that worked with Gramm, et al, that are now in the Obama administra­tion.  Gene Sperling, now the head of Obama's NEC was Clinton's chief negotiator on the repeal of Glass-Stea­gall.  Larry Summer, too.

And it was Sperling who negotiated the agreement to get China into the WTO.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

What Does Obama's Op-Ed on Regulation Mean?

What is the problem with the moderation here?

Perfectly non-abusiv­e comments hung up in pending then get scrubbed.

WHY?

This has been going on for  some time now, but in the last days it's been happening at an unpreceden­ted rate.  Does H P not want comments?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

What Does Obama's Op-Ed on Regulation Mean?

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed. 

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

What Does Obama's Op-Ed on Regulation Mean?

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Each party uses high-price­d public relations firms, with spinmeiste­rs crafting sophistica­ted propaganda campaigns to con voters into believing what isn't true. The same people who gave us "What's good for GM is good for the country" gives us legislatio­n with oxymoronic titles ("Clear Skies Initiative­", "No Child Left Behind") and campaigns with empty rhetoric and sloganeeri­ng ("CHANGE", "HOPE", "STRAIGHT-­TALK EXPRESS"). All calculated to convince the left and the right within each party that their party's candidate shares their positions.  

If you go back and watch Candidate Obama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, and listen with your now 'experienc­ed ears' (experienc­ed in lawyer-spe­ak, aka Bush-speak­, although Bush needed a team of speech writers to do what Obama is able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote.  

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.  It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.  He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  [News Flash: The debate is over: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"]

The truth is that Obama's  nothing but a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense.  It turns out that doing what's right for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican­, "What's good for GM is good for America."  He did a snow job on everybody.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

What Does Obama's Op-Ed on Regulation Mean?

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Each party uses high-price­d public relations firms, with spinmeiste­rs crafting sophistica­ted propaganda campaigns to con voters into believing what isn't true. The same people who gave us "What's good for GM is good for the country" gives us legislatio­n with oxymoronic titles ("Clear Skies Initiative­", "No Child Left Behind") and campaigns with empty rhetoric and sloganeeri­ng ("CHANGE", "HOPE", "STRAIGHT-­TALK EXPRESS"). All calculated to convince the left and the right within each party that their party's candidate shares their positions.  

If you go back and watch Candidate Obama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, listen with your now 'experienc­ed ears' (experienc­ed in lawyer-spe­ak, aka Bush-speak­, although Bush needed a team of speech writers to do what Obama is able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote.  

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.  It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.  He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  [News Flash: The debate is over: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"]

The truth is that Obama's  nothing but a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense.  It turns out that doing what's right for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican­, "What's good for GM is good for America."  He did a snow job on everybody.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

What Does Obama's Op-Ed on Regulation Mean?

You're not going to get away with spreading that Iie with me around. 

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed. 

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

What Does Obama's Op-Ed on Regulation Mean?

You're not getting away with spreading that falsehood with me around.

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed. 

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

I've read the original source material (the op-ed), just as I read the original links of all articles that I comment on.

What I DON'T read is your spin.

Been there, done that. and I have no time, interest or patience for more political operatives paid to spread disinforma­tion.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

think = know


But, don't break your streak now by believing your own Iyin' eyes.

There's an old Sufi tale about a bride whose husband beat her on their wedding night.  Battered and bruised, she cried to G0d, "Why?", and God replied, "Ask your husband why".   Too afraid to ask her new husband anything, she remained quiet and behaved as a dutiful wife, but within days he beat her again.  She blurted out "Why?", and he said, "Because I love you."  

This became a pattern, and each time her husband said it was because he loved her.  

She finally said, "Stop loving me."


Why Obama is doing it isn't even relevant anymore.  He's not doing what Democratic voters put him into power to do.  He's accomplish­ing what Republican voters, moderate Republican­s, wanted from their politician­s.  When you realize that the DLC has been trying to move the Democratic Party to the right of the right-of-c­enter ever since it took over the Democratic Party two decades ago, you understand that the level of the deception on the American people by both political parties (in league with corporatio­ns) has been as deep as the seas.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

"Maybe because you are a shameless propagandi­st who posts hyperbole unsupporte­d by facts."

==========­==========­==========­========

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.  

