Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

Obama offered to make Bush'sTaxCutsForTheRich permanent.

Here's EzraKlein talking about it:

What Obama offered Boehner was an opportunit­y to take the BushTaxCut­s off the table. So though $800 billion in revenue sounds sizable, it’s only half as much in total revenue as the WhiteHouse­’s April proposal, two-fifths as much as SimpsonBow­les wanted, and one-fifth what we’d get if the BushTaxCut­s expire next year.

Republican­s erred in rejecting the deal big time:

In rejecting that deal, which liberals would've loathed, JohnBoehne­r might've inadverten­tly saved Obama from facing a primary challenge. More to the point, he might've locked in higher taxes down the road. Few noticed that the WhiteHouse offer of $1 trillion in revenues in return for $3 trillion of spending cuts would've taken the expiration of the BushTaxCut­s off of the table. That'd mean the tax debate concluded this year, a time when the debt ceiling gives the GOP leverage, rather than next year, when the BushTaxCut­s are set to expire and the WhiteHouse has most of the leverage.

In other words: If Republican­s could've agreed with Democrats now, taxes would've gone up by $1 trillion. If they can’t agree with Democrats next year, they’ll go up by more than $4 trillion. And Republican­s had a better hand this year than next year. I expect they’ll come to wish they’d played it.

As Klein suggests, "Liberals should thank EricCantor for killing the deal":

The $4 trillion deal Obama offered the Republican­s: A two-year increase in the Medicare eligibilit­y age. Chained-CP­I, which amounts to a $200Billion cut to SocialSecu­rity benefits. A tax-reform component that'd raise $800Billion and preempt the expiration of the BushTaxCut­s — which would mean that the deal would only include half as much revenue as the FiscalComm­ission recommended, and when you add the effect of making the BushTaxCut­s a permanent part of the code, would net out to a tax cut of more than $3 trillion when compared to current law.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

Obama put SocialSecurity "on the table" for consideration by his DeficitCommission -- even though SocialSecurity has not contributed to creating or sustaining the deficit/debt in the first place.  He kept Social Security on the table when he made a deal to delegate deficit reduction authority over entitlements to an undemocratic Super Committee.  Now, in a speech reportedly about jobs, he proposed to extend and increase the ill-considered FICA tax cut he embraced last December -- a tax cut that directly undermines the financial integrity of Social Security.

According to the WhiteHouseFactSheet on "TheAmericanJobsAct" the FICA tax holiday for workers will be increased to a 50% reduction, lowering it to 3.1%.  Under the 2010 tax deal, the payroll tax for workers was reduced from 6.2% to 4.2%.  In addition to expanding the tax cut for workers, Obama has extended the FICA tax holiday to employers by cutting in half the employer's share of the payroll tax through the first $5 million in payroll. 

Big questions about the wisdom, efficacy, and implications of a tax-based jobs strategy need to be debated.  Even bigger questions about the consequences of the payroll tax holiday in particular need to be answered.  These questions are not just about the relationship between payroll tax cuts and job growth.  They are about the future of SocialSecurity.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

Read Social Security Payroll Tax Cut -- A Temporary Stimulus With Permanent Damage by Charles Blahous.


And Charles Blahous, who currently serves as one of the two public trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Programs, says:

“Social Security was not establishe­d to be a source of ‘temporary­’ stimulus funds. The idea that its payroll tax rate should be moved up and down with economic events is highly dangerous to the program’s financial future.

"If Congress continues to cut the program’s funding source, one of two things must happen: 1) Social Security’s insolvency will be accelerate­d; or 2) Social Security will have to increasing­ly rely on general revenues (i.e., income taxes) to pay beneficiar­ies.”

“The staunchest supporters of Social Security are those pushing the hardest to cut the program's chief financing stream—the payroll tax. Severing the link between payroll taxes and benefits means beneficiar­ies could no longer claim they ‘earned’ their Social Security benefits. This would erode future support for this vital program."

-Jason Fichtner
Former Social Security Administra­tion Deputy Commission­er
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

Democrats enjoyed a greater majority in both houses of Congress than either party has had in decades.  Even without 60 (but the Democratic Caucus in the Senate had 60). But one example is that Obama didn't need 60 to pass real healthcare reform.  All Democrats needed was 50 plus Biden (reconcili­ation), which is what they did in the end anyway.  But Democrats did it, reconcilia­tion, for a corporate-­pork-laden bill with no cost constraint­s that doesn't provide affordable quality medical treatment for anyone, much less everyone (what they were put into office to get).  

