The Promise of Hope

You're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republicans. There are other alternatives besides sitting out the election or voting for Republicans. There are other candidates running as independents, from Green to Libertarian, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around.  And you had better do it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn this all around.  (I say this as an old, OLD liberal Democrat (a 'New Deal' Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican, I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.)  

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administration, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminating regulatory oversight from finance reform legislations, he's given pro-corporate, Republican-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Promise of Hope

So who will you vote for with the facts as they are today?

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

I get this question regularly so bear with me for a moment as I explain the situation as I see it, the options available, possible solutions, etc.  

#1 - Sitting Out The Election
I never advise people to sit out elections because the first rule of politics is, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu". It's what p!sses me off about Obama (and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying "them that brung 'im") because by shutting out liberals, the Democratic base, from his administration, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, by putting Social Security and Medicare on the table, by eliminating regulatory oversight from finance reform legislations, he's given pro-corporate, Republican-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government much less a seat at the table.

#2 - Getting More Liberals/Progressives Into Congress
A 'Tea Party'-like challenge from the left within the Democratic Party is the obvious next step, but IMHO, it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People.  Obama and the DNC have been working their butts off to prevent real Democrats, real progressives, from getting into office - Their strategy for getting more Democrats into office has been to run Democratic candidates who believe in Republican ideology and support Republican policies and legislation.    

One variation on this is if, A) Obama doesn't pull an LBJ (drop out) or, B) another Democrat or third party candidate doesn't challenge him, then take the money and shoe leather that you were planning on spending for Obama and use it to make both Houses of Congress overwhelmingly 'blue' and let the chips fall where they may (Obama sinks or swims on his own, or a Republican gets into the White House) and we go to work immediately finding a real Democrat for 2016.  

Given how effective Republicans (with the smallest minority in decades) have been at stymieing Democratic legislation and policies, you would think Democrats could do the same for any Perry/Bachman/Romney/Palin/etc. administration. 


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ryan Budget: Early Education Cuts Would Pull More Than Two Million Kids From Public Preschool

Both parties, controlled by corporations, support globalization.  "New World Order".  Privatizing national resources.   

It's nothing that was ever debated or discussed, and certainly nothing that was ever voted for by the American people.  Alluded to, but not ever debated openly, extensively, pros and cons, in the public square.  In government circles (think tanks, policy schools, etc.), it's revered as being the solution to ending poverty around the world, and by extension, war.  "Lift people out of poverty and they won't go to war over resources -- They won't have any reason, no need to fight for their lives".

A real knee-slapper, don't you think?  

We need to nationalize our resources, and not shift the nation's wealth to the 1%.  The 1% has proven themselves to be lousy stewards and caretakers, and criminals toward the 99%.
About Paul Ryan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

'Pink Slime' Company Headed By Mitt Romney Donor

And under Obama:  Government Buying 7 Million Pounds Of Pink Slime for the Nation's School Lunch Program.



Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured

Republicans' push for tort reform has always been a red herring. The cost of malpractice to the health care system is miniscule, and even at that, it covers only a tiny portion of the harm inflicted on patients by a system designed to produce profit, not good results. 

What malpractice suits there are are due to regulatory failure and previous tort reform that have allowed corporations to make as much money as they want without concern for consumers' safety.

Before any medical malpractice case even gets to most courts, for judges not to throw it out of court, it must be reviewed by physician panels. When even the board-certified peers of doctors being sued think a patient has a case, then Republicans' pushing tort reform must have an ulterior motive. 

What could it be?

It's two ulterior motives, actually. 

One is that what tort reform would prevent is discovery. Discovery, the process by which lawyers can legally pierce and penetrate the Corporate veil and learn the dirty little secrets about how that Corporation has operated. 

The other is that lawyers, both individually and in professional association, tend to donate more money to Democrats. Republicans would love to stop that flow of bucks.

Citizens of the US have little enough voice and power in this democracy without eliminating one of the last methods for seeking legal redress and remedies for ourselves.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured

It's called Affordable Care Act for the same reason legislation that actually weakens air pollution laws, legislation that makes it legal for huge coal-burning power plants spew as much mercury into the air as they want, is called the Clear Skies Initiative.  Or that legislation allowing lumber companies to clear cut forests is called the Healthy Forests Initiative.  Or that legislation which invades citizens' privacy and curtails basic Constitutional rights and freedoms is called the Patriot Act.   'Clean Coal'.  'No Child Left Behind'.  'Compassionate Conservativism'.