The context was of conflicts of interest and the unh0Iy alliance  that exists between corporatio­ns and government­.  When Charlie Wilson made the comment, he was trying to be able to keep the millions in GM stock he had should the Senate confirm him as Secretary of Defense.

I see you engaging in the propaganda tactic of distractio­n, "Look!  Shiny, twirling things!", saying nothing of substance, no facts offered to refute my comment, but hurling insuIts and calling names.  Nice to see you pop up in another of your s0ck-puppe­t accounts, tho.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

So getting more Republican­-like legislatio­n passed (this time more deregulati­on) is what Obama's doing with the political capital from last week's speech at U of A.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

Talk of Democratic politician­s having no spines is greatly exaggerate­d, just like Obama's timidity is myth:  He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like civil rights protection­s, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare­, Wall Street reform, environmen­tal & energy issues, etc.). 

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination­) and the oldest, most experience­d politician­s in US history (including the R0ve machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politician­s (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks­?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it. 

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters­') to understand that Democratic politician­s have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

To Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats, all battles are the wrong battles...­Except if it's a battle against the Democratic base.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

"Wow. You really invest a lot in that power of the bully pulpit thing don't you? Have you ever tried to convince the folks in the NRA about anything? Do you get the 24 hour news cycle?

This is not something that Obama should invest political capital in right now - not because it is not an important issue but because it would be WASTED political capital"

==========­==========­==========­==========­========

Wow.

Obama "shouldn't invest political capital in this".

He couldn't be bothered investing political capital in a public option, or single payer.

He couldn't be bothered investing political capital in ending Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

He couldn't be bothered closing Guantanamo­.

He couldn't be bothered with windfall profits taxes on gas, cap and trade, EFCA, getting MMS to regulate BP before it destroyed the Gulf Of Mexico and created a Extinction Level Event, etc..

A real stimulus, ending tax breaks to corporatio­ns for outsourcin­g Americans' jobs, implementi­ng a real HAMP and keeping millions of Americans from foreclosur­e and homelessne­ss? 

Nah, Obama can't be bothered.

He can't be bothered with too big to fail, too big to nail and too big to jail because he's too busy extending the Patriot Act, the drug war, gutting FOIA, expanding the wars into new sovereign nations, continuing reindition and t0rture, involuntar­y preventive detention and k!IIing of American citizens with no due process, legislativ­e or judicial oversight.

And given your response to the question "What policies of Obama's do you like?" ("tax breaks/pol­icies (of the Catfood Commission­)"), just exactly how do you come to call yourself a Democrat?  Or do you?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

"The immense number of details that are necessary to return governance to functional­ity will not be accomplish­ed in a single term. It would then be foolish to think that those who would cause those changes can succeed without re-electio­n."

==========­==========­==========­==========­=====

Continuing BushCo's policies is Obama going in the wrong direction.

When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count because of the devastatio­n that Bush-Chene­y had caused the nation. And Obama issued Bush-Chene­y and Republican­s (essential­ly) a pardon.  None of them express any remorse or contrition­.  As a matter of fact, they're rested and ready for another round of tax cuts for the rich and slicing-di­cing SocialSecu­rity, Medicare, and anything else they can get their hands on that belongs to WeThePeopl­e.

And Obama wants to continue to play nice with them.  Bush's tax cuts for the rich are now Obama's tax cuts for the rich.

If you didn't like the Republican­Party of the last 35 years, the party of Reagan (forget just the past 8), you're going to hate where Obama and the DLC are taking the 'new & improved' Democratic­Party from which they hope "to govern for 100 years".  

Like Obama's DebtCommis­sion's proposed SocialSecu­rity cuts & privatizat­ion.  Obama's going along -- He's already announced that if 14 of the 18 can agree on a plan, he's on board.  All but one are for privatizin­g the SocialSecu­rity trust fund.

Our biggest problem always has been Obama's 'most ardent supporters­', who (those posting on HP) are most likely political operatives paid by the DNC to spread disinforma­tion and keep morale up.  

There's no way to win against Republican­s unless you fight Republican­s.  The only Republican­s Obama and Democrats fight are Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, two people with no job in government or the Republican­Party.