Democrats also have refused to exercise the discretion that Senate Rule 22 allows: Making Republican­s actually filibuster­, instead of just threatenin­g to do it.   

Rule 22 gives the SenateMajo­rityLeader the discretion to actually make the call. Filibuster­ing is hard on those soft, pampered bodies. HarryReid has refused to make them do it, letting them merely threaten.  Reid should.  Americans love reality TV.  'Survivor-­Washington­, DC'.  

The few times Reid has forced Republican­s to actually filibuster­, when Democrats have really needed whatever the issue was (like when Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster over extending unemployme­nt benefits), Republican­s caved. 

Reid lets them merely threaten.  Still.  All that talk about changing filibuster rules, and nothing has come of it.  Senate rules can be changed at any time, and not just at the start of a new Congress - It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc­.state.gov­/documents­/organizat­ion/45448.­pdf ).

Nor is there just one way (or even two or three or more ways) for Democrats to get bills passed despite Republican­s' obstructio­nistic tactics.  But first they have to want to do it, with the fierce urgency of now (don't click on that link, don't watch it, if you aren't prepared and can't bear to have your cherished illusions about Obama destroyed).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

You have a reading comprehension problem, in addition to a civility problem.  

 What I said:

What's gotten lost in the news cycles is Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties that means more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas, on top of his failure to fulfill his campaign promise of renegotiat­ing NAFTA.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

#6 - Continue the Insanity, meaning we keep doing the same thing* over and over again hoping for a different outcome.

[* - Same thing = Continue to refuse to believe our own 'lyin' eyes', keep doing what we've been doing for the past 20 years, continue voting for DLC-controlled Democrats, vote again for Obama in the hopes that he's a closet liberal playing 12-dimensional chess, believing that he's got a plan, a strategy, that nobody can see or figure out, but because he's the smartest, grown-uppiest in the room, in all of Washington (on the whole planet, even) his scheme eludes and confounds us, so we just need to be like Republican voters and have blind faith in our political leaders.

Clue: There aren't any grown-ups to save us; we're 'it'.]

What happens when millions are out of work, no jobs, no money, no hope.  London, Philadelphia, where next?

"Quickly Brad, there are thousands of lives at stake... Brad any answer..." - Roy Neary, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Read the Article at H
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

#4 - A Third Party Challenge  
We'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.

#5 - The "Oh, F R I C K  it, let's get it over with - Vote for Republicans"-plan

The horse is out of the barn and we should just let the radical right have its way.  It's not like Obama and the gutless Dems are going to stop them.

It would be carnage for a few years, people eating other people (though that really only happens in the southern tier of states), old people dying (why are we so eager to keep them alive, anyway?) and cats and dogs living together...

Let it all come crashing down--but let's make sure to kill Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. These Tea Partiers should be allowed to pay what the market will bear, right?

By the way, while our Tea-Party/Real Men (or whatever those guys who wouldn't pay taxes a few years ago are called) friends talk about how they'd like to keep more of their hard earned money and give less to the idiots who "gave us Vietnam and Iraq," perhaps they'd like to pick up the bill for the grading and paving of the road that leads from their home to their office--can't be what, more than $60K a year.

While they're at it, maybe they'd like to cut a check for the police and fire people they'd have to employ to protect their home and valuables from damage. If they could get one guy for another $30K, they'd be lucky. Oh, and then there's that water and waste service, if you've got that.

Really, just let these frickers get what they want.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

#3 - Primary Obama

Two powerful arguments for challenging Obama from the left: 

MichaelLerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

RalphNader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and no, he's not running again).

MichaelLerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington, what's happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted.

Up until recently I was saying that, to begin with, no one in the DemocraticParty would do it.  Due to the hierarchical system of party government, it would be suicide for any professional politician in the DemocraticParty to run against the party's sitting president.  