Oxymoron.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured

Shorter version: It's either put through Republican legislation or nothing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured

Funny you didn't mention and differentiate Blue Dogs!

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

About Blue Dogs:  There is NOTHING that Democrats in Congress are doing that isn't being directed by the head of the Democratic Party (Obama).

"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"

Blue Dog = (might as well be registered as a) Republican

Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies and pushing Republican-like legislation isn't because he's even a centrist.  Obama's corporate, a neoliberal), which bears no relationship to liberalism.
 
Now, when you are the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered. The only people who don't understand this are those who have never worked in politics. 

Democrats like to hide this from the people, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.

If you do not get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you will NOT have the party behind you, and that is certain de@th for your time in office.

Just to show you where Obama's and the DLC's real heart lies, there are so many things he and the DLC/DNC could have done, could be doing, to get real Democratic legislation through, but don't.  

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignments, etc., but did not.  

There is plenty that a President and a Speaker of the House and a Senate Majority Leader can do to pressure representatives and senators into voting as you want them to vote.  We saw that Obama had no problem doing it when he wanted and needed BlueDogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu's votes -- He literally bought them.  

There is nothing that the BlueDogs are doing that Obama and the DLC doesn't want them to do.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured

Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party got the healthcare legislation through that the insurance industry and PhRma wanted.  

Amy Goodman interviewed whistleblower Wendell Potter, former CIGNA executive, yesterday:

AMY GOODMAN: But don’t the insurance companies like this legislation?

WENDELL POTTER: They do. And that’s why this will not be repealed. They like a lot about it. This legislation, we call it "healthcare reform," but it doesn’t really reform the system. There are a lot of good things in there that does make some of the practices of the insurance industry illegal, things that should have been made illegal a long time ago, so that—

AMY GOODMAN: Like?

WENDELL POTTER:—for that matter, there are good things here. But it doesn’t reform the system. It is built around our health insurance system, as the President said. And they want to keep it in place, because it also guarantees that they will have a lot of new members and billions of dollars in new revenue in the years to come.

AMY GOODMAN: How does it ensure that?

WENDELL POTTER: One of the—the core component of this—and it’s kind of ironic, but the one thing that the Republicans and conservatives are saying they want to repeal is the provision that we all have to buy coverage from private insurance companies.

AMY GOODMAN: Like we do for auto insurance.

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly, right. And they’re citing or they’re saying that that’s unconstitutional. That’s also all for show, because it is just an effort to try to, in a sense, turn people away from the idea of reform. It sounds complicated, but it’s part of the insurance companies’ strategy. 

Read the entire interview here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured

'Medical loss ratio' is what you're talking about.

And the insurance industry has already figured out the way around it.  

Don't believe me?  Don't want to take my word for it?  You don't have to.  Go call Wendell Potter and Lawrence O'Donnell Iiars:

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.

Why put the insurance industry into the equation of Americans' medical treatment at all?  Insurance adds NOTHING to the medical model. The way that the insurance industry makes its profits is by taking a cut of money that can be spent on medical care.  And in reality the insurance industry profits like Wall Street and all other corporations that have crashed our economy have profited:  By denying claims and preventing treatment (Wall Street and corporations do it by offshoring manufacturing, outsourcing jobs, eliminating jobs in spite of record profits for short term windfalls to shareholders and bonuses for CEOs, etc.).  

The insurance industry is the 'Don Fanucci' (Godfather, Part II) of medical care; the insurance industry is "wetting its beak", letting you get medical care (maybe, if you can afford the deductibles, the co-pays, and if your illness is covered by your policy, but) only if you pay them a gratuity up front.

The controlling meme that has been operational for the past 40 years, the sales pitch for privatizing government services and resources, is that "private industry can do it cheaper".  While Republicans (Nixon) began it, Democrats joined in (Jimmy Carter).  But it's just not true that private industry does it cheaper.  Or even better.  