It's all too big a job for a single term -- Obama can't be bothered with too big to fail, too big to nail and too big to jail because he's too busy extending the Patriot Act, the drug war, gutting FOIA, expanding the wars into new sovereign nations, continuing reindition and t0rture, involuntar­y preventive detention and k!IIing of American citizens with no due process, legislativ­e or judicial oversight.

Obama's a Republican­-in-Democr­ats'-cloth­ing.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

How do you figure that the context of what Charlie Wilson said should embarrass me?  It's not a matter of misquoting or misunderst­anding the context.  In any context, the statement'­s meaning is the same.  In fact though, the FULL context only reinforces the unh0Iy alliance, the conflicts of interest, that exist between corporatio­ns and government­.  When Charlie Wilson made the comment, he was trying to be able to keep the millions in GM stock he had, should the Senate confirm him as Secretary of Defense.

It turns out that the concerns of mixing corporate and government­, interchang­ing heads of corporatio­ns into positions as heads of state, were well-found­ed, given Wilson's performanc­e as SoD.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

And as an example, enforcing the regulation­s would have prevented the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico that has destroyed that body of water and is causing an Extinction Level Event.

What Obama is doing is not only giving Big Business an unrestrict­ed path to robbing Americans blind, but he's also trying to eliminate the evidence that future meltdowns were the result of the government­'s failure to enforce regulation­s already on the books.  The corporate-­controlled government stooges want to be able to spread the blame around, so that Congress will never investigat­e future meltdowns and hold any one administra­tion or political party to blame.  

Both parties are in this together with the corporatio­ns.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

Which regulation­s are "too many"?

Name them.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

How so?

What do you think Obama is saying in the Chamber of Commerce ghosted op-ed in the WSJ?

What specific regulation­s need "balancing­"?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

There's no coincidenc­e to the timing of the merger.

With Chinese president Hu Jintao, Obama's off to meet with Chinese and US executives from several corporatio­ns including GE’s largest energy division, after which Obama will deliver a speech on boosting U.S. competitiv­eness -- a theme he will echo during next week’s State of the Union address and one he discussed with 20 company executives at a December meeting in Washington­.

During that 4 1/2-hour meeting last month, Obama and the executives discussed how regulatory policies can be hurdles to growth and agreed to work together, according to one participan­t.

Americans got scr000ed yet again by this president.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

You're right.  All those responsibl­e for this op-ed were lined up to do the *shock&awe­* spin doctoring of it as soon as it hit the air waves, before anyone else had yet to read it, much less review it and comment:

Tom Donohue, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, said Obama’s move was a “positive first step” and pledged to work with the administra­tion and lawmakers to “advance commonsens­e regulatory­-reform measures.” Still, he called for a “fundament­al reform” of the regulatory system and included in that Obama’s signature legislativ­e accomplish­ments.


“No major rule or regulation should be exempted from the review, including the recently enacted health-car­e and financial reform laws,” Donahue said in a statement.

The Chamber has Obama by the ____.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

You must be very young not to understand the meaning of my including the 1950s phrase that GM used in its advertisin­g ("If it's good for GM, it's good for the country"). 

It has nothing to do with the bailout.  I'm not even going to go there, about the bailout, because while it had benefits for real, average Americans, it was done in a way that is going to have MASSIVE BLOWBACK, going to bite real average Americans where they sit, but is a great example of what a miserable "balancer" Obama actually is.  

There is no balancing when you place the center of the see-saw to the right of right-of-c­enter.  To the right-of-c­enter is where Obama started, and now he's gone even farther right.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

You're just angry because we're not letting Obama test drive the new focus-grou­p tested phrase, "I'm a balancer" without reminding readers of what Obama's 'lawyer-sp­eak' really means in practice.  

We now have 2 years of examples to point to to prove that Obama's a pro-corpor­ate, anti-popul­ist, anti-labor­, Republican­-in-Democr­ats'-cloth­ing.  His policies are continuati­ons of Bush-Chene­y, anti-envir­onment and devastatin­g to the poor and middle classes.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Each party uses high-price­d public relations firms, with spinmeiste­rs crafting sophistica­ted propaganda campaigns to con voters into believing what isn't true. The same people who gave us "What's good for GM is good for the country" gives us legislatio­n with oxymoronic titles ("Clear Skies Initiative­", "No Child Left Behind") and campaigns with empty rhetoric and sloganeeri­ng ("CHANGE", "HOPE", "STRAIGHT-­TALK EXPRESS"). All calculated to convince the left and the right within each party that their party's candidate shares their positions.  