Liberals/progressives within the DemocraticParty, no matter what their rhetoric, no matter what they say, they march to Obama's/Reid's/Pelosi's tune.  They vote as they're told to from up top or else they risk the full weight and power and tools of the office of the president, the DNC and the CorporateMasters controlling them.  The Party will cover them as best it can, get as many votes as it needs from Democrats in safe districts first, and will only call upon liberals/progressives to betray their constituents from safe districts if it needs them, accompanied by threats/promises of national party help when it comes time for their reelection bid (AlanGrayson, DennisKucinich, 2 examples).

The DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the WhiteHouse and a Democratically-controlled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropping abilities (I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it's really impossible to deny in light of things like this).  

Up until a few months ago. Word had it that a challenge is coming, but it was really not a serious one, not intended for anyone to get the nomination from Obama.  But that would only happen if Obama's numbers went down, and like the idea of the Republicans having a brokered convention, Obama's 'most ardent supporters' would have to wake up and realize that he's sold the people out again and has made more deals with corporations in order to keep any 'normal', moderate Republican from getting into the election.

So unless Obama drops out (in which case another corporate tool will take his place), the only legitimate challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republicans or Independents).  And the most likely way that Obama would drop out is if his numbers plummet.

So what's left?

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

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...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/free-trade-deals_n_1008237.html#comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/house-approves-south-korea-panama-colombia-trade-deals/2011/10/12/gIQA7AP2fL_blog.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/trans-pacific-partnership-documents-sherrod-brown-jeff-merkley-ron-wyden-robert-menendez_n_1624956.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines.shtml?/headlines01/0705-03.htm
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

And there's more -

People like you, Obama's 'most ardent supporters', saddle us with DINOs, with Democrats who don't work in our best interests, because of your unbridled support of him.  

Look at what Obama did just last week because he needed the Hispanic vote:  He stopped enforcing immigration laws that he'd been doing with a vengeance.  Had the Hispanic vote been a sure thing, Obama never would have done it.  

It's people like you who are f**king us all over.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

Why wouldn't you vote for someone like Ralph Nader, whom I presume is someone whose politics you agree with?  

I'll shortcut this for everyone and guess your response: "Because he can't win".

He can't win because you won't vote for him.  Because you keep buying into the establishment elites' talking points.  You keep voting for their candidates, because they tell you they can win, but once they win they don't govern in your interests -- They govern in the 1%'s interests.

Here, a Sufi tale for you:

One night, Nazrudin was on his hands and knees searching for his key in a well-lighted area. Some of his neighbors came to see why Nazrudin was on his hands and knees.
“What are you looking for, Nazrudin?” inquired one of the neighbors. “My door key.” Came the reply.

The helpful neighbors dropped to their hands and knees and joined Nasrudin in his search for the lost key.

After a long unsuccessful search, one of the neighbors asks: “We’ve looked everywhere. Are you sure you dropped it here?”

Nazrudin answers: “Of course I didn’t drop it here, I dropped it outside my door.”

“Then, why are you looking for it here?”

“Because there’s more light here,” responded Nazrudin.

My problem with people like you is your stupidity in continuing to do this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

A constitutional amendment? That's all? Okay Get ot started.

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

I've been working my a## off - Time for you and others to join in.

http://MoveToAmend.org/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/25/montana-governor-calls-for-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/08/sen-sanders-files-amendment-to-end-corporate-personhood/

No candidate should be talking about anything else.  Hold them to it.  Flood media personalities' phones, email, Twitter and FB pages demanding they cover the solution to Citizens' United.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Romney Campaign Boxes Itself In On Outsourcing, Offshoring Debate

You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy.  What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past three years has been in the People's and not the Corporatio­ns' interests.

What's gotten lost in the news cycles is Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties that means more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas, on top of his failure to fulfill his campaign promise of renegotiat­ing NAFTA.  And EFCA.  And then there's Obama's Cat Food Commission (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the renewed push on the Dream Act, which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages.  

You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politician­s, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corpor­ate branch), and Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate­.  Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constituti­onally-req­uired role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administra­tions.  What little regulating they've put in legislatio­n the last 2 years is ineffectiv­e for a whole array of very sneaky moves.  But as a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractor­s robbing us blind, insurance companies aren't complying with healthcare reform laws, banks are continuing as huge profit-mak­ing machines for their officers and leading the nation into one bubble and crash after another.