What the insurance industry has charged anywhere from 12-39 percent for, the US government (Medicare) does spectacularly well for 4 percent.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Individual Mandate Rejection Would Leave White House 'No Contingency Plan,' Spokesman Says

Has Obama used all of the tools available to him then to prevent what you say is the Republicans desire to make America fail? No. If 1 in 8 federal judgeships sitting empty is really a problem (and I think it is), then one of the immediate tools that Obama has available to him is recess appointments. Yet he refuses to use it.

That's what is meant by his failure of leadership.

Obama is either inept or what Republicans are doing is serving Obama and Democrats in some way. Which is it? And if it's the latter, what do you think that might be? Politics? That he gets more out of using Republican obstructionism in upcoming elections than from serving the People and the office he was elected to?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Individual Mandate Rejection Would Leave White House 'No Contingency Plan,' Spokesman Says

Friday, December 17, 2010
Why is Obama leaving the grass roots on the sidelines?
By Sam Graham-Felsen


Obama entered the White House with more than a landslide victory over Sen. John McCain. He brought with him a vast network of supporters, instantly reachable through an unprecedented e-mail list of 13 million people. These supporters were not just left-wing activists but a broad coalition that included the young, African Americans, independents and even Republicans - and they were ready to be mobilized.

It's not just the 13 million on the Obama campaign's email list being held down, but Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party told groups usually identified as Democratic supporters to stand down, not run campaigns to get populist legislation like a public option through, because the White House wanted top-down control over all activities to get whatever legislation it wanted to get passed into law.  

I think the best comparison for what Obama did when he deactivated the email list and had Democratic activists stand down is to Bush attacking, invading and occupying Iraq, and then firing the Iraqi army and disbanding the Baath Party.  It left millions of Iraqis without any income, the nation in rubble and ruin without electricity, water, government services, no functioning infrastructure or rule of law.  

I think Bush did it to create an atmosphere of chaos in order to push Iraqis into becoming insurgents, which would provide the neocons with an excuse for remaining in Iraq and occupying it for years and decades.

What possible reason could Obama have for neutralizing the activist wing of the Democratic Party, and then blame not getting real Democratic legislation passed on not being able to move Blue Dogs and Republicans to support it when Obama never even tried to pressure Blue Dogs and Republicans?
Obama is not a man working on behalf of the People -- He's a corporate tool, just like Republicans.  Since he's gotten into office, he's continued most of Bush's policies & he touts 'accomplishments' as "reform" when, in fact, they're Republican in nature.

Worst of all, we're stuck with marshmallow-fluff-brained voters, who soak up the most ridiculous excuses, like "Republicans won't let us do it!", when, in fact, Obama and Democrats don't even try.  Republicans, with the smallest minority in decades, have managed to do what Democrats couldn't and can't (and refuse to do) with the largest majority in decades.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Individual Mandate Rejection Would Leave White House 'No Contingency Plan,' Spokesman Says

Here's "reality", chum:

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.

Nothing changed. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting Bush-Cheney and beating Republicans back, among which were investigations, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administration to testify under oath, and impeachment.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And, we gave them the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old rac!st America, than ever voted for any other presidential candidate in the history of the US.  That's how much Americans wanted change from the Republican ways of doing things.  Voters did it because of Obama's ability to persuade, that he was going to change the system, end the corporatocracy, lobbyism in government -- Obama was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & slowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans", after Republicans had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything, in lockstep. 

Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation -- Everything was to flow through his operation.  This was a dead giveaway that the last thing these politicians want is an active populist movement.

KEEP READING

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured

I'm for universal heath care too but Republicans don't want it. I don't see a way forward with our current elected officials.

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

The short version: 

Democrats didn't need Republicans.  And the proof of that is, THEY USED RECONCILIATION (50 + 1 or Biden) TO PASS ACA.  

Democrats don't and haven't used any of the tools available to pass what they ran on, what they promised.  Everything from investigations and prosecutions, and using the bully pulpit, to forcing Republicans to actually filibuster instead of merely threatening it (Senate rule 22, or changing the supermajority rule), Democrats have been passive aggressive in delivering to their Corporate Masters -- Democrats have the same objectives as Republicans, just a different strategy in achieving it.  

When you say that you don't "see a way forward with our current elected officials", that includes Democrats.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...