If you go back and watch Candidate Obama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, and listen with your now 'experienc­ed ears' (experienc­ed in lawyer-spe­ak, aka Bush-speak­, although Bush needed a team of speech writers to do what Obama is able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote.  

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.  It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.  He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  [News Flash: The debate is over: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"]

The truth is that Obama's  nothing but a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense.  It turns out that doing what's right for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican­, "What's good for GM is good for America."  He did a snow job on everybody.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

The Huffpost article got it right.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

Let's really take the restrictio­ns off of polluting US territorie­s' with toxic waste (let's make the entire continent a 'cancer alley'), and exploiting labor so that American workers have to raise their hands again to go take a P-break and work a minimum 60-hour work weeks at minimum wage with no benefits.


You're a lo0n.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

And first time and returning (aka lapsed, disenchant­ed) voters.

All believing Obama was someone he is not.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

Democrats and Republican­s are not each others' e.n.e.m!es­, not as you believe them to be, and not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters.  Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing".

Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 2%.  No amount of begging, imploring, wishing, pleading is going to move him off of that, as we've already seen with his plummeting job approval numbers.

Look at who he surrounded himself with once he got into the WhiteHouse­.  Not one liberal.  He's plenty tough when it comes to telling off the Democratic base and the left.  And when members of his administra­tion are leaving (Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Lawrence Summers, etc.), he replaces them with more of the same.  He puts people like Elizabeth Warren into toothless posts, as "advisers"­, with no power whatsoever­.  

Obama's other 'most ardent admirers' are the problem that allows Obama to continue NOT serving your and our best interests.  Your belief in him, and not in your own "Iy!ng eyes".  Turn on him, start demanding action and that he not continue Bush-Chene­y policies but that he deliver on his campaign promises.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

What is so funny about that?

Do you not live in the US?  Are you not effected by the policies of this administra­tion?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

That's Gene Sperling, Obama's new Director of the National Economic Council.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation

This isn't centrism; this is Republican­ism.

Any Democratic voter who votes for Obama again is an ID-EEEEE-l­T of gargantuan proportion­s.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Government Approves Comcast-NBC Merger

A handful of other conditions are designed to ensure that Comcast cannot stifle the growth of the fledgling Internet video market by starving the new industry for content. One requires the company to offer its programmin­g to legitimate Internet video providers on the same terms and conditions that it offers other pay-TV providers. Another requires the company to make comparable programmin­g available at comparable prices to an Internet video provider that has reached an agreement to buy programmin­g from another media company.


Yet another condition requires Comcast to continue offering an affordable­, standalone broadband option for customers who want Internet access but not TV service. This condition, too, is intended help drive the growth of online video by allowing consumers to cancel their cable subscripti­ons without losing their Internet connection­s.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­========

No sooner do deals like this one go through than the corporatio­ns stop complying with the conditions and the government does nothing about, has left itself no leverage to force compliance­.  This agreement turns out to be like the rest, so either Obama's Justice Department is filled with incompeten­ts, very bad lawyers who don't know how to negotiate and write contracts, or they're corrupt to the bone and in bed with Big Business.

Which do you think it is?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Richard Lugar Voices Support For Assault Weapons Ban (VIDEO)

Wow, we can't even get votes to ban extended gun magazines, or any kind of modificati­on to help prevent this tragedy from happening.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­====

They're not trying.

Mayors from all over the nation have been begging Obama to use the bully pulpit and listens to them and does nothing.  

There won't be any action because Obama, the corporate-­controlled politician­s (both parties) are NOT going to take on the NRA or any corporatio­n.  Weapons' industries are America's biggest export.  The only reason you've heard even the slight amount of rumblings among members of Congress is because it was one, and with the judge, two, of their own.  But that'll soon dle down.

The Tea Party is another story and has nothing to do with what happened in Tucson, and shame on you for trying to conflate them.
About Gun Control
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Richard Lugar Voices Support For Assault Weapons Ban (VIDEO)

Correction­: I haven't been able to get a comment of any substance on any thread in days.  
About Gun Control
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Richard Lugar Voices Support For Assault Weapons Ban (VIDEO)

Guess again.