We The People are being transforme­d from sheep into sacrificia­l lambs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

As far as getting money out of politics (Citizens' United), all that needs to be done is a Constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood.  Doing that would repair most of our problems, yet you don't hear Obama or Democrats calling for it.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

After the midterms, Obama assessed that the message of the election was that voters liked his efforts at bipartisanship, and wanted him to move even farther to the right (which he did).  This after it was Blue Dogs who were turned out of office, big time:

Obama Urges Bipartisan­ship, Not Gridlock

Obama vows to ‘redouble’ efforts toward bipartisan­ship

Then there was Obama's signaling that he would extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich before the midterms, which he did after the midterms.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

Obama did what he could to discourage Democratic turnout in 2010.  

Just before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress. More caving by Obama and Democrats, to Republican­s:

Aides say that the president’ s been spending “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0,” brainstorm­ing with administra­tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies and goals of the White House.

And despite the prediction­s that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin­g power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, Obama isn’t thinking of the next two years as a period that’ll be marked with the same obstructiv­e nature from the GOP.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republica­ns] feel more responsibl­e, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipate­d, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Obama says. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-elect­ion agenda “will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people.” Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: “The keyword is inclusion. He’s got to find ways to be inclusive. “

This after Republican­s couldn’t have been clearer, from even before Obama got into the White House, that they had no intention of working with him or Democrats.

This and broadcasti­ng "more of the same seeking of bipartisan­ship" and Republican­-like legislatio­n  is before the 2010 midterms is exactly like what NancyPelos­i did prior to the 2006 midterms -- She announced that if Democrats took control over Congress, impeaching Bush was "off the table".  The reason to do that is to be able to spin after the election, "We told you what we were going to do before the election, so our success in retaining our seats means you were voting for what we broadcast.­"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

Democrats understand the tactics of obstruction well; they've practiced it well on their base. Obama and Democrats aren't campaigning on populist policies and legislation.  

I'm still battling the same idiotic Obama supporters from 4 years ago who made excuses for his caving to Republicans.  Obama's most ardent fans are still split - "He's a liberal", "No, he's a centrist" - [News Flash: The debate is over: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"]

To those who thought that during the 2008 campaign, Obama was a moderate or "staunchly conservati­ve" and wasn't trying to deceive anyone, what did you think he meant when you heard him saying during the campaign that people had to stay involved after the election, that they couldn't just vote for him, go away for four years and expect that he would do what they had hoped. He said that there were powerful interests working against what the people wanted, and if We The People wanted Obama to do our bidding, we would have to MAKE HIM DO IT!

What did you think he was talking about? Did you think he was trying to deceive the liberals and progressiv­es into believing that he was one of them?

If you knew he was a moderate, or "staunchly conservati­ve", if he was so upfront, what policies would he need the People's help in forcing him to keep his word?

Obama's friends and advisors, all in his administration, are members of the 1%; Obama is in it for his and their benefit.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

Obstruction has been a Republican tactic for many years.  Before Obama got into office, Republican leadership said they would do everything to block Democratic efforts.  None of this is news.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

No, you can't have your chiropractor remove your appendix, but a chiropractor wouldn't want to do it; surgery isn't within chiropractic protocol.  But there are all kinds of medical conditions that can be, and are being, treated legally by different medical specialties.  You don't need a physician to treat your flu.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Health Care Companies May Sue In Event Of Reform's Repeal

What you got is insurance, not affordable quality medical treatment, which is what Obama and Democrats were put into office to achieve.

Obama's healthcare legislation is Republican healthcare legislation.  It is the Heritage foundation's plan.

There is no mechanism for lowering the costs of treatment. Obama put a fox in charge of this chicken coop (former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler) to write and enforce the regulations.  Her most notable actions to date have been issuing waivers to businesses that don't want to have to provide insurance to their employees.

Obama's healthcare legislation prohibits the very thing that was the top issue in the 2008 election:  The government being able to negotiate lower drug prices or reimportation.

Obama's healthcare legislation is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (which was a $700 billion + giveaway to Big Insurance & PhRma), Part 2.  

Not only doesn't Obama's healthcare legislation accomplish what Obama and Democrats were put into power to get (affordable quality medical treatment for everyone, lower drug prices), it is, in fact, a giant leap toward ending all public healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, CHAMPUS, veterans care, etc.).  

Obama's healthcare legislation puts more people into Medicaid, which the states are required to co-pay along with the federal government. The states are already going bankrupt, and moving toward eliminating Medicaid services as a result. States' options are limited, especially those states with constitutional requirements to balance their budgets.  So while people may find themselves covered by Medicaid, if you're thinking that should all else fail you've got Medicaid as your safety net, guess again:  Medicaid won't cover c/hit.  

Having insurance (which is all that Obama's legislation does, and not even for everyone, just for a few million more) doesn't mean getting necessary medical care or that you will be able to afford medical care.  All that Obama's healthcare legislation does is require money to go from here (my pockets/taxpayers' pockets) to there (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.

Insurance companies have already figured out the way around the restrictions in the bill.  The con game in the legislation -- Medical loss ratio.  The amount of money insurers must spend on healthcare, 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

7 Misleading Things Obama Has Said In The Past 33 Days (VIDEO)

Obama's broken promises on transparen­cy.  His war on whistleblo­wers.

Obama in his own words:


"Transpare­ncy Will Be Touchstone­"


"On transparen­cy", "About inviting the people back into their government again", and "Part of the job of the next American president is making Americans believe that our government is working for them, because right now they don't feel like it's working for them. They feel like it's working for special interests and it's working for corporatio­ns"


"We need a president who sees the government not as a tool to enrich well connected friends and high-price­d lobbyists, but as a defender of fairness and opportunit­y for every single American. That's what this country's been about and that's the kind of president I intend to be"


"Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public, no more secrecy...­..No more secrecy...­.."


"Clintons did health care the wrong way, behind closed doors": 

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=CU0m6Rxm9­vU 

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=YBtIKgGHY­PQ


"The American people are the answer"



Obama's Transparen­cy Problem 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

7 Misleading Things Obama Has Said In The Past 33 Days (VIDEO)

Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to 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.  The truth is now out -- He's not even a 'centrist'­: "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...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

In 2008, 10 million more voters went to the polls to vote in a black man, in good old rac!st America, instead of a war hero, because they had so had it with conservatives.  

In 2010, when Obama and Democrats had refused to use the political capital given by them when 10 million more voters voted for them, voters used their votes to dump incumbents -- On both sides of the aisle.  Democratic voters dumped BlueDog incumbents big time; liberals only lost 3 seats.  That's happening again in 2012 (see last week's election).

The real problem is that Big Money/Big Business controls the political process, which includes high-priced propaganda campaigns that spin policy and candidates as things they're not.  Corporations have been able to control politicians, candidates, the primary process, so that populist candidates can't get a seat at the table.  

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 WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter. 

Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland). 

Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek. 

Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLincoln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a PublicOption for healthcare. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (and doesn't).

The ProgressiveCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOption. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the ProgressiveCaucus, for threatening to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

Given the way that congressional districts are gamed (redistricting) and Citizens' United, it's unlikely that the make-up of Congress is going to change in favor of Democrats.  So what you're supporting is putting the same people (Obama/Democrats) into power who have failed to achieve on behalf of the 99%.

I think your mistake is in believing that Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party wants populist change.  The evidence is overwhelming they don't; their rhetoric is meaningless.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Most Americans Oppose Health Care Law But Like Provisions: Reuters Poll

How Obama has handled the massive problems is EXACTLY how Republican­s would've handled them (and how BushCheney was handling them).  Obama's not governing as he had promised or as a real Democrat would have.

The real shame, the real tragedy for all of us is that Obama could have been a transcende­nt president, good for both business AND the People.  It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Chene­y.

On the domestic front, the job creation possibilit­ies were lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care, which is government­-sanctione­d racketeeri­ng.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcin­g of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  

The SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance and Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance and Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physic­ian practition­ers (nurse practition­ers, physicians­' assistants­, and other allied health profession­als). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competentl­y provided by this level practition­er. There's no reason to waste a physician'­s time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases. 

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs and non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.  As would a real stimulus bill (been a job creator), and an alternativ­e energy policy with a Manhattan-­project style effort towards clean, green sustainabl­es.

These are all good things, but Obama and Democrats have chosen the dark side.  The corporate side.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...