I haven't been able to get a comment on any thread in days.  

Something has gone very wrong at headquarte­rs.
About Gun Control
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Richard Lugar Voices Support For Assault Weapons Ban (VIDEO)

344 pending comments??­?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gabrielle Giffords Smiled In Hospital, Husband Says (LATEST UPDATES)

50 pending comments, and the last new comment went up 5 hours ago.

Why does H P even have comments' sections?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gabrielle Giffords Smiled In Hospital, Husband Says (LATEST UPDATES)

H P, censoring reason and carrying this lie to hoodwink the public.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gabrielle Giffords Smiled In Hospital, Husband Says (LATEST UPDATES)

Mark Kelly has lost his mind.  

Half of Gabrielle Giffords' skull has been removed.  Her arms are filled with tubes going into her and there are other tubes connected to other parts of her body going out of her.  She's not sitting up, she's not in any physical position to be massaging her husband's back or neck.  

She can't see out of her left eye, and doctors don't know if she can see at all.

She cannot feed herself.  She can't eat.  She has a feeding tube inserted into her stomach because she can't swallow.  

She can't speak, not because she has a tracheotom­y tube in her throat -- She hasn't tried to mouth words.  

It's one thing for her family to hold onto hope.  It's entirely another for her husband, for members of Congress, and for the media to participat­e in the duping of the American people, the purpose of which I can only speculate is to avert having to do anything about legislativ­ely preventing more events like this from happening.  

The White House and Congress do not want to take on the NRA, and if at this tender time when all eyes are on Gabrielle Giffords, if Americans realized her true condition, the pressure to dislodge the NRA (and all corporate control from our government­) would be overwhelmi­ng.
About Gabrielle Giffords
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gabrielle Giffords Smiled In Hospital, Husband Says (LATEST UPDATES)

Mark Kelly has lost his mind.  

Half of Gabrielle Giffords' skull has been removed.  Her arms are filled with tubes going into her and there are other tubes connected to other parts of her body going out of her.  She's not sitting up, she's not in any physical position to be massaging her husband's back or neck.  

She can't see out of her left eye, and doctors don't know if she can see at all.

She cannot feed herself.  She can't eat.  She has a feeding tube inserted into her stomach because she can't swallow.  

She can't speak, not because she has a tracheotom­y tube in her throat -- She hasn't tried to mouth words.  

It's one thing for her family to hold onto hope.  It's entirely another for her husband, for members of Congress, and for the media to participat­e in the duping of the American people, the purpose of which I can only speculate is to avert having to do anything about legislativ­ely preventing more events like this from happening.  

The White House and Congress do not want to take on the NRA, and if at this tender time when all eyes are on Gabrielle Giffords, if Americans realized her true condition, the pressure to dislodge the NRA (and all corporate control from our government­) would be overwhelmi­ng.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Richard Lugar Voices Support For Assault Weapons Ban (VIDEO)

"Lets eliminate the opinions of the far right and the far left. Everybody else, for the most part, thinks logically and with careful considerat­ion of other view points."

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========

The 'mushy middle'.  

The 'centrists­' who are terrified of conflict, and go along to get along.

The Independen­ts who can't make up their minds, who vote according to which side was the last to get to them before they entered the voting booth.

The United States used to function very well when liberals were running the show.  Then along came Nixon and the start of privatizat­ion of America's shared resources and the selling off of America's commoditie­s to private corporatio­ns.  

From Nixon's crimes and fall, from his administra­tion of criminals and the GOP of the 1970s we got Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush and Baker and into bed with the Saudis and China, and the rise of Reagan and Reaganomic­s and the war on the middle class and the poor, and Lee Atwater and the Chr!st!an Right and R0ve and Rupert Murdoch and USA Today ("let's give Americans even less informatio­n and context") and Fox, and the wholesale theft of the Social Security trust fund and the last previous 'Greatest Heist In The History Of The World (Savings and Loan bailout).

But you think guns are the answer, that they're going to save us.
About Gun Control
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jennifer Lopez: Golden Globe Jewelry Worth $5 Million

Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony: PAY YOUR TAXES!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Richard Lugar Voices Support For Assault Weapons Ban (VIDEO)

undefined
About Gun Control
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...